Efficacy and safety of cetagliptin as monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

Xin Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.15261

2023-01-01

Abstract:Cetagliptin monotherapy was effective and well tolerated in Chinese patients with T2D who had inadequate glycaemic control on exercise and diet.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo Controlled, Phase 3 Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Cetagliptin Added to Ongoing Metformin Therapy in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes with Metformin Monotherapy

Linong Ji,Jinmiao Lu,Leili Gao,Xiaoguang Yan,Jifang Li,Zhifeng Cheng,Lili Zhang,Junhang Tian,Ping Li,Jie Bai,Daosheng Xie,Jiahong Zhao,Juping Ding,Qiang Yu,Tong Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.15274

2023-01-01

Abstract:Aim: This trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of cetagliptin added to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycaemic control with metformin monotherapy. Methods: In total, 446 patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin monotherapy were randomized to receive the addition of once-daily cetagliptin 100 mg, cetagliptin 50 mg and placebo in a 2:2:1 ratio for 24-week double-blind treatment. At week 24, patients initially randomized to cetagliptin 50 mg and placebo were switched to cetagliptin 100 mg for 28 weeks open-label treatment. The primary endpoint was the change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline, and the efficacy analyses were based on an all- patients-treated population using an analysis of co-variance. Results: After 24 weeks, both add-on therapies led to greater glycaemic control. Reductions in HbA1c from baseline were -1.17 +/- 0.794%, -1.23 +/- 0.896% in cetagliptin 100 mg and 50 mg plus metformin group, respectively. No difference was observed between the cetagliptin 100 mg and 50 mg plus metformin group. Patients with higher baseline HbA1c levels (>= 8.5%) experienced greater reductions in HbA1c. A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved an HbA1c < 7.0% with cetagliptin 100 mg (49.4%) and cetagliptin 50 mg ( 51.1%) plus metformin than metformin monotherapy ( 14.4%). Both combination therapies also improved the homeostasis model assessment beta-function index and decreased systolic blood pressure. There was no increased risk of adverse effects with combination therapy, and both combination therapies were generally well tolerated. Conclusions: The addition of cetagliptin once daily to metformin was more efficacious and well tolerated than metformin monotherapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycaemic control with metformin monotherapy.
Comparative effectiveness of metformin monotherapy in extended release and immediate release formulations for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in treatment-naïve Chinese patients: analysis of results from the CONSENT trial.

Linong Ji,Jing Liu,Jing Yang,Yufeng Li,Li Liang,Dalong Zhu,Quanmin Li,Tianrong Ma,Haiyan Xu,Yanlan Yang,Jiaoe Zeng,Bo Feng,Shen Qu,Yiming Li,Lizhen Ma,Shanshan Lin,Jianping Wang,Wei Li,Weihong Song,Xiaoxing Li,Yong Luo,Shugang Xi,Mei Lin,Yu Liu,Zerong Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13190

2018-01-01

Abstract:Aims: Metformin treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can be limited by gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs), resulting in treatment discontinuation. We investigated whether once-daily metformin extended release (XR) is superior in terms of GI tolerability, with non-inferior efficacy, compared with thrice-daily metformin immediate release (IR) in treatment-naive Chinese patients with T2DM. Materials and Methods: This prospective, open-label, randomized, multicentre, phase IV interventional study enrolled Chinese T2DM patients to receive either metformin XR or metformin IR with a 2-week screening period, a 16-week treatment period and a 2-week follow-up period without treatment. Co-primary endpoints were a non-inferiority assessment of metformin XR vs metformin IR in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to week 16 and the superiority of GI tolerability for metformin XR vs metformin IR. Results: Overall, 532 patients were randomized to metformin IR (n=267) or metformin XR (n=265). The HbA1c LSM change was -1.61% and -1.58% in each group, respectively (LSM difference, 0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.10, 0.17). Incidences of drug-related AEs were 26.5% (n=66) in the metformin IR-only group and 32.2% (n=85) in the metformin XR-only group, and GI AEs were 23.8% and 22.3% in each group, respectively (difference, -1.52; 95% CI, -8.60, 5.56). The treatment difference met the predefined non-inferiority upper CI margin of 0.4% in HbA1c. Conclusions: Metformin XR was non-inferior to metformin IR for the LSM change in HbA1c from baseline to week 16 and not superior to metformin IR for overall GI AE incidence during treatment of Chinese T2DM patients.
[Efficacy and Safety of Alogliptin in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Clinical Trial in Mainland China].

