scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Canagliflozin Compared With Sitagliptin for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Who Do Not Have Adequate Glycemic Control With Metformin Plus Sulfonylurea A 52-week randomized trial

TL;DR: Findings suggest that canagliflozin may be a new therapeutic tool providing better improvement in glycemic control and body weight reduction than sitagliptin, but with increased genital infections in subjects with type 2 diabetes using metformin plus sulfonylurea.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, compared with sitagliptin in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin plus sulfonylurea. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study, subjects using stable metformin plus sulfonylurea ( N = 755) received canagliflozin 300 mg or sitagliptin 100 mg daily. Primary end point was change from baseline in A1C at 52 weeks. Secondary end points included change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and systolic blood pressure (BP), and percent change in body weight, triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol. Safety was assessed based on adverse event (AE) reports. RESULTS At 52 weeks, canagliflozin 300 mg demonstrated noninferiority and, in a subsequent assessment, showed superiority to sitagliptin 100 mg in reducing A1C (−1.03% [−11.3 mmol/mol] and −0.66% [−7.2 mmol/mol], respectively; least squares mean difference between groups, −0.37% [95% CI, −0.50 to −0.25] or −4.0 mmol/mol [−5.5 to −2.7]). Greater reductions in FPG, body weight, and systolic BP were observed with canagliflozin versus sitagliptin ( P CONCLUSION Findings suggest that canagliflozin may be a new therapeutic tool providing better improvement in glycemic control and body weight reduction than sitagliptin, but with increased genital infections in subjects with type 2 diabetes using metformin plus sulfonylurea.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This briefer article should be read as an addendum to the previous full account on the management of hyperglycemia, which described the need to individualize both treatment targets and treatment strategies with an emphasis on patient-centered care and shared decision making.
Abstract: In 2012, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) published a position statement on the management of hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (1,2). This was needed because of an increasing array of antihyperglycemic drugs and growing uncertainty regarding their proper selection and sequence. Because of a paucity of comparative effectiveness research on long-term treatment outcomes with many of these medications, the 2012 publication was less prescriptive than prior consensus reports. We previously described the need to individualize both treatment targets and treatment strategies, with an emphasis on patient-centered care and shared decision making, and this continues to be our position, although there are now more head-to-head trials that show slight variance between agents with regard to glucose-lowering effects. Nevertheless, these differences are often small and would be unlikely to reflect any definite differential effect in an individual patient. The ADA and EASD have requested an update to the position statement incorporating new data from recent clinical trials. Between June and September of 2014, the Writing Group reconvened, including one face-to-face meeting, to discuss the changes. An entirely new statement was felt to be unnecessary. Instead, the group focused on those areas where revisions were suggested by a changing evidence base. This briefer article should therefore be read as an addendum to the previous full account (1,2). Glucose control remains a major focus in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes. However, this should always be in the context of a comprehensive cardiovascular risk factor reduction program, to include smoking cessation and the adoption of other healthy lifestyle habits, blood pressure control, lipid management with priority to statin medications, and, in some circumstances, antiplatelet therapy. Studies have conclusively determined that reducing hyperglycemia decreases the onset and progression of …

2,553 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors may improve short-term outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes, but effects on long- term outcomes and safety are unclear.
Abstract: Background Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a new class of antidiabetic drugs. Purpose To assess the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in adults with type 2 diabetes. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception through April 2013 without language restrictions; regulatory authorities' reports; and gray literature. Study selection Randomized trials comparing SGLT2 inhibitors with placebo or other medication for type 2 diabetes. Data extraction Three reviewers extracted or checked data for study characteristics, outcomes of interest, and risk of bias, and 3 reviewers summarized strength of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data synthesis Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors were compared with placebo in 45 studies (n = 11 232) and with active comparators in 13 studies (n = 5175). They had a favorable effect on hemoglobin A1c level (mean difference vs. placebo, -0.66% [95% CI, -0.73% to -0.58%]; mean difference vs. active comparators, -0.06% [CI, -0.18% to 0.05%]). Sensitivity analyses incorporating unpublished data showed similar effect estimates. Compared with other agents, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced body weight (mean difference, -1.80 kg [CI, -3.50 to -0.11 kg]) and systolic blood pressure (mean difference, -4.45 mm Hg [CI, -5.73 to -3.18 mm Hg]). Urinary and genital tract infections were more common with SGLT2 inhibitors (odds ratios, 1.42 [CI, 1.06 to 1.90] and 5.06 [CI, 3.44 to 7.45], respectively). Hypoglycemic risk was similar to that of other agents. Results for cardiovascular outcomes and death were inconclusive. An imbalance in incidence of bladder and breast cancer was noted with dapagliflozin compared with control. Limitation Most trials were rated as high risk of bias because of missing data and last-observation-carried-forward methods. Conclusion Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors may improve short-term outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes, but effects on long-term outcomes and safety are unclear. Primary funding source None.

705 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A briefer article on the management of hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes, with an emphasis on patientcentered care and shared decision making, is read as an addendum to the previous full account.
Abstract: In 2012, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) published a position statement on the management of hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (1,2). This was needed because of an increasing array of antihyperglycemic drugs and growing uncertainty regarding their proper selection and sequence. Because of a paucity of comparative effectiveness research on longterm treatment outcomeswithmanyof thesemedications, the 2012publicationwas less prescriptive than prior consensus reports. We previously described the need to individualize both treatment targets and treatment strategies, with an emphasis on patientcentered care and shared decision making, and this continues to be our position, although therearenowmorehead-to-head trials that showslight variancebetweenagents with regard to glucose-lowering effects. Nevertheless, these differences are often small and would be unlikely to reflect any definite differential effect in an individual patient. The ADA and EASD have requested an update to the position statement incorporating new data from recent clinical trials. Between June and September of 2014, the Writing Group reconvened, including one face-to-facemeeting, to discuss the changes. An entirely new statement was felt to be unnecessary. Instead, the group focused on those areas where revisions were suggested by a changing evidence base. This briefer article should therefore be read as an addendum to the previous full account (1,2).

637 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Findings support the use of canagliflozin as a viable treatment option for patients who do not achieve sufficient glycaemic control with metformin therapy, and provide greater HbA1c reduction than does glimepiride, and is well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving meetformin.

617 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.
Abstract: D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

4,266 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Properties of currently available glucose-lowering agents that may guide treatment choice in individual patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are explored.
Abstract: Erratum to: DiabetologiaDOI 10.1007/s00125-012-2534-0In the text box ‘Properties of currently available glucose-lowering agents that may guide treatment choice in individualpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus ’ vildagliptin was incor-rectly assigned footnote ‘a’ (Limited use in the USA/Europe)instead of footnote ‘b’ (Not licensed in the USA).

4,126 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The new standards set by the American Diabetes Association in 2011 recommend universal screening at 24–28 weeks of gestation and an oral glucose tolerance test with a diagnostic fasting plasma glucose of ≥92 mg/dL (4.5 mmol/L) (much lower than the World Health Organization criteria).
Abstract: How to screen and treat gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) has always been controversial for clinicians and decision makers. The problem is complex, and the evidence is limited. The new standards set by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) in 2011 (1) recommend 1 ) universal screening at 24–28 weeks of gestation (2010 ADA standards recommended selective screening based on risk factors) and 2 ) an oral glucose tolerance test with a diagnostic fasting plasma glucose of ≥92 mg/dL (4.5 mmol/L) (much lower than the World Health Organization [WHO] criteria of ≥126 mg/dL [7.0 mmol/L] commonly used in clinical practice in Europe). Furthermore, diabetes is diagnosed when only one abnormal value is detected (whereas in the 2010 standards two …

3,157 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This statement has been written incorporating the best available evidence and, where solid support does not exist, using the experience and insight of the writing group, incorporating an extensive review by additional experts (acknowledged below).
Abstract: Glycemic management in type 2 diabetes mellitus has become increasingly complex and, to some extent, controversial, with a widening array of pharmacological agents now available (1–5), mounting concerns about their potential adverse effects and new uncertainties regarding the benefits of intensive glycemic control on macrovascular complications (6–9). Many clinicians are therefore perplexed as to the optimal strategies for their patients. As a consequence, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) convened a joint task force to examine the evidence and develop recommendations for antihyperglycemic therapy in nonpregnant adults with type 2 diabetes. Several guideline documents have been developed by members of these two organizations (10) and by other societies and federations (2,11–15). However, an update was deemed necessary because of contemporary information on the benefits/risks of glycemic control, recent evidence concerning efficacy and safety of several new drug classes (16,17), the withdrawal/restriction of others, and increasing calls for a move toward more patient-centered care (18,19). This statement has been written incorporating the best available evidence and, where solid support does not exist, using the experience and insight of the writing group, incorporating an extensive review by additional experts (acknowledged below). The document refers to glycemic control; yet this clearly needs to be pursued within a multifactorial risk reduction framework. This stems from the fact that patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; the aggressive management of cardiovascular …

3,001 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the properties of currently available glucose-lowering agents that may guide treatment choice in individual patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, including vildagliptin.
Abstract: Erratum to: DiabetologiaDOI 10.1007/s00125-012-2534-0In the text box ‘Properties of currently available glucose-lowering agents that may guide treatment choice in individualpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus ’ vildagliptin was incor-rectly assigned footnote ‘a’ (Limited use in the USA/Europe)instead of footnote ‘b’ (Not licensed in the USA).

2,509 citations

Related Papers (5)