Robert Frederich

Heart Failure, Saxagliptin, and Diabetes Mellitus: Observations from the SAVOR-TIMI 53 Randomized Trial.

Background— Diabetes mellitus and heart failure frequently coexist. However, few diabetes mellitus trials have prospectively evaluated and adjudicated heart failure as an end point. Methods and Results— A total of 16 492 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a history of, or at risk of, cardiovascular events were randomized to saxagliptin or placebo (mean follow-up, 2.1 years). The primary end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. Hospitalization for heart failure was a predefined component of the secondary end point. Baseline N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide was measured in 12 301 patients. More patients treated with saxagliptin (289, 3.5%) were hospitalized for heart failure compared with placebo (228, 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence intercal, 1.07–1.51; P=0.007). Corresponding rates at 12 months were 1.9% versus 1.3% (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–1.88; P=0.002), with no significant difference thereafter (time-varying interaction, P=0.017). Subjects at greatest risk of hospitalization for heart failure had previous heart failure, an estimated glomerular filtration rate ⩽60 mL/min, or elevated baseline levels of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide. There was no evidence of heterogeneity between N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide and saxagliptin (P for interaction=0.46), although the absolute risk excess for heart failure with saxagliptin was greatest in the highest N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide quartile (2.1%). Even in patients at high risk of hospitalization for heart failure, the risk of the primary and secondary end points were similar between treatment groups. Conclusions— In the context of balanced primary and secondary end points, saxagliptin treatment was associated with an increased risk or hospitalization for heart failure. This increase in risk was highest among patients with elevated levels of natriuretic peptides, previous heart failure, or chronic kidney disease. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01107886.

A systematic assessment of cardiovascular outcomes in the saxagliptin drug development program for type 2 diabetes.

Abstract Objective: The objective was to assess the relative risk (RR) for cardiovascular (CV) events across all 8 randomized phase 2/3 trials evaluating saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: Cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, revascularization procedures, and cardiac ischemia) were reported by investigators through standard adverse event reporting procedures and were systematically identified. Post hoc blinded adjudication of all deaths, MIs, and strokes was performed using prespecified endpoint definitions by an independent clinical events committee (CEC). Results: A total of 4607 randomized and treated patients (n = 3356 treated with saxagliptin [2.5–100 mg/d]; n = 1251, comparator [n = 656, placebo; n = 328, metformin; n = 267, uptitrated glyburide]) were included. The median ages were 54 years (saxagliptin) and 55 years (comparator) (interquartile range, 47–61 each); 51% were female, 73% were white, 52% were hypertensive, 44% had hypercholesterolemia, 39% had a smoking history, 20% had a first-degree family member with premature coronary heart disease, and 12% had prior CV disease. Cardiovascular events were experienced by 61 patients (38 [1.1%], saxagliptin; 23 [1.8%], comparator), and CV death/MI/stroke events were reported by investigators in 41 patients: 23 (0.7%), saxagliptin; 18 (1.4%), comparator (relative risk, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 [0.24–0.82]). The CEC reviewed 147 patients with potential CV events and identified a total of 40 patients with CV death/MI/stroke: 22 (0.7%), saxagliptin; 18 (1.4%), comparator (RR, 0.43 [0.23–0.80]). Component proportions for CV death, MI, and stroke were (saxagliptin vs comparator): 7 (0.2%) vs 10 (0.8%), 8 (0.2%) vs 8 (0.6%), and 11 (0.3%) vs 5 (0.4%), respectively. Conclusion: No increased risk of CV death/MI/stroke was observed in patients randomly assigned saxagliptin across a broad drug development program. Although this systematic overview has inherent and important limitations, the data support a potential reduction in CV events with saxagliptin. The hypothesis of CV protection with saxagliptin will be tested prospectively in a large randomized clinical outcome trial evaluating saxagliptin compared with standard of care in patients with type 2 diabetes at increased risk for CV events.