Changyu Pan,Wenhui Li,Jiaoe Zeng,Chengjiang Li,Jinkui Yang,Qiuhe Ji,Juming Lu,Xiaofeng Lyu,Xuefeng Li,Shen Qu,Xiangjin Xu,Yaoming Xue,Ling Li,Zhaoshun Jiang,Baozhong Zheng,Ruifang Bu,Ping Han,Yu Liu,Jingdong Liu,Yongde Peng,Xiaomin Liu,Zhimin Liu,Li Yan,Minxiang Lei,Xuejun Li,Qinhua Song,Bingyin Shi,Wei Gu,Zhengfang Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0578-1426.2015.11.010

2015-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of alogliptin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).METHODS:This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. A total of 491 subjects with T2DM were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive alogliptin (25 mg once daily) or placebo for 16 weeks. Among them, 181 were in the monotherapy group (group A), 186 were in the add-on to metformin group (group B), and 124 were in the add-on to pioglitazone group (group C).RESULTS:After 16 weeks of therapy, glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels decreased in both alogliptin and placebo groups. The mean changes in HbA1c for alogliptin and placebo were 1.00% and 0.43% (P<0.001), 0.91% and 0.23% (P<0.001), and 0.76% and 0.25% (P<0.001) in group A, B and C, respectively. Compared with placebo, alogliptin treatment led to a greater decrease in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and a higher percentage of subjects who achieved HbA1c targets of ≤ 6.5% and ≤ 7.0%. The percentage of subjects who experienced all adverse events including hypoglycemia with alogliptin were comparable to those with placebo.CONCLUSIONS:Alogliptin 25 mg once daily reduced HbA1c and FPG, and increased a greater proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c goals of ≤6.5% and ≤7.0% compared with placebo when used as a monotherapy, add-on to metformin, or add-on to pioglitazone. The hypoglycemia rates and safety profiles with alogliptin were similar to those with placebo.
Efficacy and Safety of Saxagliptin Compared with Acarbose in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled on Metformin Monotherapy: Results of a Phase IV Open‐label Randomized Controlled Study (the SMART Study)

Jin Du,Li Liang,Hui Fang,Fengmei Xu,Wei Li,Liya Shen,Xueying Wang,Chun Xu,Fang Bian,Yiming Mu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.12942

2017-01-01

Abstract:To investigate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of saxagliptin compared with acarbose in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy.
Efficacy and Safety of Alogliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Multicentre Randomized Double‐blind Placebo‐controlled Phase 3 Study in Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong

Changyu Pan,Ping Han,Qiuhe Ji,Chengjiang Li,Juming Lu,Jinkui Yang,Wenhui Li,Jiaoe Zeng,An-Tsz Hsieh,Juliana Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.12425

IF: 4.53

2016-01-01

Journal of Diabetes

Abstract:This study determined the efficacy and safety of once‐daily oral alogliptin in patients from mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Phase III, Randomized, Double‐blind, Placebo‐controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Teneligliptin Monotherapy in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled with Diet and Exercise

Linong Ji,Jianhua Ma,Weiping Lu,Jingdong Liu,Jiao'e Zeng,Jialin Yang,Wei Li,Xiuzhen Zhang,Xinhua Xiao,Gen Takayanagi,Yi Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.13389

