Comparison of alogliptin and glipizide for composite endpoint of glycated haemoglobin reduction, no hypoglycaemia and no weight gain in type 2 diabetes mellitus

This was a post hoc analysis of a 2-year, double-blind study of 2639 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy, which assessed achievement of a composite endpoint of sustained glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction (≤7.0% at week 104 or ≥0.5% decrease from baseline) with no weight gain and no hypoglycaemic events with alogliptin 12.5 and 25 mg daily or glipizide (≤20 mg daily), each added to metformin. With an HbA1c target of ≤7.0%, 24.2 and 26.9% of patients treated with alogliptin 12.5 and 25 mg, respectively, achieved the composite endpoint versus 10.7% of patients treated with glipizide (both p < 0.001). With a criterion of ≥0.5% decrease in HbA1c, the composite endpoint was reached in 22.5, 25.2 and 10.4% of patients treated with alogliptin 12.5 mg, alogliptin 25 mg and glipizide, respectively. Odds ratios for achieving the composite endpoint favoured alogliptin in the primary analysis set and in all subgroups of patients. Patients with T2DM failing metformin monotherapy were more likely to achieve sustained glycaemic control with no hypoglycaemia or weight gain at 2 years with alogliptin than with glipizide.

Durability of the efficacy and safety of alogliptin compared with glipizide in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 2-year study

AIMS

To evaluate the long-term durability of the efficacy of alogliptin compared with glipizide in combination with metformin in people with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on stable-dose metformin.

METHODS

This multicentre, double-blind, active-controlled study randomized 2639 patients aged 18-80 years to 104 weeks of treatment with metformin in addition to alogliptin 12.5 mg once daily (n = 880), alogliptin 25 mg once daily (n = 885) or glipizide 5 mg once daily, titrated to a maximum of 20 mg (n = 874). The primary endpoint was least square mean change from baseline in HbA1c level at 104 weeks.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 55.4 years, the mean diabetes duration was 5.5 years and the mean baseline HbA1c was 7.6%. HbA1c reductions at week 104 were -0.68%, -0.72% and -0.59% for alogliptin 12.5 and 25 mg and glipizide, respectively [both doses met the criteria for non-inferiority to glipizide (p<0.001); alogliptin 25 mg met superiority criteria (p=0.010)]. Fasting plasma glucose concentration decreased by 0.05 and 0.18 mmol/l for alogliptin 12.5 and 25 mg, respectively, and increased by 0.30 mmol/l for glipizide (p < 0.001 for both comparisons with glipizide). Mean weight changes were -0.68, -0.89 and 0.95 kg for alogliptin 12.5 and 25 mg and glipizide, respectively (p < 0.001 for both comparisons with glipizide). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 23.2% of patients in the glipizide group vs. 2.5 and 1.4% of patients in the alogliptin 12.5 and 25 mg groups, respectively. Pancreatitis occurred in one patient in the alogliptin 25 mg group and three in the glipizide group.

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin efficacy was sustained over 2 years in patients with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin alone.

Efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with alogliptin plus metformin versus either as monotherapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, 6-month study

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin plus metformin (A + M) initial combination therapy versus either as monotherapy in drug-naïve T2DM patients.

METHODS

This international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 26-week study involved T2DM patients with hyperglycaemia (HbA1c 7.5-10.0%) following diet/exercise therapy. Patients (N = 784) received placebo, alogliptin (A, 12.5 mg BID or 25 mg QD), metformin (M, 500 or 1000 mg BID) or A + M (12.5/500 or 12.5/1000 mg BID); placebo, A25 for secondary analyses only.

ENDPOINTS

week 26 changes from baseline in HbA1c (primary), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 2-h postprandial glucose (PPG); incidences of clinical response and hyperglycaemic rescue.

RESULTS

Week 26 mean HbA1c reductions from baseline (8.45%) were -1.22 and -1.55% with A + M 12.5/500 and 12.5/1000 versus -0.56, -0.65, and -1.11% with A12.5, M500 and M1000 (p<0.001, A + M vs. component monotherapies). FPG reductions were -1.76 and -2.55 mmol/L with 12.5/500 and 12.5/1000 versus -0.54, -0.64 and -1.78 mmol/L with A12.5, M500 and M1000 (p < 0.05, A + M vs. component monotherapies). Significantly more A + M-treated patients achieved HbA1c < 7% (47.1-59.5% vs. 20.2-34.3% with monotherapy), significantly fewer required hyperglycaemic rescue (2.6-12.3% vs. 10.8-22.9% with monotherapy). A + M caused only mild/moderate hypoglycaemia (1.9-5.3%) and weight loss (0.6-1.2 kg).

