Craig A. Wilson

Alogliptin after Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND To assess potentially elevated cardiovascular risk related to new antihyperglycemic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes, regulatory agencies require a comprehensive evaluation of the cardiovascular safety profile of new antidiabetic therapies. We assessed cardiovascular outcomes with alogliptin, a new inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4), as compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and either an acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina requiring hospitalization within the previous 15 to 90 days to receive alogliptin or placebo in addition to existing antihyperglycemic and cardiovascular drug therapy. The study design was a double-blind, noninferiority trial with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.3 for the hazard ratio for the primary end point of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS A total of 5380 patients underwent randomization and were followed for up to 40 months (median, 18 months). A primary end-point event occurred in 305 patients assigned to alogliptin (11.3%) and in 316 patients assigned to placebo (11.8%) (hazard ratio, 0.96; upper boundary of the one-sided repeated confidence interval, 1.16; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Glycated hemoglobin levels were significantly lower with alogliptin than with placebo (mean difference, -0.36 percentage points; P<0.001). Incidences of hypoglycemia, cancer, pancreatitis, and initiation of dialysis were similar with alogliptin and placebo. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events were not increased with the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin as compared with placebo. (Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas; EXAMINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00968708.).

Heart failure and mortality outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes taking alogliptin versus placebo in EXAMINE: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND The EXAMINE trial showed non-inferiority of the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin to placebo on major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndromes. Concerns about excessive rates of in-hospital heart failure in another DPP-4 inhibitor trial have been reported. We therefore assessed hospital admission for heart failure in the EXAMINE trial. METHODS Patients with type 2 diabetes and an acute coronary syndrome event in the previous 15-90 days were randomly assigned alogliptin or placebo plus standard treatment for diabetes and cardiovascular disease prevention. The prespecified exploratory extended MACE endpoint was all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, urgent revascularisation due to unstable angina, and hospital admission for heart failure. The post-hoc analyses were of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for heart failure, assessed by history of heart failure and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentration at baseline. We also assessed changes in N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-pro-BNP) from baseline to 6 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00968708. FINDINGS 5380 patients were assigned to alogliptin (n=2701) or placebo (n=2679) and followed up for a median of 533 days (IQR 280-751). The exploratory extended MACE endpoint was seen in 433 (16·0%) patients assigned to alogliptin and in 441 (16·5%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·86-1·12). Hospital admission for heart failure was the first event in 85 (3·1%) patients taking alogliptin compared with 79 (2·9%) taking placebo (HR 1·07, 95% CI 0·79-1·46). Alogliptin had no effect on composite events of cardiovascular death and hospital admission for heart failure in the post hoc analysis (HR 1·00, 95% CI 0·82-1·21) and results did not differ by baseline BNP concentration. NT-pro-BNP concentrations decreased significantly and similarly in the two groups. INTERPRETATION In patients with type 2 diabetes and recent acute coronary syndromes, alogliptin did not increase the risk of heart failure outcomes. FUNDING Takeda Development Center Americas.

Efficacy and Safety of the Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor Alogliptin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Inadequate Glycemic Control: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE—To evaluate the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor alogliptin in drug-naïve patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study included 329 patients with poorly controlled diabetes randomized to once-daily treatment with 12.5 mg alogliptin (n = 133), 25 mg alogliptin (n = 131), or placebo (n = 65) for 26 weeks. Primary efficacy end point was mean change from baseline in A1C at the final visit. RESULTS—At week 26, mean change in A1C was significantly greater (P < 0.001) for 12.5 mg (−0.56%) and 25 mg (−0.59%) alogliptin than placebo (−0.02%). Reductions in fasting plasma glucose were also greater (P < 0.001) in alogliptin-treated patients than in those receiving placebo. Overall, incidences of adverse events (67.4–70.3%) and hypoglycemia (1.5–3.0%) were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS—Alogliptin monotherapy was well tolerated and significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, without raising the incidence of hypoglycemia.

Efficacy and safety of adding the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin to metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Aims:  To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alogliptin, a new dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor, for 26 weeks at once‐daily doses of 12.5 and 25 mg in combination with metformin in patients whose HbA1c levels were inadequately controlled on metformin alone.

Alogliptin added to insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes reduces HbA(1c) without causing weight gain or increased hypoglycaemia

Aims: To assess the efficacy and safety of alogliptin added to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with insulin alone or combined with metformin.

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by glyburide monotherapy

Aim:  To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alogliptin, a potent and highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitor, in combination with glyburide in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by sulphonylurea monotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin added to pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

ABSTRACT Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by therapy with a thiazolidinedione (TZD). Research design and methods: In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study, 493 patients 18–80 years old with inadequate glycemic control after stabilization (i.e., glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.0–10.0%) despite ongoing treatment with a TZD were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to treatment with pioglitazone plus alogliptin 12.5 mg, alogliptin 25 mg or placebo once daily. Concomitant therapy with metformin or sulfonylurea at prestudy doses was permitted. Main outcome measures: The primary efficacy endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26. Secondary endpoints included changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and body weight, and incidences of marked hyperglycemia (FPG ≥ 200 mg/dL [11.10 mmol/L]) and rescue for hyperglycemia. Results: Least squares (LS) mean change in HbA1c was significantly (p < 0.001) greater for alogliptin 12.5 mg (−0.66%) or 25 mg (−0.80%) than for placebo (−0.19%). A significantly (p ≤ 0.016) larger proportion of patients achieved HbA1c ≤ 7% with alogliptin 12.5 mg (44.2%) or 25 mg (49.2%) than with placebo (34.0%). LS mean decreases in FPG were significantly (p = 0.003) greater with alogliptin 12.5 mg (−19.7 mg/dL [−1.09 mmol/L]) or 25 mg (−19.9 mg/dL [−1.10 mmol/L]) than with placebo (−5.7 mg/dL [−0.32 mmol/L]). The percentage of patients with marked hyperglycemia was significantly (p < 0.001) lower for alogliptin (≤25.0%) than placebo (44.3%). The incidences of overall adverse events and hypoglycemia were similar across treatment groups, but cardiac events occurred more often with active treatment than placebo. Conclusions: Addition of alogliptin to pioglitazone therapy significantly improved glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and was generally well tolerated. The study did not evaluate the effect of combination therapy on long-term clinical outcomes and safety. Clinical trial registration: NCT00286494, clinicaltrials.gov.

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

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.

Initial Combination Therapy with Alogliptin and Pioglitazone in Drug-Naïve Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy and tolerability of alogliptin plus pioglitazone for initial combination therapy in drug-naïve type 2 diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This 26-week, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized 655 patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes to four arms: 25 mg alogliptin (A25) q.d. monotherapy, 30 mg pioglitazone (P30) q.d. monotherapy, or 12.5 (A12.5) or 25 mg alogliptin q.d. plus pioglitazone (P30) q.d. combination therapy. Primary efficacy was A1C change from baseline with the high-dose combination (A25 + P30) versus each monotherapy. RESULTS Combination therapy with A25 + P30 resulted in greater reductions in A1C (−1.7 ± 0.1% from an 8.8% mean baseline) vs. A25 (−1.0 ± 0.1%, P < 0.001) or P30 (−1.2 ± 0.1%, P < 0.001) and in fasting plasma glucose (−2.8 ± 0.2 mmol/l) vs. A25 (−1.4 ± 0.2 mmol/l, P < 0.001) or P30 (−2.1 ± 0.2 mmol/l, P = 0.006). The A25 + P30 safety profile was consistent with those of its component monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS Alogliptin plus pioglitazone combination treatment appears to be an efficacious initial therapeutic option for type 2 diabetes.

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.