2021-01-01

Journal of Diabetes Investigation

Abstract:AbstractAims/IntroductionAlthough the efficacy of teneligliptin, a highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor, has been amply studied for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, no clinical trials of teneligliptin have been carried out in China. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin monotherapy compared with a placebo in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with diet and exercise.Materials and MethodsThis multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group study, carried out at 42 sites, enrolled type 2 diabetes patients with glycosylated hemoglobin 7.0 to <10.0% and fasting blood glucose <270 mg/dL. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to treatment with 20 mg teneligliptin or a placebo (n = 127, each) administered orally once daily before breakfast for 24 weeks. Change in glycosylated hemoglobin from baseline to week 24 was the primary efficacy end‐point. Safety was assessed by the incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions.ResultsThe least square mean (LSM) change in glycosylated hemoglobin from baseline to week 24 was −0.95% with teneligliptin versus −0.14% with a placebo, yielding an LSM difference (teneligliptin vs placebo) of −0.80% (P < 0.0001). For the secondary end‐point, from baseline to week 24, the LSM change in fasting blood glucose was −21.9 mg/dL with teneligliptin versus −1.4 mg/dL with a placebo, yielding an LSM difference (teneligliptin vs placebo) of −20.5 mg/dL (P < 0.0001). The adverse event and adverse drug reaction incidence rates, including hypoglycemia, were similar in both groups.ConclusionsAt 24 weeks, teneligliptin was generally well tolerated and effective in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with diet and exercise.
Fotagliptin monotherapy with alogliptin as an active comparator in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Mingtong Xu,Kan Sun,Wenjie Xu,Chuan Wang,Dewen Yan,Shu Li,Li Cong,Yinzhen Pi,Weihong Song,Qingyuan Sun,Rijun Xiao,Weixia Peng,Jianping Wang,Hui Peng,Yawei Zhang,Peng Duan,Meiying Zhang,Jianying Liu,Qingmei Huang,Xuefeng Li,Yan Bao,Tianshu Zeng,Kun Wang,Li Qin,Chaoming Wu,Chunying Deng,Chenghu Huang,Shuang Yan,Wei Zhang,Meizi Li,Li Sun,Yanjun Wang,HongMei Li,Guang Wang,Shuguang Pang,Xianling Zheng,Haifang Wang,Fujun Wang,Xiuhai Su,Yujin Ma,Wei Zhang,Ziling Li,Zuoling Xie,Ning Xu,Lin Ni,Li Zhang,Xiangqun Deng,Tianrong Pan,Qijuan Dong,Xiaohong Wu,Xingping Shen,Xin Zhang,Qijing Zou,Chengxia Jiang,Jue Xi,Jianhua Ma,Jingchao Sun,Li Yan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-03089-x

IF: 9.3

2023-10-12

BMC Medicine

Abstract:Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) have become firmly established in treatment algorithms and national guidelines for improving glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).To report the findings from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 clinical trial, which was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of a novel DPP-4 inhibitor fotagliptin in treatment-naive patients with T2DM.

medicine, general & internal
Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy with Vildagliptin and Metformin Versus Metformin Up-Titration in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Study Design and Rationale of the Vision Study

Li-Nong Ji,Chang-Yu Pan,Ju-Ming Lu,Hong Li,Qiang Li,Qi-Fu Li,Yong-De Peng,Hao-Ming Tian,Chen Yao,Zhi-Gang Zhao,Ru-Ya Zhang,Xiang-Ling Wang,Lei Wang,VISION Study Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2840-12-118

IF: 8.949

2013-01-01

Cardiovascular Diabetology

Abstract:Limitations of the currently recommended stepwise treatment pathway for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), especially the failure of monotherapies to maintain good glycemic control, have prompted use of early, more aggressive combination therapies.
Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy with Vildagliptin and Metformin Versus Metformin Uptitration in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with Metformin Monotherapy: A Randomized, Open-Label, Prospective Study (Vision)

L-N Ji,C-Y Pan,J-M Lu,H. Li,D-L Zhu,Q. Li,Q-F Li,Y-D Peng,H-M Tian,C. Yao,Z-G Zhao,L. Wang,B-H Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.12667

2016-01-01

Abstract:AimsTo compare the efficacy and safety of combination of vildagliptin and metformin therapy with metformin uptitration in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) inadequately controlled with low‐dose metformin.MethodsIn this 24‐week prospective, randomized, multicentre, open‐label study, patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin ≤1000 mg daily were divided 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 into four prespecified subgroups based on age and body mass index (BMI). Patients in each subgroup were randomized 5 : 1 to receive either vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) plus metformin [500 mg twice daily; vildagliptin and low‐dose metformin (VLDM) group] or metformin uptitration [1000 mg twice daily; high‐dose metformin (HDM) group]. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline at week 24. The key secondary endpoints included percentage of patients achieving target HbA1c without adverse gastrointestinal (GI) events and mean change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to week 24.ResultsA total of 3084 patients were randomized. HbA1c reduction of 0.54% at week 24 in the VLDM group was non‐inferior and statistically superior compared with 0.40% in the HDM group (P < 0.0001). VLDM's non‐inferiority to HDM was confirmed in the four subgroups and its superiority was shown for all subgroups (p < 0.05) except for the subgroup of patients aged <60 years with a BMI of ≥24 kg/m2. Compared with HDM, VLDM significantly increased the percentage of patients achieving HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c ≤6.5% without GI events. FPG levels in the VLDM group were lower at week 24 numerically than in the HDM group. The two treatment arms had similar safety profiles.ConclusionsVLDM was non‐inferior and statistically superior to HDM in glycaemic control in Chinese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with low‐dose metformin.
Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin added to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Linong Ji,Ling Li,Jianhua Ma,Xuefeng Li,Dongmei Li,Bangzhu Meng,Weiping Lu,Jiao Sun,Yanmei Liu,Gen Takayanagi,Yi Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/edm2.222