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin plus metformin initial combination therapy was well tolerated yet more efficacious in controlling glycaemia in drug-naïve T2DM patients than either as monotherapy.

Alogliptin versus glipizide monotherapy in elderly type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with mild hyperglycaemia: a prospective, double-blind, randomized, 1-year study

AIM

To prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of alogliptin versus glipizide in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) over 1 year of treatment.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study of elderly T2DM patients (aged 65-90 years) with mild hyperglycaemia on diet/exercise therapy alone [glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 6.5-9.0%] or plus oral antidiabetic monotherapy (HbA1c 6.5-8.0%). Patients were randomized to once-daily alogliptin 25 mg or glipizide 5 mg titrated to 10 mg, if needed. Hypoglycaemic episodes were systematically captured under predefined criteria.

RESULTS

In the primary analysis, HbA1c mean changes from a baseline of 7.5% were -0.14% with alogliptin (n = 222) and -0.09% with glipizide (n = 219) at the end of the study, demonstrating non-inferiority of alogliptin to glipizide [least squares (LS) mean difference = -0.05%; one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI): -∞, 0.13%]. More clinically relevant HbA1c reductions occurred among patients who completed the study: -0.42 and -0.33% with alogliptin and glipizide, with non-inferiority again confirmed (LS mean difference = -0.09%; one-sided 97.5% CI: -∞, 0.07%). Overall, alogliptin was safe and well tolerated, with notably fewer hypoglycaemic episodes than glipizide [5.4% (31 episodes) vs. 26.0% (232 episodes), respectively]; three patients experienced severe hypoglycaemia, all with glipizide. Alogliptin also resulted in favourable weight changes versus glipizide (-0.62 vs. 0.60 kg at week 52; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin monotherapy maintained glycaemic control comparable to that of glipizide in elderly patients with T2DM over 1 year of treatment, with substantially lower risk of hypoglycaemia and without weight gain.

Cardiovascular safety of the dipetidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin in type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

As there have been concerns that some classes or agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes may increase CV risk, we evaluated the cardiovascular profile of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin.

METHODS

We evaluated the incidence of CV events in patients treated with alogliptin, placebo or comparator antihyperglycaemic drugs in the clinical trial database for alogliptin using the composite major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) endpoints of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke.

RESULTS

The pooled analysis included 4168 patients exposed to alogliptin 12.5 and 25 mg daily for 2023 patient-years compared to 691 patients treated with placebo for 263 patient-years and 1169 patients treated with other antidiabetic agents (metformin, sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones) for 703 patient-years. CV events were adjudicated by an expert endpoint committee blinded to treatment allocation. The incidence rates of the combined MACE were not significantly different between patients treated with alogliptin and comparator therapies (hazard ratio=0.635, 95% confidence interval, 0.0, 1.41). Additionally, other types of serious CV events were not significantly different between patients treated with alogliptin and comparator therapies.

CONCLUSION

These analyses have not shown a signal of increased CV risk with alogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Future results from the adequately powered EXAMINE trial will definitively assess the CV safety profile of aloglipin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Efficacy and tolerability of the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin combined with pioglitazone, in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes

CONTEXT

Optimal management of type 2 diabetes remains an elusive goal. Combination therapy addressing the core defects of impaired insulin secretion and insulin resistance shows promise in maintaining glycemic control.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of alogliptin combined with pioglitazone in metformin-treated type 2 diabetic patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm study in patients with type 2 diabetes.

INTERVENTIONS

The study consisted of 26-wk treatment with alogliptin (12.5 or 25 mg qd) alone or combined with pioglitazone (15, 30, or 45 mg qd) in 1554 patients on stable-dose metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg) with inadequate glycemic control.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary endpoint was change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline to wk 26. Secondary endpoints included changes in fasting plasma glucose and β-cell function. Primary analyses compared pioglitazone therapy [all doses pooled, pioglitazone alone (Pio alone); n = 387] with alogliptin 12.5 mg plus any dose of pioglitazone (A12.5+P; n = 390) or alogliptin 25 mg plus any dose of pioglitazone (A25+P; n = 390).

