Patent Application
20120277147
Subject of the present invention is a method for the prevention of hypoglycaemia in diabetes mellitus type 2 with lixisenatide (desPro36Exendin-4(1-39)-Lys6-NH2, AVE0010) as add-on therapy to administration of a sulfonyl urea.
Metformin is a biguanide hypoglycemic agent used in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus not responding to dietary modification. Metformin improves glycemic control by improving insulin sensitivity. Metformin is usually administered orally. However, control diabetes mellitus type 2 in obese patients by metformin may be insufficient. Thus, in these patients, additional measures for controlling diabetes mellitus type 2 may be required.
Hypoglycaemia is the critical limiting factor in the glycaemic management of diabetes in both the short and long term. Despite steady improvements in the glycaemic management of diabetes, population-based data indicate that hypoglycaemia continues to be a major problem for people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes (American diabetes association, workgroup on hypoglycemia: Defining and Reporting Hypoglycemia in Diabetes. Diabetes Care 28(5), 2005, 1245-1249).
Kendall (Diabetes Care, 2005, 28(5):1083-1091) describes in a 30 week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study the effects of exendin-4 on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin and a sulfonylurea. Exendin-4 significantly reduced HbA1c in patients with type 2 diabetes unable to achieve adequate glycemic control with maximally effective doses of combined metformin-sulfonylurea therapy.
Ratner (Diabet. Med. 2010, 27:1024-1032) discloses dose-dependent effects of once-daily and twice daily lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 13 weeks study.
A first aspect of the present invention is a method for the prevention of hypoglycaemia in diabetes mellitus type 2 comprising administering
The skilled person knows suitable pharmaceutically acceptable salts of sulfonyl ureas.
In particular, the method is a method for the prevention of symptomatic hypoglycaemia or severe symptomatic hypoglycaemia in a diabetes mellitus type 2 patient.
More particular, the method of the present invention is a method for the prevention of hypoglycaemia in a diabetes type 2 patient having an increased risk of hypoglycaemia, in particular a diabetes type 2 patient having experienced at least one hypoglycaemic event. The hypoglycaemic event can be a symptomatic hypoglycaemic event or a severe symptomatic hypoglycaemic event.
In the present invention, hypoglycaemia is a condition wherein a diabetes mellitus type 2 patient experiences a plasma glucose concentration of below 60 mg/dL (or below 3.3 mmol/L), below 50 mg/dL, below 40 mg/dL, or below 36 mg/dL.
In the present invention, “symptomatic hypoglycaemia” or “symptomatic hypoglycaemic event” is a condition associated with a clinical symptom that results from the hypoglycaemia, wherein the plasma glucose concentration is below 60 mg/dL (or below 3.3 mmol/L), below 50 mg/dL, or below 40 mg/dL. A clinical symptoms can be, for example, sweating, palpitations, hunger, restlessness, anxiety, fatigue, irritability, headache, loss of concentration, somnolence, psychiatric disorders, visual disorders, transient sensory defects, transient motor defects, confusion, convulsions, and coma. In the method of the present invention, one or more clinical symptoms of symptomatic hypoglycaemia, as indicated herein, can be selected. Symptomatic hypoglycaemia may be associated with prompt recovery after oral carbohydrate administration.
In the present invention, “severe symptomatic hypoglycaemia” or “severe symptomatic hypoglycaemic event” is a condition with a clinical symptom, as indicated herein, that results from hypoglycaemia, wherein the plasma glucose concentration is below 36 mg/dL (or below 2.0 mmol/L). Severe symptomatic hypoglycaemia can be associated with acute neurological impairment resulting from the hypoglycaemic event. In a severe symptomatic hypoglycaemia, the patient may require the assistance of another person, if, for example, the patient could not treat or help him/herself due to the acute neurological impairment. The definition of severe symptomatic hypoglycaemia may include all episodes in which neurological impairment is severe enough to prevent self-treatment and which were thus thought to place patients at risk for injury to themselves or others. The acute neurological impairment may be at least one selected from somnolence, psychiatric disorders, visual disorders, transient sensory defects, transient motor defects, confusion, convulsions, and coma.
Severe symptomatic hypoglycaemia may be associated with prompt recovery after oral carbohydrate, intravenous glucose, or/and glucagon administration.
