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
机构:[1]The General Hospital of the People’s Liberation Army, Beijing, China[2]Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China中国医科大学附属盛京医院中国医科大学盛京医院[3]The First Affiliated Hospital of the Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China[4]First Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University College of Medicine, Hangzhou, China浙江大学医学院附属第一医院[5]Beijing Tongren Hospital, Beijing, China首都医科大学附属北京同仁医院首都医科大学附属同仁医院[6]Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China[7]Affiliated Jingzhou Hospital Tongji Medical School, Wuhan, China[8]Taipei Medical University Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan[9]The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
Background: 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. Methods: In this Phase 3 multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled 16-week trial, 506 patients were randomized to receive once-daily alogliptin 25mg or placebo: 185 in the monotherapy group, 197 in the add-on to metformin group, and 124 in the add-on to pioglitazone group. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline (CFB) in HbA1c at Week 16; other efficacy measures included CFB to Week 16 in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), incidence of marked hyperglycemia (FPG 11.1mmol/L), and the incidence of clinical HbA1c 6.5% (48mmol/mol) and 7.0% (53mmol/mol) at Week 16. Safety was assessed throughout the trial. Results: Alogliptin monotherapy provided a significantly greater decrease in HbA1c from baseline to Week 16 compared with placebo (-0.58%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.78%, -0.37%; P < 0.001). As an add-on to metformin or pioglitazone, alogliptin also significantly decreased HbA1c compared with placebo (-0.69% [95% CI -0.87%, -0.51%; P < 0.001] and -0.52% [95% CI -0.75%, -0.28%; P < 0.001], respectively). In any treatment group versus placebo, alogliptin led to greater decreases in FPG (P0.004) and a higher percentage of patients who achieved an HbA1c target of <= 6.5% and <= 7.0% (P <= 0.003). No weight gain was observed in any treatment group. A similar percentage of patients experienced drug-related, treatment-emergent adverse events in the alogliptin and placebo arms. Four and two patients in the alogliptin and placebo arms, respectively, experienced mild or moderate hypoglycemia. Conclusions: Alogliptin 25mg once daily reduced HbA1c and FPG and enhanced clinical response compared with placebo when used as monotherapy or as an add-on to metformin or pioglitazone. Therapy with alogliptin was well tolerated.
基金:
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company (Beijing, China)Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd; Takeda PharmaceuticalsTakeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd
第一作者机构:[1]The General Hospital of the People’s Liberation Army, Beijing, China
通讯作者:
通讯机构:[9]The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China.[*1]Department of Endocrinology,Chinese People's Liberation General Hospital, No. 28 Fu Xing Road, Beijing 100853, China
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714):
Pan Changyu,Han Ping,Ji Qiuhe,et al.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[J].JOURNAL OF DIABETES.2017,9(4):386-395.doi:10.1111/1753-0407.12425.
APA:
Pan, Changyu,Han, Ping,Ji, Qiuhe,Li, Chengjiang,Lu, Juming...&Chan, Juliana.(2017).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.JOURNAL OF DIABETES,9,(4)
MLA:
Pan, Changyu,et al."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".JOURNAL OF DIABETES 9..4(2017):386-395