2021-01-01

Endocrinology Diabetes & Metabolism

Abstract:Introduction We evaluated the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin compared with placebo when added to metformin therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy. Methods This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study enrolled type 2 diabetes patients with glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0%-<10.0% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <270 mg/dl, receiving a stable metformin dose >= 1000 mg/day. Teneligliptin 20 mg or placebo was administered orally once daily (qd) before breakfast for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end-point was change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24. Safety end-points included the incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results The least square mean (LSM) change from baseline (standard error [SE]) was -0.72 (0.07) (95% confidence intervals [CI], -0.87, -0.58) for teneligliptin and -0.01 (0.07) (95% CI, -0.16, 0.13) for placebo. The differences (LSM +/- SE) between the placebo and teneligliptin groups in HbA1c and FPG were -0.71% +/- 0.11% (p < .0001) and -16.5 +/- 4.7 mg/dl (p = .0005), respectively. Teneligliptin yielded significant changes in HbA1c (-0.81%; p < .0001) and FPG (-22.2 mg/dl; p < .0001) at Week 12. At Week 24, more patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with teneligliptin (41.7%) compared with placebo (16.1%; p < .0001). Treatment-emergent AE incidence was similar with teneligliptin (58.9%) and placebo (68.3%); upper respiratory tract infection, hyperuricaemia and hyperlipidaemia were the most common AEs. Conclusions Teneligliptin 20 mg qd for 24 weeks added to ongoing metformin treatment significantly decreased HbA1c and FPG levels compared with placebo in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. The combination was safe and tolerable.
PDG8 EFFICACY OF PHARMACOLOGICAL MONOTHERAPIES FOR TYPE 2 DIABETES IN CHINA

H. Yu,S. Gu,X. Zhen,Y. Li,L. Shi,H. Dong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.687

IF: 5.156

2019-01-01

Value in Health

Abstract:There are multiple classes of antidiabetic drugs in China, which vary in efficacy and safety. However, no study exists comparing all the alternative classes of drugs at the same time. This study aims to estimate and compare the efficacy of alternative classes of antidiabetic drugs in the regimen of monotherapy for Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Systematic literature review was conducted by retrieving databases including CNKI, WanFang, CQVIP, PubMed, EMBASE, Web-of-Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane-Library, to identify randomized controlled trials (1990-2016) comparing the efficacy of ‘antidiabetic drug monotherapy’ vs. ‘placebo/lifestyle-intervention (i.e., diet/exercise)’ in Chinese T2DM patients. Three-lines eight-classes of antidiabetic drugs were included referring to Chinese guideline for T2DM care: 1st-line-drug (metformin), 2nd-line-drug (α-glycosidase-inhibitor, sulfonylurea, glinide, DPP-4-inhibitor, thiazolidinedione), 3rd-line-drug (insulin, GLP-1-receptor-agonist). Meta-analysis was used to estimate the efficacy of different classes of antidiabetic drug vs. placebo/lifestyle-intervention, using random- and fixed-effect models. 99,072 records were identified through database search, and 46 studies were finally included. Compared with placebo/lifestyle-intervention, 1st-line-drug (metformin) could change HbA1c by -1.04%, BMI by -1.77kg/m2, TC by -0.64mmol/l, SBP by -3.13mmHg, HDL-C by 0.19mmol/l, and hypoglycemia by 2%; 2nd-line-drug could change HbA1c by -1.19∼-0.25%, BMI by -0.64∼1.79kg/m2, TC by -0.3∼0.42mmol/l, SBP by -3.2∼1.84mmHg, HDL-C by -0.11∼0.22mmol/l, and hypoglycemia by -3∼2%; 3rd-line-drug could change HbA1c by -2.37∼-1.28%, BMI by -1.11kg/m2, TC by -0.67mmol/l, SBP by -3.00mmHg, HDL-C by 0.18 mmol/l, and hypoglycemia by 0. In the five 2nd-line-drugs, sulfonylurea was optimal for decreasing HbA1c, α-glycosidase-inhibitor was optimal for decreasing BMI and SBP, DPP-4-inhibitor was optimal for decreasing TC, and thiazolidinedione was optimal for increasing HDL-C and decreasing hypoglycemia. In the two 3rd-line-drugs, insulin was optimal for decreasing HbA1c, while no data supported for the comparison in BMI, TC, HDL-C, SBP and hypoglycemia. This study shows that pharmacological monotherapies have better efficacy than placebo/lifestyle-intervention in Chinese T2DM patients.
PP93 Efficacy of Pharmacological Treatments for Type 2 Diabetes in China