Normoglycaemia may relate to a blood plasma concentration of glucose of from 60 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL (corresponding to 3.3 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L).
It has surprisingly been found in a clinical trial that during treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 patients with lixisenatide combined with a sulfonyl urea with or without metformin, the number of hypoglycaemic events in individual patients could be reduced. One hundred twenty seven (22.1%) patients treated with lixisenatide in combination with a sulfonyl urea with or without metformin had 389 symptomatic hypoglycemia events per protocol definition during the on-treatment period for the whole study, whereas 51 (17.9%) placebo-treated patients (i.e. treated with a sulfonyl urea with or without metformin) reported 230 symptomatic hypoglycemia events during the same period (Table 24), indicating that the number of hypoglycemia events is reduced in the lixisenatide-treated patients (on average 3.06 events in those patients reporting hypoglycaemic events) compared with the placebo-treated patients (on average 4.51 events in those patients reporting hypoglycaemic events).
Two (0.3%) patients treated with lixisenatide in combination with a sulfonyl urea with or without metformin had severe symptomatic hypoglycemia events during the on-treatment period for the whole study, whereas 1 (0.4%) placebo-treated patient (i.e. treated with a sulfonyl urea with or without metformin) reported a severe symptomatic hypoglycemia during the same period (Table 25).
These results indicate that the combination of lixisenatide and a sulfonyl urea with or without metformin can be used for the prevention of hypoglycaemia.
The compounds of (a) and (b) may be administered to a subject in need thereof, in an amount sufficient to induce a therapeutic effect.
The compound desPro36Exendin-4(1-39)-Lys6-NH2 (AVE0010, lixisenatide) is a derivative of Exendin-4. AVE0010 is disclosed as SEQ ID NO:93 in WO 01/04156:
Exendins are a group of peptides which can lower blood glucose concentration. The Exendin analogue AVE0010 is characterised by C-terminal truncation of the native Exendin-4 sequence. AVE0010 comprises six C-terminal lysine residues not present in Exendin-4.
In the context of the present invention, AVE0010 includes pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof. The person skilled in the art knows pharmaceutically acceptable salts of AVE0010. A preferred pharmaceutically acceptable salt of AVE0010 employed in the present invention is acetate.
AVE0010 (desPro36Exendin-4(1-39)-Lys6-NH2) or/and a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof may be administered by subcutaneous injection. Suitable injection devices, for instance the so-called “pens” comprising a cartridge comprising the active ingredient, and an injection needle, are known. AVE0010 or/and a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof may be administered in a suitable amount, for instance in an amount in the range of 10 to 15 μg per dose or 15 to 20 μg per dose once a day (progressive titration from 10 to 15 and to 20 μg/day. 20 μg is the effective maintenance dose).
In the present invention, AVE0010 or/and a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof may be administered in a daily dose in the range of 10 to 15 μg or in the range of 15 to 20 μg once a day (progressive titration from 10 to 15 and to 20 μg/day. 20 μg is the effective maintenance dose). AVE0010 or/and a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof may be administered by one injection per day.
In the present invention, a liquid composition comprising desPro36Exendin-4(1-39)-Lys6-NH2 or/and a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof may be employed. The skilled person knows liquid compositions of AVE0010 suitable for parenteral administration. A liquid composition of the present invention may have an acidic or a physiologic pH. An acidic pH preferably is in the range of pH 1-6.8, pH 3.5-6.8, or pH 3.5-5. A physiologic pH preferably is in the range of pH 2.5-8.5, pH 4.0 to 8.5, or pH 6.0 to 8.5. The pH may be adjusted by a pharmaceutically acceptable diluted acid (typically HCl) or pharmaceutically acceptable diluted base (typically NaOH). The preferred pH is in the range of pH 3.5 to 5.0.
The liquid composition may contain a buffer, such as a phosphate, a citrate, an acetate. Preferably, it can contain an acetate buffer, in quantities up to 5 μg/mL, up to 4 μg/mL or up to 2 μg/mL.
The liquid composition of the present invention may comprise a suitable preservative. A suitable preservative may be selected from phenol, m-cresol, benzyl alcohol and p-hydroxybenzoic acid ester. A preferred preservative is m-cresol.
The liquid composition of the present invention may comprise a tonicity agent. A suitable tonicity agent may be selected from glycerol, lactose, sorbitol, mannitol, glucose, NaCl, calcium or magnesium containing compounds such as CaCl2. The concentration of glycerol, lactose, sorbitol, mannitol and glucose may be in the range of 100-250 mM. The concentration of NaCl may be up to 150 mM. A preferred tonicity agent is glycerol.
In addition, the liquid composition may contain L-methionin from 0.5 μg/mL to 20 μg/mL, preferably from 1 μg/mL to 5 μg/mL. Preferably, it contains L-methionin.
In the present invention, the sulfonyl urea may be administered orally. The skilled person knows formulations of a sulfonyl urea suitable for treatment of diabetes type 2 by oral administration. For oral administration, the sulfonyl urea may be formulated in a solid dosage form, such as a tablet or pill.
In the present invention, desPro36Exendin-4(1-39)-Lys6-NH2 or/and a pharmaceutically acceptable salt can be administered in an add-on therapy to administration of a sulfonyl urea.
In the present invention, the terms “add-on”, “add-on treatment” and “add-on therapy” include a treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 with a sulfonyl urea and AVE0010. The sulfonyl urea and AVE0010 may be administered within a time interval of 24 h. The sulfonyl urea and AVE0010 each may be administered in a once-a-day-dosage. The sulfonyl urea and AVE0010 may be administered by different administration routes. The sulfonyl urea may be administered orally, and AVE0010 may be administered subcutaneously.
In the present invention, the sulfonyl urea can be selected from Glibenclamide, Glibenclamide MR, Gliclazide, Gliclazide LM, Glimepiride, Glipizide, Glipizide XL, Gliquidone, and Tolbutamide.
In the present invention, the sulfonyl urea may be Glibenclamide, Glibenclamide MR, Gliclazide, Gliclazide LM, Glimepiride, Glipizide, Glipizide XL, Gliquidone, or Tolbutamide.
A preferred dose of Glibenclamide is ≦10 mg/day, 10-20 mg/day, or ≧20 mg/day.
A preferred dose of Glibenclamide MR is ≦6 mg/day, 6-12 mg/day, or ≧12 mg/day.
A preferred dose of Gliclazide is ≦160 mg/day, 160-320 mg/day, or ≧320 mg/day.
A preferred dose of Gliclazide LM is ≦60 mg/day, 60-120 mg/day, or ≧120 mg/day.
A preferred dose of Glimepiride is ≦4 mg/day, 4-8 mg/day, or ≧8 mg/day.
A preferred dose of Glipizide is ≦20 mg/day, 20-40 mg/day, or ≧40 mg/day.
A preferred dose of Glipizide XL is mg/day, ≦10-20 mg/day, or ≧20 mg/day.
A preferred dose of Gliquidone is ≦60 mg/day, 60-90 mg/day, or ≧90 mg/day.
A preferred dose of Tolbutamide is ≦500 mg/day, or ≧500 mg/day.
The method of the present invention preferably is a method of treatment of a subject suffering from diabetes type 2, wherein diabetes type 2 is not adequately controlled by treatment with sulfonyl urea alone, for instance by treatment for at least 3 months.
For example, a treatment with Glibenclamide alone with a dose of 10 mg/day, 10-20 mg/day, or ≦20 mg/day may be insufficient for adequate control of diabetes type 2.
For example, a treatment with Glibenclamide MR alone with a dose of mg/day, 6-12 mg/day, or ≧12 mg/day may be insufficient for adequate control of diabetes type 2.
For example, a treatment with Gliclazide alone with a dose of ≦160 mg/day, 160-320 mg/day, or ≧320 mg/day may be insufficient for adequate control of diabetes type 2.
For example, a treatment with Gliclazide LM alone with a dose of ≦60 mg/day, 60-120 mg/day, or ≧120 mg/day may be insufficient for adequate control of diabetes type 2.
For example, a treatment with Glimepiride alone with a dose of ≦4 mg/day, 4-8 mg/day, or 8 mg/day may be insufficient for adequate control of diabetes type 2.
For example, a treatment with Glipizide alone with a dose of ≦20 mg/day, 20-40 mg/day, or ≧40 mg/day may be insufficient for adequate control of diabetes type 2.