Saxagliptin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate or Severe Renal Impairment: Observations From the SAVOR-TIMI 53 Trial

OBJECTIVE The glycemic management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and renal impairment is challenging, with few treatment options. We investigated the effect of saxagliptin in the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (SAVOR)-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 53 trial according to baseline renal function. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients with T2DM at risk for cardiovascular events were stratified as having normal or mildly impaired renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] >50 mL/min/1.73 m2; n = 13,916), moderate renal impairment (eGFR 30–50 mL/min/1.73 m2; n = 2,240), or severe renal impairment (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2; n = 336) and randomized to receive saxagliptin or placebo. The primary end point was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. RESULTS After a median duration of 2 years, saxagliptin neither increased nor decreased the risk of the primary and secondary composite end points compared with placebo, irrespective of renal function (all P for interactions ≥0.19). Overall, the risk of hospitalization for heart failure among the three eGFR groups of patients was 2.2% (referent), 7.4% (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.38 [95% CI 1.95–2.91], P < 0.001), and 13.0% (adjusted HR 4.59 [95% CI 3.28–6.28], P < 0.001), respectively. The relative risk of hospitalization for heart failure with saxagliptin was similar (P for interaction = 0.43) in patients with eGFR >50 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR 1.23 [95% CI 0.99–1.55]), eGFR 30–50 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR 1.46 [95% CI 1.07–2.00]), and in patients with eGFR <30 (HR 0.94 [95% CI 0.52–1.71]). Patients with renal impairment achieved reductions in microalbuminuria with saxagliptin (P = 0.041) that were similar to those of the overall trial population. CONCLUSIONS Saxagliptin did not affect the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events, increased the risk of heart failure hospitalization, and reduced progressive albuminuria, irrespective of baseline renal function.

Initial combination therapy with saxagliptin and metformin provides sustained glycaemic control and is well tolerated for up to 76 weeks

Aim: To assess the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin + metformin initial combination therapy compared with saxagliptin or metformin alone over 76 weeks (24‐week short‐term + 52‐week long‐term extension) in treatment‐naÏve type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with inadequate glycaemic control.

Saxagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: assessing cardiovascular data

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at high risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease; however, conclusive evidence that glycemic control leads to improved cardiovascular outcomes is lacking. Saxagliptin is a potent, selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor approved as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with T2DM. Saxagliptin was evaluated in a series of phase III trials as monotherapy; add-on therapy to metformin, a sulfonylurea, or a thiazolidinedione; and as initial therapy in combination with metformin. Saxagliptin consistently improved glycemic control (as reflected by significant decreases in glycated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, and postprandial glucose compared with controls) and was generally well tolerated. In these analyses, saxagliptin had clinically neutral effects on body weight, blood pressure, lipid levels, and other markers of CV risk compared with controls. A retrospective meta-analysis of 8 phase II and phase III trials found no evidence that saxagliptin increases CV risk in patients with T2DM (Cox proportional hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.80 for major adverse cardiovascular events retrospectively adjudicated). Instead, it raised the hypothesis that saxagliptin may reduce the risk of major adverse CV events. A long-term CV outcome trial, Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus-THrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53 (SAVOR-TIMI 53) is currently ongoing to determine whether saxagliptin reduces CV risk in T2DM.

Behavioral and subjective effects of d-amphetamine and modafinil in healthy adults.

Modafinil is indicated for the management of excessive daytime sleepiness; however, recent studies have examined a broad range of potential uses. Given that clinical uses of modafinil may be expanding, this study compared modafinil and d-amphetamine effects on subjective and performance measures. Across 11 sessions, 11 healthy adults were tested after oral doses of placebo (5 sessions), modafinil (1.75 mg/kg, 3.50 mg/kg, or 7.00 mg/kg), and d-amphetamine (0.035 mg/kg, 0.070 mg/kg, 0.140 mg/kg) under double-blind, randomized conditions. Assessments of cognitive performance and subjective effects were completed before drug administration, 30 min after drug administration, and at hourly intervals after drug administration for 5 hr. Modafinil increased ratings on the Amphetamine and Morphine Benzedrine Group scales of the Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI) and increased ratings on the Vigor and Total Positive scales of the Profile of Mood States. d-Amphetamine increased visual analog ratings of feeling stimulated and liking the drug and increased ratings on the Morphine Benzedrine Group scale of the ARCI. Both medications significantly reduced visual analog scale ratings of feeling sleepy, and modafinil decreased ratings on the ARCI Pentobarbital-Chlorpromazine-Alcohol Group scale. Both medications sustained performance that deteriorated across time on the Sternberg Number Recognition Test. Modafinil also enhanced performance rate on the Digit-Symbol Substitution Task above baseline levels and increased response rate on the Repeated Acquisition of Response Sequences Task. These results suggest that modafinil engenders alerting effects and increases performance in healthy non-sleep-deprived individuals comparable with that of d-amphetamine.

