Search

Aims: To demonstrate the noninferiority of alogliptin to acarbose, in terms of antidiabetic efficacy, in Chinese people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D) and high cardiovascular risk. Materials and Methods: ACADEMIC (NCT03794336) was a randomized, open‐label, phase IV study conducted at 46 sites in China. Antidiabetic treatment‐naive or metformin‐treated adults with uncontrolled T2D (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 58.0–97.0 mmol/mol) were randomized 2:1 to alogliptin 25 mg once daily or acarbose 100 mg three times daily for 16 weeks. All participants had a documented history of coronary heart disease or high cardiovascular risk at screening and received aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) 100 mg daily throughout the trial. The primary endpoints were change in HbA1c versus baseline, and the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs). Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Results: A total of 1088 participants were randomized. Alogliptin was noninferior to acarbose for the change in Week‐16 HbA1c (least‐squares mean change [standard error] –11.9 [0.4] vs. –11.4 [0.5] mmol/mol, respectively; difference between arms –0.5 [0.7] mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval –1.9 to 0.8 mmol/mol), and was associated with a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs (8.9% vs. 33.6%, respectively; P < 0.0001). More alogliptin than acarbose recipients achieved HbA1c <53.0 mmol/mol without gastrointestinal AEs (48.0% vs. 32.7%; P < 0.0001). Discontinuations due to treatment‐related AEs were less frequent with alogliptin than acarbose (0.3% vs. 2.5%). Conclusions: Glycaemic control was comparable between alogliptin and acarbose, but the gastrointestinal tolerability of alogliptin was better. More patients achieved target HbA1c without gastrointestinal AEs with alogliptin, suggesting that this agent may be preferred in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims To estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine once daily as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents ( OADs) for Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes ( T2DM). Methods The Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to simulate disease progression and estimate the long-term effects of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine once daily. Patient profiles and treatment effects required for the model were obtained from literature reviews (English and Chinese databases) and from a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials comparing exenatide twice daily with insulin glargine once daily add-on to OADs for T2DM in China. Medical expenditure data were collected from 639 patients with T2DM (aged ≥18 years) with and without complications incurred between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015 from claims databases in Shandong, China. Costs (2014 Chinese Yuan [¥]) and benefits were estimated, from the payers' perspective, over 40 years at a discount rate of 3%. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Patients on exenatide twice daily + OAD had a lower predicted incidence of most cardiovascular and hypoglycaemic events and lower total costs compared with those on insulin glargine once daily + OAD. A greater number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 1.94) at a cost saving of ¥117 706 gained was associated with exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine once daily. (i.e. cost saving of ¥60 764/ QALY) per patient. Conclusions In Chinese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by OADs, exenatide twice daily is a cost-effective add-on therapy alternative to insulin glargine once daily, and may address the problem of an excess of medical needs resulting from weight gain and hypoglycaemia in T2DM treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]