RESULTS

When added to metformin, the least squares mean change (LSMΔ) from baseline HbA(1c) was -0.9 ± 0.05% in the Pio-alone group and -1.4 ± 0.05% in both the A12.5+P and A25+P groups (P < 0.001 for both comparisons). A12.5+P and A25+P produced greater reductions in fasting plasma glucose (LSMΔ = -2.5 ± 0.1 mmol/liter for both) than Pio alone (LSMΔ = -1.6 ± 0.1 mmol/liter; P < 0.001). A12.5+P and A25+P significantly improved measures of β-cell function (proinsulin:insulin and homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function) compared to Pio alone, but had no effect on homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance. The LSMΔ body weight was 1.8 ± 0.2, 1.9 ± 0.2, and 1.5 ± 0.2 kg in A12.5+P, A25+P, and Pio-alone groups, respectively. Hypoglycemia was reported by 1.0, 1.5, and 2.1% of patients in the A12.5+P, A25+P, and Pio-alone groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In type 2 diabetic patients inadequately controlled by metformin, the reduction in HbA(1c) by alogliptin and pioglitazone was additive. The decreases in HbA(1c) with A12.5+P and A25+P were similar. All treatments were well tolerated.

Lowering of postprandial lipids in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with alogliptin and/or pioglitazone: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Pharmacological augmentation of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor signalling by dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibition reduced intestinal lipoprotein secretion in experimental studies, suggesting that DPP-4 inhibitors may ameliorate dyslipidaemia and thus reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. We assessed the effects of alogliptin (Alo) and Alo co-administered with pioglitazone (Pio) vs placebo (Pbo) on triacylglycerol (TG)-rich lipoproteins in type 2 diabetes before and following a high-fat meal.

METHODS

Seventy-one patients (age 18-70 years), who did not reach HbA(1c) 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) with lifestyle and/or metformin, sulfonylurea or glinide therapy, participated in this 16 week, double-centre (university hospitals) Pbo-controlled parallel-group study. All participants, people doing measurements or examinations, and people assessing the outcomes were blinded to group assignment. Fasting TG 1.7-5.0 mmol/l was among the entry criteria. Patients received a high-fat mixed meal before and 4 and 16 weeks after randomisation (allocation by central office) to Alo (n = 25), Alo/Pio (n = 22) or Pbo (n = 24). Blood was sampled at pre-specified intervals, starting at 15 min before and ending 8 h after meal ingestion.

RESULTS

At week 16, Alo (n = 25) and Alo/Pio (n = 21) vs Pbo (n = 24) produced similar significant reductions in total postprandial TG response (incremental AUC [iAUC]; p < 0.001), as well as in chylomicron TG (p < 0.001) and VLDL1 TG iAUCs (p < 0.001 and p = 0.012, respectively). Postprandial chylomicron apolipoprotein B-48 iAUC showed a significant decrease after Alo treatment (p = 0.028), and a non-significant trend towards a decrease with Alo/Pio (p = 0.213). The incidence of adverse events was low and consistent with previous studies.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Treatment with Alo and Alo/Pio produced significant reductions in postprandial TG and TG-rich lipoproteins, contributing to an improved overall cardiometabolic risk profile in type 2 diabetes. The data support the concept that incretins not only modulate glucose metabolism but also influence chylomicron metabolism in intestinal cells.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00655863.

Migraine and migrainous stroke: risk factors and prognosis

We compared epidemiologic and clinical data from 310 patients with migraine and 30 patients with acute migrainous stroke to identify factors predictive of migrainous stroke and assess the risk of future stroke in these two populations. We found no significant differences in gender ratio or in the frequency of smoking, estrogen use, hypertension, mitral valve prolapse, or family history of migraine between the two groups. A history of migraine with aura was significantly more common in the migrainous stroke group (24 of 30 [80%] versus 142 of 310 [46%]; p < 0.001), as was a history of prior stroke (nine of 30 [30%] versus four of 310 [1.3%]; p < 0.001). We followed 173 of the migraine patients for at least 1 year and a mean of 35.8 months, and no strokes occurred in this group. We followed 28 of the migrainous stroke patients for a mean of 25.3 months, and there were six recurrent strokes in that group, all again migraine-associated. Migrainous stroke is more common in individuals with aura than in those who are aura-free, but this association is of little value in attempting to distinguish patients destined for migrainous stroke from the migraine population at large. Patients with a history of migraine-associated stroke are at significantly increased risk for recurrent stroke.