Susan Harris

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.

Rosuvastatin-Induced Arrest in Progression of Renal Disease

Preclinical and limited clinical data suggest that statins decrease the progressive decline in renal function that occurs in patients with renal disease. Pooled analysis of data obtained from a population of hyperlipidemic patients enrolled in the rosuvastatin (Crestor®) clinical development program permitted assessment of its effects on renal function both early and later in the course of treatment. Study participants were initially included in controlled clinical trials that evaluated the lipid-lowering efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin when compared with placebo or other lipid-lowering agents (i.e., atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, cholestyramine, fenofibrate or extended-release niacin). The median duration of treatment with the various doses of statins in these trials was approximately 8 weeks. Following completion of a controlled clinical trial, patients were permitted to enter an open-label extension trial and received rosuvastatin treatment. These data permitted assessment of renal function in a diverse group of over 10,000 patients who received rosuvastatin in its recommended dose range (5–40 mg) for up to 3.8 years. Mean serum creatinine concentrations were lower when compared with baseline both early and later in the course of rosuvastatin treatment. In contrast, no change in mean serum creatinine was observed with placebo. Mean glomerular filtration rates (GFR) predicted from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation were higher when compared with baseline both early and later in the course of rosuvastatin treatment. No change in GFR was observed in the placebo group. Among patients who received long-term rosuvastatin treatment (≧96 weeks), GFR was unchanged or tended to increase, rather than decrease, when compared with baseline irrespective of age, gender, hypertensive or diabetic status, level of renal function (GFR ≧60 vs. <60 ml/min/1.73 m2) at entry or urine dipstick protein status prior to or during the period of treatment. These findings suggest that rosuvastatin may arrest the progression of renal disease.

Safety of Rosuvastatin: Update on 16,876 Rosuvastatin-Treated Patients in a Multinational Clinical Trial Program

Background: The safety and tolerability of rosuvastatin were assessed using data from 16,876patients who received rosuvastatin 5–40 mg in a multinational phase II/III/IIIb/IV program, representing 25,670 patient-years of continuous exposure to rosuvastatin. Methods: An integrated database, consisting of 33 trials whose databases were locked up to and including September 16, 2005, was used to examine adverse events and laboratory data. Results: In placebo-controlled trials, adverse events irrespective of causality assessment occurred in 52.1% of patients receiving rosuvastatin 5–40 mg (n = 931) and 51.8% of patients receiving placebo (n = 483). In all controlled clinical trials with comparator statins, rosuvastatin 5–40 mg was associated with an adverse event profile similar to profiles for atorvastatin 10–80 mg, simvastatin 10–80 mg, and pravastatin 10–40 mg. Clinically significant elevations in alanine aminotransferase (>3 times the upper limit of normal [ULN] on at least 2 consecutive occasions) were uncommon (≤0.2%) in the rosuvastatin and comparator statin groups. Elevated creatine kinase >10 times ULN occurred in ≤0.3% of patients receiving rosuvastatin or other statins. Myopathy (creatine kinase >10 times ULN with muscle symptoms) possibly related to treatment occurred in 0.03% of patients taking rosuvastatin at doses ≤40 mg. The frequency of dipstick-positive proteinuria at rosuvastatin doses ≤20 mg was comparable to that seen with other statins, and the development of proteinuria was not predictive of acute or progressive renal disease. Both short- and long-term rosuvastatin treatment were associated with small increases in estimated glomerular filtration rate, with improvements appearing to be somewhat greater in those patients beginning treatment with greater renal impairment. In the phase II–IV program, no deaths were attributed to rosuvastatin; at doses of rosuvastatin ≤40 mg, 1 case of rhabdomyolysis occurred in a patient who received rosuvastatin 20 mg and concomitant gemfibrozil treatment. Conclusion: In summary, rosuvastatin was well tolerated by a broad range of patients with dyslipidemia, and its safety profile was similar to those of comparator statins investigated in the clinical program. (Nota bene: The clinical development program for rosuvastatin initially evaluated rosuvastatin doses up to 80 mg. Following completion of the phase III/IIIb program, a decision was made not to pursue marketing approval for the 80-mg dose because the additional lipid-modifying benefits of this dose did not justify the potential risks for use in the general population of patients with dyslipidemia.)

Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Abstract Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of saxagliptin (5 mg once-daily) in older patients (≥65 years of age) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Research design and methods: In this retrospective subgroup analysis, data from five randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, 24-week, phase 3 trials were included. The primary studies evaluated saxagliptin 5 mg once-daily (monotherapy or add-on) in patients aged 18–77 years with HbA1c ≥7.0% (four studies) or ≥7.5% (add-on to glyburide study) versus placebo. Main outcome measures: The primary efficacy endpoint of each study included in this pooled analysis was HbA1c change from baseline to week 24. Results: In the five-study pooled population, 279 (16.6%) patients were at least 65 years old; 142 received saxagliptin 5 mg once-daily and 137 received placebo. Treatment groups were well-balanced for baseline characteristics within each study. In older patients, the HbA1c adjusted mean change from a baseline of 8.1% was −0.73 ± 0.16% (mean ± SEM) with saxagliptin compared with −0.17 ± 0.14% for placebo from a baseline of 8.0%. Adverse event rates were similar with saxagliptin 5 mg once-daily compared with placebo in older patients. Conclusion: The pooled subgroup analysis of saxagliptin 5 mg once-daily monotherapy and add-on therapy trials demonstrated clinically relevant and significant efficacy for reducing HbA1c in older (≥65 years) patients. Saxagliptin was well-tolerated in older patients with a low incidence of hypoglycemia and no weight gain.