Safety and efficacy of saxagliptin added to thiazolidinedione over 76 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with thiazolidinedione monotherapy, 565 patients were randomised to saxagliptin (2.5 mg or 5 mg) or placebo added to thiazolidinedione over 76 weeks (24-week short-term + 52-week long-term extension period) in this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial; 360 patients completed the study. At 76 weeks, adjusted mean changes from baseline HbA1C (repeated measures model; 95% CI) for saxagliptin 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and placebo were -0.59% (-0.75, -0.43), -1.09% (-1.26, -0.93), and -0.20% (-0.39, -0.01), respectively (post hoc and nominal p=0.0019 and p<0.0001 for saxagliptin 2.5 mg and 5 mg vs. placebo, respectively). Adverse event frequency was similar between groups. Confirmed hypoglycaemic events were 1.0% and 0% vs. 0.5% for saxagliptin 2.5 mg and 5 mg vs. placebo, respectively. Results should be interpreted with caution given the proportion of patients who discontinued or required glycaemic rescue therapy during the 76-week course of study. Saxagliptin added to thiazolidinedione provided sustained incremental efficacy vs. placebo with little hypoglycaemia for up to 76 weeks and was generally well tolerated.

The efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor saxagliptin in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of saxagliptin monotherapy for up to 76 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control, with main efficacy assessment at 24 weeks.Methods365 treatment-naïve patients with T2DM (HbA1c 7.0%–10.0%) were treated with saxagliptin 2.5 mg q.A.M., saxagliptin 2.5 mg q.A.M. with possible titration to saxagliptin 5 mg, saxagliptin 5 mg q.A.M., saxagliptin 5 mg q.P.M., or placebo. After week 24, patients in all groups were eligible for titration to saxagliptin 10 mg based on HbA1c ≥7%, and all unrescued placebo patients began blinded metformin 500 mg/day. Rescue with open-label metformin was available for patients with inadequate glycemic control.ResultsAt week 24, placebo-subtracted mean HbA1c reduction from baseline (LOCF) was significantly greater in the saxagliptin treatment groups vs placebo, and remained greater through week 76. Serious adverse events (AEs) and discontinuations due to AEs were similar in saxagliptin and control groups; incidence of confirmed hypoglycemia was low across all treatment groups (saxagliptin-treated, 2 [0.7]; control, 1 [1.4]).ConclusionsIn treatment-naïve patients with T2DM, saxagliptin monotherapy demonstrated statistically significant improvement in HbA1c compared with placebo at 24 weeks and was generally well tolerated for up to 76 weeks.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00316082

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

BackgroundIt is important to establish the cardiovascular (CV) safety profile of novel antidiabetic drugs.MethodsPooled 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).ResultsIn 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).ConclusionsAnalysis of pooled data from 20 clinical trials in patients with T2DM suggests that saxagliptin is not associated with an increased CV risk.

Wake-promoting agents with different mechanisms of action: comparison of effects of modafinil and amphetamine on food intake and cardiovascular activity

Despite efforts to achieve a desirable weight, two-thirds of the population has an elevated body weight. Medications are useful in supporting weight loss, but produce adverse effects. This study compared the effects of amphetamine and modafinil on food intake and cardiovascular activity in healthy men and women. Participants (n = 11) completed 11 sessions. In random order, participants received placebo on five separate sessions and single oral doses of modafinil (1.75, 3.5, or 7.0 mg/kg) and amphetamine (0.035, 0.07, 0.14 mg/kg). Free time between hourly performance testing intervals gave participants the opportunity to eat. Like amphetamine, modafinil reduced the amount of food consumed and decreased energy intake, without altering the proportion of macronutrients consumed. Although both medications significantly increase heart rate and blood pressure at higher doses, the dose of modafinil that was efficacious in decreasing food intake did not significantly increase heart rate. Modafinil may be well suited for the treatment of obesity, although further studies with repeated dosing in overweight populations are warranted. Modafinil may have less adverse health consequences than some anorectic agents and greater treatment efficacy.