Shuyan Gu,Hai Yu,Yuanyuan Li,Yi Shen,Xuemei Zhen,Yuxuan Gu,Jingming Wei,Lizheng Shi,Hengjin Dong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462319002319

2019-01-01

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Abstract:IntroductionThere are multiple antidiabetic drugs available in China, which vary in their efficacy and safety. However, no study exists that compares all the classes of antidiabetic drugs simultaneously. This study aimed to estimate and compare the efficacy of alternative classes of antidiabetic drugs for Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes, either in a monotherapy regimen or combined with metformin.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted by searching various literature databases to identify relevant randomized controlled trials published from 1990 to 2016. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy of antidiabetic drug monotherapy and placebo or lifestyle interventions (i.e., diet and exercise), and antidiabetic drug plus metformin versus metformin alone, in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. An indirect comparison was used to estimate the efficacy of antidiabetic drug plus metformin versus placebo or lifestyle-intervention using metformin as the common comparator.ResultsThe database search identified 354 relevant studies. Compared with placebo or lifestyle interventions, combination therapies achieved greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level (1.9% versus 0.9%), body mass index (BMI) (2.66 versus 0.98 kg/m2), and total cholesterol level (1.07 versus 0.35 mmol/L) than monotherapies. For monotherapies, the top three treatments for reducing HbA1c level were insulin, sulfonylurea, and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist. The top three monotherapies for reducing BMI level were metformin, GLP-1 receptor agonist, and α-glycosidase inhibitor. The top three monotherapies for reducing total cholesterol level were metformin, GLP-1 receptor agonist, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. For combination therapies, the top three treatments for reducing HbA1c level were GLP-1 receptor agonist plus metformin, insulin plus metformin, and glinide plus metformin. The top three combination therapies for reducing BMI level were glinide plus metformin, GLP-1 receptor agonist plus metformin, and DPP-4 inhibitor plus metformin. The top three combination therapies for reducing total cholesterol level were insulin plus metformin, GLP-1 receptor agonist plus metformin, and α-glycosidase inhibitor plus metformin.ConclusionsPharmacological treatments had better efficacy than placebo or lifestyle interventions, while combination drug therapies were superior to monotherapies.
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Glucose-Lowering Drugs as Monotherapy for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Indirect Treatment Comparison

Shuyan Gu,Xiaoqian Hu,Xuemei Zhen,Lizheng Shi,Xueshan Sun,Minzhuo Huang,Yuxuan Gu,Yuanyuan Li,Hengjin Dong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3918870

2021-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Background: There are multiple alternative glucose-lowering drugs available as initial monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) with contraindications or intolerance of metformin. However, little systematic and comparative data is available for them as initial monotherapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of them as monotherapy for T2DM. Methods: In this systematic review and indirect treatment comparison, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, and Chongqing VIP were searched for randomized controlled trials (1990-2020) comparing a glucose-lowering drug monotherapy with placebo (or lifestyle-intervention) in adult T2DM patients. The drug classes included metformin, SUs, TZDs, glinides, AGIs, DPP-4is, SGLT2is, GLP-1RAs, and insulins. The drugs were firstly compared with placebo/lifestyle-intervention using meta-analysis, then compared against each other using indirect treatment comparison. Weighted mean difference with 95% CIs were calculated for HbA1c, FPG, BMI, TC, HDL-C, and SBP. Relative risk with 95% CIs were calculated for hypoglycemia. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020170769). Findings: 185 studies assessing 23 drugs from eight drug classes were included (no eligible study was found for insulin). SUs were most efficacious in reducing HbA1c and FPG but increased hypoglycemic risks. Metformin was most efficacious in lowering BMI. GLP-1RAs were most efficacious in reducing TC. TZDs were most efficacious in increasing HDL-C. SGLT2is were most efficacious in lowering SBP. Overall, GLP-1RAs comprehensively controlled HbA1c, FPG, BMI, TC, and SBP, whilst metformin controlled HbA1c, FPG, BMI, TC, and HDL-C, and both of them did not increase hypoglycemic risks. Our observations also showed that although drug class is important, drugs within the same class may display important differences in treatment effects. Interpretation: Our results, along with individualized patient characteristics, preferences, and clinical needs, should be considered when selecting a drug as monotherapy for T2DM in clinical practice. Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China.Declaration of Interest: None to declare.
Use of a PK/PD Model to Select Cetagliptin Dosages for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Phase 3 Trials

Jinmiao Lu,Jiahong Zhao,Daosheng Xie,Juping Ding,Qiang Yu,Tong Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-024-01427-7

2024-10-05

Clinical Pharmacokinetics

Abstract:Cetagliptin is a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor developed for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Several phase 1 studies have been conducted in China. Modelling and simulation were used to obtain cetagliptin dose for phase 3 trials in T2D patients.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Efficacy and safety of cofrogliptin once every 2 weeks in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trial

Leili Gao,Fang Bian,Tianrong Pan,Hongwei Jiang,Bo Feng,Chengxia Jiang,Jia Sun,Jianzhong Xiao,Pangke Yan,Linong Ji

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.16014

2024-10-23

Diabetes Obesity and Metabolism

Abstract:Aim We conducted a multicentre, randomized phase 3 trial in China to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cofrogliptin (HSK7653), a novel long‐acting dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor, in patients with drug‐naïve type 2 diabetes (T2D). Materials and Methods Patients with inadequately controlled T2D were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to cofrogliptin 10 mg, cofrogliptin 25 mg or placebo, taken orally once every 2 weeks for a 24‐week double‐blind period. Eligible patients then received cofrogliptin 25 mg in a 28‐week open‐label extension. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24. Results In total, 475 patients (median age: 54.0 years) were randomized and received at least one dose of cofrogliptin 10 mg (n = 158), cofrogliptin 25 mg (n = 158) or placebo (n = 159); 401 patients entered the open‐label extension. At week 24, the least‐squares (LS) mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) in HbA1c versus placebo was −0.63% (−0.81, −0.46) with cofrogliptin 10 mg and −0.59% (−0.77, −0.42) with cofrogliptin 25 mg (both p

endocrinology & metabolism
Effectiveness and Safety of Metformin, Teneligliptin, and Glimepiride Combination Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes: A Quasi Experimental Clinical Trial

Rajesh Kumar Manchi,Santenna Chenchula,Manchi Haritha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/0115733998292943240730115310

2024-11-29

Abstract:Introduction: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) accounts for more than 95% of all diabetes cases and is a leading cause of disability and death. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a combination therapy involving metformin, teneligliptin, and glimepiride in patients diagnosed with T2DM. Methods: The present quasi-experimental clinical trial involved 300 adult T2DM patients. They were divided into three groups: Group 1 (Metformin; n=100), Group 2 (Metformin + Teneligliptin; n=100), and Group 3 (Metformin + Teneligliptin +; n=100). Along with demographic data, we collected information on HbA1c, FBS, and PPBS levels, as well as fasting insulin, CPeptide, HOMA-IR, QUICKI-IR, and lipid, renal, and hepatic profiles at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 21.0 software. Results: A total of 300 patients participated in the study. At the end of 12 months, triple-drug therapy achieved significant glycemic control (HbA1c: 6.56±0.50%; P<0.0001) and reduced FBS (7.6±1.41 mg/dl; P<0.0001), PPBS (9.39±2.14 mg/dl; P<0.0001), and fasting insulin (11.26±2.5 IU; P<0.0001), C-peptide (2.01±2.29 ng/ml; P<0.0001), and insulin resistance by HOMA-IR (3.74±0.7; P<0.0001). Favorable lipid profiles (P<0.0001) were noted versus other groups. Despite renal and hepatic profile variations, values remained within the normal range. Conclusion: The combination of teneligliptin with metformin and glimepiride in T2DM patients demonstrated significant improvements in glycaemic control, reduced insulin resistance, and positive effects on lipid, renal, and hepatic profiles. Importantly, the therapy did not result in serious adverse drug reactions, such as hypoglycemia. We need more RCTs to substantiate these findings.
Efficacy and Safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine for Diabetes: A Double-Blind, Randomised, Controlled Trial

Linong Ji,Xiaolin Tong,Hongyuan Wang,Haoming Tian,Huimin Zhou,Lili Zhang,Qifu Li,Yizhong Wang,Hongmei Li,Min Liu,Hongjie Yang,Yanbin Gao,Yan Li,Quanmin Li,Xiaohui Guo,Gangyi Yang,Zhongai Zhang,Zhiguang Zhou,Guang Ning,Yingli Chen,Sanjoy Paul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056703

IF: 3.7

2013-01-01

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background: Treatment of diabetes mellitus with Traditional Chinese Medicine has a long history. The aim of this study is to establish the safety and efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine combined with glibenclamide to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods: In a controlled, double blind, multicentre non-inferiority trial, 800 patients with unsatisfactory glycemic control (fasting glucose 7-13 mmol/L and HbA1c 7-11%) were randomly assigned to receive Xiaoke Pill, a compound of Chinese herbs combined with glibenclamide, or Glibenclamide in two study groups - drug naive group, and patients previously treated with metformin monotherapy (metformin group). Outcome measures at 48 weeks were the incidence and rate of hypoglycemia, mean difference in HbA1c, and proportion of patients with HbA1c<6.5%.Findings: In drug naive group, the total hypoglycemia rate and the mild hypoglycemic episode in the Xiaoke Pill arm were 38% (p = 0.024) and 41% (p = 0.002) less compared to Glibenclamide arm; in Metformin group, the average annual rate of hypoglycemia was 62% lower in Xiaoke Pill arm (p = 0.003). Respective mean changes in HbA1c from baseline were -0.70% and -0.66% for Xiaoke Pill and Glibenclamide, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of -0.04% (-0.20, 0.12) in the drug naive group, and those in metformin group were -0.45% and -0.59%, 0.14% (-0.12, 0.39) respectively. The respective proportions of patients with a HbA1c level <6.5% were 26.6% and 23.4% in the drug naive group and 20.1% and 18.9% in the metformin group.Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control, treatment with Xiaoke Pill led to significant reduction in risk of hypoglycemia and similar improvements in glycemic control after 48 weeks compared to Glibenclamide.Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Register number, ChiCTR-TRC-08000074
Efficacy and safety of chiglitazar, a novel peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor pan-agonist, in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (CMAP)

Linong Ji,Weihong Song,Hui Fang,Wei Li,Jianlin Geng,Yangang Wang,Lian Guo,Hanqing Cai,Tao Yang,Hongmei Li,Gangyi Yang,Qifu Li,Kuanzhi Liu,Shuying Li,Yanjun Liu,Fuyan Shi,Xinsheng Li,Xin Gao,Haoming Tian,Qiuhe Ji,Qing Su,Zhiguang Zhou,Wenbo Wang,Zunhai Zhou,Xuejun Li,Yancheng Xu,Zhiqiang Ning,Haixiang Cao,Desi Pan,He Yao,Xianping Lu,Weiping Jia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2021.03.019

IF: 18.9

2021-08-01

Science Bulletin

Abstract:Chiglitazar (Carfloglitazar) is a novel non-thiazolidinedione (TZD) structured peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) pan-agonist that has shown promising effects on glycemic control and lipid regulation in patients with type 2 diabetes in previous clinical studies. This randomized phase 3 trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of chiglitazar with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes with insufficient glycemic control by strict diet and exercise alone. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive chiglitazar 32 mg (n = 167), chiglitazar 48 mg (n = 166), or placebo (n = 202) once daily. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c at week 24 with superiority of chiglitazar over placebo. The results showed that both chiglitazar 32 mg and 48 mg resulted in significant and clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c, and placebo-adjusted estimated treatment differences at week 24 for chiglitazar 32 mg and 48 mg were −0.87% (95% confidential interval (CI) −1.10 to −0.65; P < 0.0001) and −1.05% (95% CI −1.29 to −0.81; P < 0.0001), respectively. Secondary efficacy parameters including glycemic control, insulin sensitivity and triglyceride reduction were also significantly improved in the chiglitazar groups. The overall frequency of adverse events and study discontinuation attributable to adverse events were similar among the groups. Low incidences of mild edema and body weight gain were reported in the chiglitazar dose groups. The results from this phase 3 trial demonstrated that the PPAR pan-agonist chiglitazar possesses an overall good efficacy and safety profile in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with lifestyle interventions, thereby providing adequate supporting evidence for using this PPAR pan-agonist as a treatment option for type 2 diabetes.

multidisciplinary sciences
Cilinical Trial of Extended-Release Tablets Metformin in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

YANG Yi,JI Xiu-juan,YANG Jin-kui,HONG Tian-pei,YANG Wen-ying,XIAO Wen-hua,GAO Hong-wei,ZHANG Jin-ping

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-6821.2007.03.004

2007-01-01

Abstract:Objective To study the efficacy and safety of extended-release metformin in the treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus. MethodsOne hundred fifty patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were recruited, which were divided into two groups in a randomized, paralleled, opened, contrast, multicentre prospective study.In control group there were 75 patients treated with common tablets (500 mg, tid) and in trial group there were 75 patients treated with extended-release metformin (1500 mg qd).The efficacy of the two groups were compared on the HbA1c, FPG, 2hPG , AUG, TC, LDL, HDL and BMI.ResultsThe 2 h postpandial blood glacose of trial group was decreased than control group(P0.05).While the other index such as HbAlc,FPG,AUG,TC,LDL,HDL and BMI at the time of 12 weeks after treatment there were no significant difference between them. The incidence of adverse reaction were 8.7% in trial and 11.3% in control.Conclusion The efficacy and safety of extended-release metformin within 12 weeks treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus is comparable to common tablet.
Randomized,double-blind,double-dummy,controlled clinical trial of pioglitazone/metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

HU Hong-lin,WANG Chang-jiang,ZHANG Mu-xun,YAN Sheng-li,LIU Jun-jiang,ZHU Lv-yun,HE Yong,GAO Ya

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1001-6821.2009.06.001

2009-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pioglitazone /metformin hydrochloride in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.Methods A randomized,double-blind,metformin and pioglitazone hydrochloride-controlled,and multicenter clinical trial was conducted.A total of 240 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were enrolled in this study,in which 120 patients received pioglitazone/metformin,and 120 patients received metformin and pioglitazone.Result Comparing to the baseline,the fasting blood glucose(FBG),2 h postprandial blood glucose(P2hBG) and HbA1c levels in tow groups were significantly reduced after 16-week treatment(P<0.01).In pioglitazone/metformin group,the mean reductions of FBG,P2hBG and HbA1c levels were(1.92±1.77) mmol·L-1,(2.49±3.13) mmol·L-1,(1.27±1.45)% respectively.In metformin and pioglitazone group,the mean reductions of FBG,P2hBG and HbA1c levels were(2.24±2.11) mmol·L-1,(2.89±3.71) mmol·L-1,(1.49±1.52)% respectively.The differences in reductions of FBG,P2hBG and HbA1c level between the groups were not statistically significant.The incidence of adverse drug reaction in two groups was similar(10% vs 12%).Conclusion This result provides an efficacy and safety of pioglitazone /metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Efficacy and safety of cetagliptin as monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo Controlled, Phase 3 Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Cetagliptin Added to Ongoing Metformin Therapy in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes with Metformin Monotherapy

Comparative effectiveness of metformin monotherapy in extended release and immediate release formulations for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in treatment-naïve Chinese patients: analysis of results from the CONSENT trial.

[Efficacy and Safety of Alogliptin in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Clinical Trial in Mainland China].

Efficacy and Safety of Saxagliptin Compared with Acarbose in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled on Metformin Monotherapy: Results of a Phase IV Open‐label Randomized Controlled Study (the SMART Study)

Efficacy and Safety of Alogliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Multicentre Randomized Double‐blind Placebo‐controlled Phase 3 Study in Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong

Phase III, Randomized, Double‐blind, Placebo‐controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Teneligliptin Monotherapy in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled with Diet and Exercise

Fotagliptin monotherapy with alogliptin as an active comparator in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy with Vildagliptin and Metformin Versus Metformin Up-Titration in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Study Design and Rationale of the Vision Study

Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy with Vildagliptin and Metformin Versus Metformin Uptitration in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with Metformin Monotherapy: A Randomized, Open-Label, Prospective Study (Vision)

Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin added to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

PDG8 EFFICACY OF PHARMACOLOGICAL MONOTHERAPIES FOR TYPE 2 DIABETES IN CHINA

PP93 Efficacy of Pharmacological Treatments for Type 2 Diabetes in China

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Glucose-Lowering Drugs as Monotherapy for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Indirect Treatment Comparison

Use of a PK/PD Model to Select Cetagliptin Dosages for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Phase 3 Trials

Efficacy and safety of cofrogliptin once every 2 weeks in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trial

Effectiveness and Safety of Metformin, Teneligliptin, and Glimepiride Combination Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes: A Quasi Experimental Clinical Trial

Efficacy and Safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine for Diabetes: A Double-Blind, Randomised, Controlled Trial

Efficacy and safety of chiglitazar, a novel peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor pan-agonist, in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (CMAP)

Cilinical Trial of Extended-Release Tablets Metformin in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Randomized,double-blind,double-dummy,controlled clinical trial of pioglitazone/metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes