Dataset Information

Teneligliptin versus sitagliptin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride: A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

ABSTRACT: AIM:To assess the efficacy and safety of add-on therapy with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor teneligliptin compared with sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride. MATERIALS AND METHODS:This was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of adult Korean subjects with T2DM (n = 201), with HbA1c ranging from 7.0% to 11.0%, on stable doses of metformin plus glimepiride. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive either oral teneligliptin 20 mg or sitagliptin 100 mg for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c. RESULTS:At baseline, mean age was 60.56 ± 9.41 years, body mass index was 25.23 ± 2.85 kg/m2 and HbA1c was 8.11% ± 0.79%. At 24 weeks, both groups achieved significant reductions from baseline in HbA1c (teneligliptin, -1.03% ± 0.10% [P < 0.0001]; sitagliptin, -1.02% ± 0.10% [P < 0.0001]). The inter-group difference was -0.01% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.28, 0.26; P = 0.9497); the upper limit of the 95% CI was within the preset limit for non-inferiority (0.4%). There were no significant differences between groups in the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets, or changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, body weight or lipid levels at 24 weeks. Rates of adverse events (teneligliptin, n = 63 [61.76%]; sitagliptin, n = 61 [62.24%]; P = 0.9442) and hypoglycaemia (teneligliptin, n = 32 [31.37%]; sitagliptin, n = 28 [28.57%]; P = 0.6656) were similar. CONCLUSION:Teneligliptin was non-inferior to sitagliptin in the context of triple therapy for T2DM and is an important option in this setting.

SUBMITTER: Kim Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6587707 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Teneligliptin versus sitagliptin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride: A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Kim Yonghyun Y Kang Eun Seok ES Jang Hak Chul HC Kim Dong Jun DJ Oh Taekeun T Kim Eun Sook ES Kim Nan-Hee NH Choi Kyung Mook KM Kim Sung-Rae SR You JiYoung J Kim Se-Jin SJ Lee Moon-Kyu MK

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism 20181122 3

<h4>Aim</h4>To assess the efficacy and safety of add-on therapy with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor teneligliptin compared with sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of adult Korean subjects with T2DM (n = 201), with HbA1c ranging from 7.0% to 11.0%, on stable doses of metformin plus glimepiride. Subjects were randomized in a ...[more]

PMID: 30362280

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundManagement of type 2 diabetes with metformin often does not provide adequate glycemic control, thereby necessitating add-on treatment. In a 24-week clinical trial, dapagliflozin, an investigational sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, improved glycemic control in patients inadequately controlled with metformin. The present study is an extension that was undertaken to evaluate dapagliflozin as long-term therapy in this population.MethodsThis was a long-term extension (total 102 weeks) of a 24-week phase 3, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to blinded daily treatment (placebo, or dapagliflozin 2.5 to 5, or 10 mg) plus open-label metformin (≥1,500 mg). The previously published primary endpoint was change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at 24 weeks. This paper reports the follow-up to week 102, with analysis of covariance model performed at 24 weeks with last observation carried forward; a repeated measures analysis was utilized to evaluate changes from baseline in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and weight.ResultsA total of 546 patients were randomized to 1 of the 4 treatments. The completion rate for the 78-week double-blind extension period was lower for the placebo group (63.5%) than for the dapagliflozin groups (68.3% to 79.8%). At week 102, mean changes from baseline HbA1c (8.06%) were +0.02% for placebo compared with -0.48% (P = 0.0008), -0.58% (P <0.0001), and -0.78% (P <0.0001) for dapagliflozin 2.5 to 5, and 10 mg, respectively. In addition, all dapagliflozin groups had sustained reductions from baseline in FPG (-1.07 to -1.47 mmol/l) and body weight (-1.10 to -1.74 kg) at 102 weeks, whereas increases were noted in placebo-treated patients for both of these outcomes. Events of hypoglycemia were rare and were not severe. Evidence suggestive of genital infection was reported in 11.7% to 14.6% of dapagliflozin patients and 5.1% of placebo patients, with one related discontinuation (dapagliflozin 5 mg). Evidence suggestive of urinary tract infection was reported in 8.0% to 13.3% of dapagliflozin patients and 8.0% of placebo patients, with one related discontinuation (dapagliflozin 2.5 mg).ConclusionsDapagliflozin added to metformin for 102 weeks enabled sustained reductions in HbA1c, FPG, and weight without increased risk of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled on metformin alone.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00528879.

Project description:IntroductionThis study assessed the safety and efficacy of ertugliflozin (an oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor) vs. glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on metformin.MethodsThis phase III, double-blind, non-inferiority study (NCT01999218) randomized patients with HbA1c ≥ 7.0% and ≤ 9.0% on stable metformin ≥ 1500 mg/day 1:1:1 to ertugliflozin 15 or 5 mg once-daily (QD), or glimepiride (titrated from 1 mg QD). The primary hypothesis was that ertugliflozin 15 mg was non-inferior to glimepiride on HbA1c (non-inferiority criterion: upper bound of the 95% confidence interval [CI] about the treatment difference < 0.3%).ResultsMean baseline HbA1c of randomized patients (N = 1326) was 7.8%. Mean and median doses of glimepiride were 3.0 mg/day throughout the study. At week 52, the least squares mean change (95% CI) from baseline in HbA1c was - 0.6% (- 0.7, - 0.5), - 0.6% (- 0.6, - 0.5), and - 0.7% (- 0.8, - 0.7) in the ertugliflozin 15 mg, ertugliflozin 5 mg, and glimepiride groups, respectively. The between-group difference for ertugliflozin 15 mg and glimepiride of 0.1% (- 0.0, 0.2) met the pre-specified non-inferiority criterion. Relative to glimepiride, greater body weight and systolic blood pressure (SBP) reductions were observed with ertugliflozin. The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar across groups. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia and genital mycotic infection (GMI) were, respectively, lower and higher with ertugliflozin relative to glimepiride. The incidences of urinary tract infection and hypovolemia AEs were not meaningfully different among the groups.ConclusionsErtugliflozin 15 mg was non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA1c when added to metformin in patients with T2DM. Ertugliflozin had an acceptable safety profile and resulted in less hypoglycemia and more GMIs than glimepiride.Clinical trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01999218.

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous morphine (IVM) is the most common strong analgesic used in trauma, but is associated with a clear time limitation related to the need to obtain an access route. The intranasal (IN) route provides easy administration with a fast peak action time due to high vascularization and the absence of first-pass metabolism. We aimed to determine whether IN sufentanil (INS) for patients presenting to an emergency department with acute severe traumatic pain results in a reduction in pain intensity non-inferior to IVM.Methods and findingsIn a prospective, randomized, multicenter non-inferiority trial conducted in the emergency departments of 6 hospitals across France, patients were randomized 1:1 to INS titration (0.3 μg/kg and additional doses of 0.15 μg/kg at 10 minutes and 20 minutes if numerical pain rating scale [NRS] > 3) and intravenous placebo, or to IVM (0.1 mg/kg and additional doses of 0.05 mg/kg at 10 minutes and 20 minutes if NRS > 3) and IN placebo. Patients, clinical staff, and research staff were blinded to the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the total decrease on NRS at 30 minutes after first administration. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was -1.3 on the NRS. The primary outcome was analyzed per protocol. Adverse events were prospectively recorded during 4 hours. Among the 194 patients enrolled in the emergency department cohort between November 4, 2013, and April 10, 2016, 157 were randomized, and the protocol was correctly administered in 136 (69 IVM group, 67 INS group, per protocol population, 76% men, median age 40 [IQR 29 to 54] years). The mean difference between NRS at first administration and NRS at 30 minutes was -4.1 (97.5% CI -4.6 to -3.6) in the IVM group and -5.2 (97.5% CI -5.7 to -4.6) in the INS group. Non-inferiority was demonstrated (p < 0.001 with 1-sided mean-equivalence t test), as the lower 97.5% confidence interval of 0.29 (97.5% CI 0.29 to 1.93) was above the prespecified margin of -1.3. INS was superior to IVM (intention to treat analysis: p = 0.034), but without a clinically significant difference in mean NRS between groups. Six severe adverse events were observed in the INS group and 2 in the IVM group (number needed to harm: 17), including an apparent imbalance for hypoxemia (3 in the INS group versus 1 in the IVM group) and for bradypnea (2 in the INS group versus 0 in the IVM group). The main limitation of the study was that the choice of concomitant analgesics, when they were used, was left to the discretion of the physician in charge, and co-analgesia was more often used in the IVM group. Moreover, the size of the study did not allow us to conclude with certainty about the safety of INS in emergency settings.ConclusionsWe confirm the non-inferiority of INS compared to IVM for pain reduction at 30 minutes after administration in patients with severe traumatic pain presenting to an emergency department. The IN route, with no need to obtain a venous route, may allow early and effective analgesia in emergency settings and in difficult situations. Confirmation of the safety profile of INS will require further larger studies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02095366. EudraCT 2013-001665-16.

Dataset Information

Teneligliptin versus sitagliptin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride: A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Publications

Teneligliptin versus sitagliptin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride: A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets