Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract Context Low-dose sulfonylureas (SUs) have been found to augment the classical incretin effect, increase glucose sensitivity and late phase incretin potentiation. Objective To evaluate potential synergy between low-dose SU plus a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor. Methods Unblinded randomized crossover study at the Clinical Research Centre, University of Dundee. Thirty participants with T2DM (HbA1c < 64 mmol/mol) were treated with diet or metformin. Participants completed 4, 14-day blocks in a random order: control, gliclazide 20 mg (SU), sitagliptin 100 mg (DPP4 inhibitor [DPP4i]), or combination (SUDPP4i). A mixed meal test was conducted after each intervention. The primary outcome was the effect of treatment on beta-cell glucose sensitivity. Secondary outcomes included frequency of glucose <3 mmol/L on continuous glucose monitoring, subanalyses by genotype (KNCJ11 E23K), gender, and body mass index. Results SU combination with DPP4i showed additive effect on glucose lowering: mean glucose area under the curve (mean 95% CI) (mmol/L) was control 11.5 (10.7-12.3), DPP4i 10.2 (9.4-11.1), SU 9.7 (8.9-10.5), SUDPP4i 8.7 (7.9-9.5) (P < .001). Glucose sensitivity mirrored the additive effect (pmol min−1 m−2 mM−1): control 71.5 (51.1-91.9), DPP4i 75.9 (55.7-96.0), SU 86.3 (66.1-106.4), SUDPP4i 94.1 (73.9-114.3) (P = .04). The additive effect was seen in men but not women. Glucose time in range <3 mmol/L on continuous glucose monitoring (%) was unaffected: control 1 (2-4), DPP4i 2 (3-6), SU 1 (0-4), SUDPP4i 3 (2-7) (P = .65). Conclusion Low-dose sulfonylurea plus DPP4i has a potent glucose-lowering effect through augmentation of beta-cell function. A double-blind randomized controlled trial would formalize efficacy and safety of this combination, which may avoid negative aspects of SU.

Aims/hypothesis The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin treatment. Methods The Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) 12 trial was a randomised, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group, Phase IIIa trial conducted over 26 weeks at 90 sites across the China region (including mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong) and five other countries. Adults aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Taiwan) with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, HbA 1c between 53 and 91 mmol/mol (inclusive) and treated with a stable daily dose of metformin were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomised (1:1:1:1) using a web-based randomisation system to either once-daily oral semaglutide (3 mg, 7 mg or 14 mg) or once-daily oral sitagliptin 100 mg. Treatment allocation was masked to both participants and investigators. Randomisation was stratified according to whether participants were from the China region or elsewhere. The primary endpoint was change in HbA 1c from baseline to week 26. The confirmatory secondary endpoint was change in body weight (kg) from baseline to week 26. All randomised participants were included in the full analysis set (FAS). All participants exposed to at least one dose of trial product were included in the safety analysis (SAS). Results Of 1839 participants screened, 1441 were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 3 mg ( n =361), 7 mg ( n =360), 14 mg ( n =361) or sitagliptin 100 mg ( n =359) and included in the FAS. A total of 1438 participants were included in the SAS. In total, 75.2% of participants were from the China region. A total of 1372 (95.2%) participants completed the trial and 130 participants prematurely discontinued treatment (8.3%, 8.6% and 15.0% for oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively; 4.2% for sitagliptin 100 mg). Significantly greater reductions in HbA 1c from baseline to week 26 were reported for all doses of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin 100 mg. For oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg, the estimated treatment differences (ETDs [95% CI]) were –2 (–4, –1) mmol/mol, –8 (–9, –6) mmol/mol and –11 (–12, –9) mmol/mol, respectively. The corresponding ETDs (95% CI) in percentage points vs sitagliptin 100 mg were –0.2 (–0.3, –0.1), –0.7 (–0.8, –0.6) and –1.0 (–1.1, –0.8), respectively. Reductions in body weight were significantly greater for all doses of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin 100 mg (ETD [95% CI] –0.9 [–1.4, –0.4] kg, –2.3 [–2.8, –1.8] kg and –3.3 [–3.8, –2.8] kg for 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively). In the subpopulation of participants from the China region (75.2% of trial participants), reductions in HbA 1c and body weight from baseline to week 26 were similar to those seen in the overall population. The most frequent adverse events in the semaglutide treatment arms were gastrointestinal, although these were mostly transient and mild/moderate in severity. Conclusions/interpretation Significantly greater reductions in both HbA 1c and body weight over 26 weeks were seen with oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg than with sitagliptin 100 mg in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin treatment. Oral semaglutide was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that seen in the global PIONEER trials. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04017832. Funding This trial was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark. Graphical Abstract

The comparative effectiveness of glucose-lowering medications for use with metformin to maintain target glycated hemoglobin levels in persons with type 2 diabetes is uncertain. In this trial involving participants with type 2 diabetes of less than 10 years' duration who were receiving metformin and had glycated hemoglobin levels of 6.8 to 8.5%, we compared the effectiveness of four commonly used glucose-lowering medications. We randomly assigned participants to receive insulin glargine U-100 (hereafter, glargine), the sulfonylurea glimepiride, the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, or sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. The primary metabolic outcome was a glycated hemoglobin level, measured quarterly, of 7.0% or higher that was subsequently confirmed, and the secondary metabolic outcome was a confirmed glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5%. A total of 5047 participants (19.8% Black and 18.6% Hispanic or Latinx) who had received metformin for type 2 diabetes were followed for a mean of 5.0 years. The cumulative incidence of a glycated hemoglobin level of 7.0% or higher (the primary metabolic outcome) differed significantly among the four groups (P<0.001 for a global test of differences across groups); the rates with glargine (26.5 per 100 participant-years) and liraglutide (26.1) were similar and lower than those with glimepiride (30.4) and sitagliptin (38.1). The differences among the groups with respect to a glycated hemoglobin level greater than 7.5% (the secondary outcome) paralleled those of the primary outcome. There were no material differences with respect to the primary outcome across prespecified subgroups defined according to sex, age, or race or ethnic group; however, among participants with higher baseline glycated hemoglobin levels there appeared to be an even greater benefit with glargine, liraglutide, and glimepiride than with sitagliptin. Severe hypoglycemia was rare but significantly more frequent with glimepiride (in 2.2% of the participants) than with glargine (1.3%), liraglutide (1.0%), or sitagliptin (0.7%). Participants who received liraglutide reported more frequent gastrointestinal side effects and lost more weight than those in the other treatment groups. All four medications, when added to metformin, decreased glycated hemoglobin levels. However, glargine and liraglutide were significantly, albeit modestly, more effective in achieving and maintaining target glycated hemoglobin levels. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; GRADE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01794143.).

•Fixed-dose combination (FDC) was bioequivalent to individual components (ICs) in Western and Korean adults.•Pharmacokinetic parameters of FDC and IC were generally similar.•No clinically relevant pharmacokinetic differences in Western vs Korean participants.•FDC and ICs were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events. We evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of dapagliflozin/sitagliptin versus individual component (IC) tablets in healthy Western and Korean participants. The combination of these antihyperglycemic drugs provides efficient glucose control, and the use of FDC has generally been shown to improve medication adherence in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Two randomized, open-label, two-period, two-treatment, single-dose, single-center, crossover bioequivalence studies conducted on healthy fasted German participants (aged 18–55 years; Western study) and South Korean participants (aged 19–55 years; Korean study) were included. In both studies, pharmacokinetic parameters (maximum [peak] plasma concentration [Cmax], area under the plasma concentration–time curve from zero to the last quantifiable concentration [AUClast], and area under the plasma concentration–time curve from zero to infinity [AUCinf]) were used to assess the bioequivalence of 10 mg dapagliflozin/100 mg sitagliptin FDC (Treatment A) with their ICs (Treatment B) under fasted conditions. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study. Forty-six healthy participants (male, 60.9%; mean age, 39.5 years; mean body mass index [BMI], 23.9 kg/m2) were randomized in the Western study, and 51 healthy participants (male, 100.0%; mean age, 24.6 years; mean BMI, 23.9 kg/m2) were randomized in the Korean study. In both studies, the participants were randomized 1:1 into treatment sequence AB and treatment sequence BA. Dapagliflozin/sitagliptin FDC was bioequivalent to IC tablets in both Western and Korean studies, as the 90% confidence interval of the FDC to IC ratios of the geometric least-squares means of the pharmacokinetic parameters for both dapagliflozin and sitagliptin was within the 0.8000–1.2500 bioequivalence criterion limit. The observed differences in pharmacokinetic parameters, such as Cmax, AUClast, and AUCinf, between the Western and Korean studies were not clinically meaningful. Dapagliflozin/sitagliptin FDC and their ICs were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported in any of the study populations. The 10 mg dapagliflozin/100 mg sitagliptin FDC and IC formulations were bioequivalent in fasted healthy Western and Korean participants, with no new safety concerns identified, thus offering a useful alternative for patients currently receiving individual medications as part of their treatment regimen. Western study (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05266404) and Korean study (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05453786).

In a secondary analysis comparing the effect of insulin glargine, glimepiride, liraglutide, and sitagliptin, added to metformin, on the incidences of microvascular complications and death, no material between-group differences were seen.

Objective To evaluate the effects of empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and metformin on the glycemic indices and cardiometabolic control of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Results The significant changes in FBS from baseline to week 12 were − 23.1, -16.15, and − 15.25 mg/dl in the empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and metformin arm, respectively. HbA1C decreased significantly from baseline to week 12 in the empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and metformin arm (-1.8, -1.35, -0.69%). The FBS and HbA1C changes were significant in the empagliflozin group compared to the metformin group ( P  = 0.027, P  = 0.037, respectively). The weight changes were substantial in the empagliflozin group relative to the metformin group (-4.1 vs. -0.90 kg; p  = 0.044). Compared with the metformin group, the adjusted mean difference in the empagliflozin group was − 12.91 mg/dl (95% CI: 31.82, 6; P  = 0.001) for triglyceride (TG) levels and 6.47 mg/dl (95% CI: 2.93, 10.01; P  = 0.010) for high-density lipoprotein (HDL-c) levels. Moreover, empagliflozin led to reductions in SBP about − 8.27 mm Hg (95% CI: -13.31, -3.23; P  = 0.001) and in DBP about − 13.37 mm Hg (95% CI: -16.42, -10.32; P  = 0.001) compared with metformin. Trail registration number IRCT. ir (IRCT20191231045959N1). Trail registration date 2020-01-19.

Abstract Purpose Impaired incretin secretion may contribute to the defective insulin secretion and abnormal glucose tolerance (AGT) that associate with worse clinical outcomes in pancreatic insufficient cystic fibrosis (PI-CF). The study objective was to test the hypothesis that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor-induced increases in intact incretin hormone [glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)] concentrations augment insulin secretion and glucagon suppression and lower postprandial glycemia in PI-CF with AGT. Methods 26 adults from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and University of Pennsylvania CF Center with PI-CF and AGT [defined by oral glucose tolerance test glucose (mg/dL): early glucose intolerance (1-h ≥ 155 and 2-h < 140), impaired glucose tolerance (2-h ≥ 140 and < 200 mg/dL), or diabetes (2-h ≥ 200)] were randomized to a 6-month double-blind trial of DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin 100 mg daily or matched placebo; 24 completed the trial (n = 12 sitagliptin; n = 12 placebo). Main outcome measures were mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) responses for intact GLP-1 and GIP, insulin secretory rates (ISRs), glucagon suppression, and glycemia and glucose-potentiated arginine (GPA) test-derived measures of β- and α-cell function. Results Following 6-months of sitagliptin vs placebo, MMTT intact GLP-1 and GIP responses increased (P < 0.001), ISR dynamics improved (P < 0.05), and glucagon suppression was modestly enhanced (P < 0.05) while GPA test responses for glucagon were lower. No improvements in glucose tolerance or β-cell sensitivity to glucose, including for second-phase insulin response, were found. Conclusions In glucose intolerant PI-CF, sitagliptin intervention augmented meal-related incretin responses with improved early insulin secretion and glucagon suppression without affecting postprandial glycemia.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have pleotropic anti-inflammatory and immune regulatory effects in addition to glucoregulation. We evaluated inflammation and immune markers in suppressed human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection during treatment with the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin. Virologically suppressed adults with HIV without diabetes on stable antiretroviral therapy (ART) with ≥100/μL CD4 cells were randomized to 16 weeks of sitagliptin 100 mg/day vs placebo in a multicenter trial. The primary endpoint was the change in plasma soluble CD14 (sCD14) from baseline to week 15-16. Ninety participants were randomized, and 42 from each arm were included in per-protocol analyses. Participants were 45% non-Hispanic white, 38% non-Hispanic black, and 15% Hispanic, with a median age of 51 years; 83% were male; and the median CD4 count was 602 cells/μL. At week 15-16, there was no difference in sCD14 change between the 2 arms (P = .69). Relative to placebo, the sitagliptin arm had 47% greater decline in CXCL10 (95% confidence interval, -57% to -35%) at week 15 (P < .001). There were no significant between-arm differences in other soluble biomarkers, total CD4 and CD8 counts, or markers of lymphocyte or monocyte activation. Sitagliptin was well tolerated. Sixteen weeks of sitagliptin had no effect on sCD14 levels in virologically suppressed participants with HIV. CXCL10, a chemokine involved in atherogenesis that predicts non-AIDS events during ART, declined markedly with sitagliptin. This suggests that DPP-4 inhibition has the potential to reduce cardiovascular morbidity in treated HIV infection. NCT01426438.

Aims/hypothesis Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition has beneficial effects on various metabolic indicators in diabetes. Stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1) is expressed in diverse organs including the kidneys and is cleaved and inactivated by DPP-4 enzyme. The aim of this study was to conduct a randomised controlled trial to assess the effect of sitagliptin on diabetic nephropathy when used as an add-on therapy to the advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system in adolescents with type 1 diabetes and nephropathy. Methods This open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial took place at the Pediatric Diabetes Clinic, Ain Shams University, Egypt. Forty-six adolescents aged 14.13 ± 2.43 years on the MiniMed 780G system for at least 6 months before study, with HbA 1c ≤69 mmol/mol (8.5%) and diabetic nephropathy in the form of microalbuminuria, were randomly assigned to two groups ( n =23 for each) based on a computer-generated randomisation sequence. The intervention group received oral sitagliptin 50 mg for 3 months. The other group used AHCL only and served as a control group. The primary outcome measure was the change in urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) after 3 months of administration of sitagliptin. The key secondary outcome measure was the change from baseline in SDF-1 levels after treatment. Results Data for all participants were analysed. No significant difference was found between the groups as regards baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics as well as AHCL system settings ( p >0.05). Serum SDF-1 levels were higher in all individuals with type 1 diabetes vs healthy control individuals ( p <0.001). After 3 months, sitagliptin resulted in a significant decrease of SDF-1 levels from 3.58 ± 0.73 to 1.99 ± 0.76 ng/ml ( p <0.001), together with improvement of UACR from 7.27 ± 2.41 to 1.32 ± 0.31 mg/mmol ( p <0.001). In addition, sitagliptin reduced postprandial glucose, sensor glucose, coefficient of variation and total daily dose of insulin, while time in range 3.9–10.0 mmol/l (70–180 mg/dl) and insulin-to-carbohydrate ratio were significantly increased. Sitagliptin was safe and well-tolerated without severe hypoglycaemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. Conclusions/interpretation Sitagliptin as an add-on therapy to AHCL had a reno-protective effect for individuals with type 1 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy, in addition to the improvement of time in range while reducing glycaemic variability and without compromising safety. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06115460. Graphical abstract

To compare the efficacy and safety of basal-plus (BP) insulin regimen with or without sitagliptin in non-critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This open-label, randomized clinical trial included inpatients with a previous diagnosis of T2D and blood glucose (BG) between 180 and 400 mg/dL. Participants received basal and correctional insulin doses (BP regimen) either with or without sitagliptin. The primary outcome was the difference in the mean daily BG among the groups. Seventy-six patients (mean age 60 years, 64 % men) were randomized. Compared with BP insulin therapy alone, the sitagliptin-BP combination led to a lower mean daily BG (158.8 vs 175.0 mg/dL, P = 0.014), a higher percentage of readings within a BG range of 70–180 mg/dL (75.9 % vs 64.7 %, P < 0.001), and a lower number of BG readings >180 mg/dL (P < 0.001). Sitagliptin-BP resulted in fewer basal and supplementary insulin doses (P = 0.024 and P = 0.017, respectively) and lower daily insulin injections (P = 0.023) than those with insulin alone. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia was similar in the two groups. For inpatients with T2D and hyperglycemia, the sitagliptin and BP regimen combination is safe and more effective than insulin therapy alone. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05579119 [Display omitted] •Previous studies have found that basal and correctional insulin doses (basal-plus regimen) with sitagliptin are similar to the basal-bolus insulin regimen in managing hyperglycemia in a hospital setting. However, whether this combination is better than basal-plus regimen alone is unclear.•Our research showed that combining sitagliptin with a basal-plus insulin regimen leads to lower daily blood glucose levels, a comparable risk of hypoglycemia, and lower insulin doses than the basal-plus regimen alone.•These results are significant because using DPP-4 inhibitors with basal-plus insulin therapy simplifies hospital diabetes management for healthcare professionals, improves treatment adherence, and, by extension, leads to better patient outcomes.