ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Metformin is the first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but many patients either cannot tolerate it or cannot achieve glycemic control with metformin alone, so treatment with other glucose-lowering agents in combination with metformin is frequently required. Remogliflozin etabonate, a novel agent, is an orally bioavailable prodrug of remogliflozin, which is a potent and selective sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor. OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remogliflozin etabonate compared with dapagliflozin in subjects with T2DM in whom a stable dose of metformin as monotherapy was providing inadequate glycemic control. METHODS:A 24-week randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, three-arm, parallel-group, multicenter, phase III study was conducted in India. Patients aged???18 and???65 years diagnosed with T2DM, receiving metformin???1500 mg/day, and with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels???7 to???10% at screening were randomized into three groups. Every patient received metformin???1500 mg and either remogliflozin etabonate 100 mg twice daily (BID) (group 1, n?=?225) or remogliflozin etabonate 250 mg BID (group 2, n?=?241) or dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily (QD) in the morning and placebo QD in the evening (group 3, n?=?146). The patients were followed-up at weeks 1 and 4 and at 4-week intervals thereafter until week 24. The endpoints included mean change in HbA1c (primary endpoint, noninferiority margin?=?0.35), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), bodyweight, blood pressure, and fasting lipids. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), safety laboratory values, electrocardiogram, and vital signs were evaluated. RESULTS:Of 612 randomized patients, 167 (group 1), 175 (group 2), and 103 (group 3) patients with comparable baseline characteristics completed the study. Mean change?±?standard error (SE) in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 was -?0.72?±?0.09, -?0.77?±?0.09, and -?0.58?±?0.12% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The difference in mean HbA1c of group 1 versus group 3 (-?0.14%, 90% confidence interval [CI] -?0.38 to 0.10) and group 2 versus group 3 (-?0.19%; 90% CI -?0.42 to 0.05) was noninferior to that in group 3 (p?