A forced titration study of antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil in comparison to losartan: CLAIM Study II

An 8-week, multicentre (72 sites in the US), double-blind, randomised, parallel group, forced titration study compared the antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil and losartan. A total of 611 patients with essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95 to 114 mm Hg) were randomised initially to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily or losartan 50 mg once daily. After 2 weeks of randomised treatment, the doses of candesartan cilexetil and losartan were doubled to 32 mg and 100 mg once daily and continued respectively for 6 weeks. At week 8, candesartan cilexetil lowered the blood pressure (BP) at 24 h (trough), 6 h (peak) and 48 h post dose to a significantly greater extent (P < 0.05) than losartan: candesartan cilexetil lowered trough BP by 13.4/10.5 mm Hg, peak BP by 15.5/12.9 mm Hg and 48-h BP by 10.5/9.9 mm Hg compared to a reduction of trough BP by 10.1/9.1 mm Hg, peak BP by 12.0/9.5 mm Hg, and 48-h BP by 5.9/7.0 mm Hg by losartan. The responder and control rates were numerically higher in the candesartan cilexetil group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance; the responder rates were 58.8% for the candesartan cilexetil group and 52.1% for the losartan group and control rates were 49.0% for the candesartan cilexetil group and 44.6% for the losartan group. Overall, both treatment regimens were well tolerated. A total of 15 of the 611 (2.5%) patients withdrew from the study due to an adverse event, including nine (2.9%) in the candesartan cilexetil group and six (2.0%) in the losartan group. In conclusion, this forced titration study confirms that candesartan cilexetil is more effective in lowering BP than losartan when compared at once daily maximum doses.

Antihypertensive Efficacy of Candesartan in Comparison to Losartan: The CLAIM Study

An 8‐week, multicenter, double‐blind, randomized, parallel‐group, forced‐titration study was conducted to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan vs. losartan in 654 hypertensive patients with a diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 114 mm Hg from 72 sites throughout the U.S. Eligible patients were randomized to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily, or losartan 50 mg once daily. Two weeks following randomization, patients doubled the respective doses of their angiotensin receptor blockers for an additional 6 weeks. At week 8, candesartan cilexetil lowered trough systolic/diastolic blood pressure by a significantly greater amount than did losartan (13.3/10.9 mm Hg with candesartan cilexetil vs. 9.8/8.7 mm Hg with losartan; p< 0.001). At the same period, candesartan cilexetil also lowered peak blood pressure by a significantly greater amount than did losartan (15.2 to 11.6 mm Hg with candesartan cilexetil vs. 12.6 to 10.1 mm Hg with losartan; p< 0.05). There were statistically significantly (p< 0.05) higher proportions of responders and controlled patients in the candesartan cilexetil group (62.4% and 56.0%, respectively) than in the losartan group (54.0% and 46.9%, respectively). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated; 1.8% in the candesartan cilexetil group and 1.6% in the losartan group withdrew because of adverse events. In conclusion, this forced‐titration study confirms that candesartan cilexetil is more effective than losartan in lowering blood pressure when both are administered once daily at maximum doses. Both drugs were well tolerated.

Further reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and C-reactive protein with the addition of ezetimibe to maximum-dose rosuvastatin in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND Patients with severe hypercholesterolemia, including familial hypercholesterolemia, are considered at high risk for coronary artery disease and often prove difficult to treat to current low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) guidelines. METHODS In this open-label, 12-week substudy within a larger trial, ezetimibe 10 mg was added to stable therapy with rosuvastatin 40 mg (± bile acid sequestrant/niacin) in 107 patients with severe hypercholesterolemia who had not achieved LDL-C goal of <100 mg/dL. RESULTS Prior to the start of rosuvastatin treatment, on diet alone, mean LDL-C levels were 291 ± 59 mg/dL and decreased to 141 ± 30 mg/dL on rosuvastatin 40 mg daily at the substudy baseline prior to ezetimibe. After 12 weeks, the addition of ezetimibe produced an additional 15% ±9% reduction in LDL-C (P < 0.001) compared to pre-rosuvastatin levels and a mean LDL-C of 103 ± 27 mg/dL, resulting in 59% of patients reaching their LDL-C goals. The combination reduced LDL-C by 65% ± 9% from diet alone. Combination with ezetimibe also produced significant additional percent reductions in non-high-density lipoprotein (14%), apolipoprotein B (10%), and triglycerides (6%). Median C-reactive protein was reduced 54% (P < 0.001) by the combination compared with diet alone, a further incremental reduction of 13% (P < 0.001) with the addition of ezetimibe. The combination was well tolerated, with no patients developing myopathy or clinically significant elevations of creatine kinase or transaminases. CONCLUSIONS The combination of rosuvastatin 40 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg offers the most effective LDL-C-lowering therapy yet reported, and is helpful in achieving lipid goals and reducing C-reactive protein levels in high-risk patients with severe hypercholesterolemia, including familial hypercholesterolemia.