For example, a treatment with Glipizide XL alone with a dose of ≦10 mg/day, 10-20 mg/day, or ≧20 mg/day may be insufficient for adequate control of diabetes type 2.
For example, a treatment with Gliquidone alone with a dose of ≦60 mg/day, 60-90 mg/day, or ≧90 mg/day may be insufficient for adequate control of diabetes type 2.
For example, a treatment with Tolbutamide alone with a dose of ≦1500 mg/day or ≧1500 mg/day may be insufficient for adequate control of diabetes type 2.
The method of the present may further comprise the administration of (c) metformin or/and a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
Metformin is the international non proprietary name of 1,1-dimethylbiguanide (CAS Number 657-24-9). In the present invention, the term “metformin” includes any pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof.
In the present invention, metformin or/and the pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof may be administered orally. The skilled person knows formulations of metformin suitable for treatment of diabetes type 2 by oral administration. Metformin may be administered in a dose of at least 1.0 g/day or at least 1.5 g/day. For oral administration, metformin may be formulated in a solid dosage form, such as a tablet or pill.
In the present invention, the terms “add-on”, “add-on treatment” and “add-on therapy” include treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 with a sulfonyl urea, AVE0010 and metformin. The sulfonyl urea, metformin and AVE0010 may be administered within a time interval of 24 h. The sulfonyl urea, metformin and AVE0010 each may be administered in a once-a-day-dosage. The sulfonyl urea, metformin and AVE0010 may be administered by different administration routes. The sulfonyl urea, and metformin may be administered orally, and AVE0010 may be administered subcutaneously.
The method of the present invention preferably is a method of treatment of a subject suffering from diabetes type 2, wherein diabetes type 2 is not adequately controlled by treatment with a combination of a sulfonyl urea and metformin alone, for instance with a dose of ≦1500 mg/day metformin, ≧1500-≦2500 mg/day metformin, ≧2500-≦3000 mg/day metformin, or ≧3000 mg/day metformin for at least 3 months. The sulfonyl urea may be selected from sulfonyl ureas described herein. The dose of the sulfonyl urea may be a dose as indicated herein.
The subject to be treated by the method of the present invention suffering from diabetes type 2 may be an obese subject. In the present invention, an obese subject may have a body mass index of at least 30.
The subject to be treated by the method of the present invention may have a HbA1c value of at least 8%, In particular, the subject to be treated by the method of the present invention may have a HbA1c value in the range of 8% to 10%.
In the present invention, a subject the diabetes type 2 of which is not adequately controlled may have a HbA1c value in the range of 8% to 10%.
After treatment by the method of the present invention or with the combination of the present invention, the HbA1c value may reach a value below 8%, below 7% or below 6.5%. These HbA1c values may be reached by treatment for at least 3 months.
The subject to be treated by the method of the present invention may be an adult subject. The subject may have an age in the range of 18 to 50 years.
Another aspect of the present invention is a pharmaceutical combination comprising
Preferably, the pharmaceutical combination of the present invention is for use in the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2.
Preferably, the combination of the present invention is for use in the prevention of hypoglycaemia, as described herein, in diabetes mellitus type 2 patients.
More preferably the combination of the present invention is for use in the prevention of hypoglycaemia in a diabetes type 2 patient having an increased risk of hypoglycaemia, in particular a diabetes type 2 patient having experienced at least one hypoglycaemic event. The hypoglycaemic event can be a symptomatic hypoglycaemic event or a severe symptomatic hypoglycaemic event.
The pharmaceutical combination of the present invention may be administered as described herein in the context of the method of the present invention. The compounds (a) and (b) of the combination of the present invention may be formulated as described herein in the context of the method of the present invention.
In the pharmaceutical combination of the present invention desPro36Exendin-4(1-39)-Lys6-NH2 or/and the pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof can be prepared for subcutaneous administration.
In the pharmaceutical combination of the present invention the sulfonyl urea or/and the pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof can be prepared for oral administration.
The pharmaceutical combination may further comprise (c) metformin or/and a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof. In the pharmaceutical combination, metformin may be prepared for oral administration, as described herein.
In the pharmaceutical combination, the sulfonyl urea can be selected from Glibenclamide, Glibenclamide MR, Gliclazide, Gliclazide LM, Glimepiride, Glipizide, Glipizide XL, Gliquidone, and Tolbutamide.
A specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010 and Glibenclamide.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010 and Glibenclamide MR.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010 and Gliclazide.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010 and Gliclazide LM.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010 and Glimepiride.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010 and Glipizide.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010 and Glipizide XL.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010 and Gliquidone.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010 and Tolbutamide.
A specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010, Glibenclamide and Metformin.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010, Glibenclamide MR and Metformin.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010, Gliclazide and Metformin.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010, Gliclazide LM and Metformin.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010, Glimepiride and Metformin.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010, Glipizide and Metformin.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010, Glipizide XL and Metformin.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010, Gliquidone and Metformin.
Another specific combination of the present invention comprises AVE0010, Tolbutamide and Metformin.
Dosages of the compounds in the specific combinations of the present invention may be selected as described herein.
The pharmaceutical combination of the present invention can be used in the prevention of hypoglycaemia, as described herein, in diabetes mellitus type 2 patients.
The pharmaceutical combination of the present invention can be used in the glycemic control in diabetes mellitus type 2 patients. In the present Example, Table 11 summarizes the results of the primary efficacy parameter, change from baseline to week 24 (LOCF) in HbA1c using an ANCOVA analysis. The pre-specified primary analysis showed that treatment with lixisenatide combined with a sulfonyl urea with or without metformin (also termed herein “lixisenatide-treated group”, “lixisenatide group” or “lixisenatide-treated patients”) resulted in a statistically significant decrease in HbA1c from baseline to week 24, compared with the placebo group (LS mean difference versus the placebo group=−0.74%; pvalue <0.0001). The placebo group received a sulfonyl urea with or without metformin. Table 12 summarizes the proportion of patients with treatment response (HbA1c≦6.5% or <7% at week 24, respectively). The analysis of HbA1c responders using the CMH method showed a significant treatment difference versus placebo for the lixisenatide-treated group (pvalue <0.0001). At week 24, 19.3% of lixisenatide-treated patients and 4.7% of placebo-treated patients had achieved HbA1c values ≦6.5%; 36.4% of patients in the lixisenatide group and 13.5% of patients in the placebo group had achieved HbA1c values <7%.
In particular, the pharmaceutical combination of the present invention can be used in the reduction of post-prandial plasma glucose concentration or/and in the reduction of fasting plasma glucose concentration. More particular, the pharmaceutical combination of the present invention can be use in the reduction of post-prandial plasma glucose concentration and in the reduction of fasting plasma glucose concentration. Tables 13, 14, and 17 summarize the ANCOVA analyses of 2-hour post-prandial plasma glucose concentration, fasting plasma glucose concentration (FPG), and NOMA-13, respectively.
The results of the 2-hour post-prandial plasma glucose assessment showed a statistically significant improvement from baseline to week 24 in the lixisenatide group (lixisenatide combined with a sulfonyl urea with or without metformin) compared with the placebo group (sulfonyl urea with or without metformin) (LS mean difference versus placebo=5.98 mmol/L; p-value <0.0001, Table 13). For FPG, a statistically significant decrease from baseline to week 24 was observed in lixisenatide group compared with the placebo group (LS mean difference versus placebo=0.63 mmol/L; p-value <0.0001, Table 14). Treatment with lixisenatide substantially decreased glucose excursion from baseline to week 24 compared with the placebo group (LS mean difference=−5.57 mmol/L, 95% CI=−6.397 to −4.744) as shown in Table 19.
The pharmaceutical combination of the present invention can be used in the induction of weight loss in diabetes mellitus type 2 patients or/and in the prevention of weight gain in diabetes mellitus type 2 patients. Table 15 summarizes the ANCOVA analyses of body weight.
The LS mean body weight change from baseline at week 24 was −1.76 kg for the lixisenatide-treated patients (lixisenatide combined with a sulfonyl urea with or without metformin) and −0.93 kg for the placebo-treated patients (sulfonyl urea with or without metformin) (LS mean difference versus placebo=−0.84 kg) with statistically significant difference observed between treatment groups (pvalue <0.0001). Body weight continued to decrease after the 24 week main treatment period in both treatments (
The invention is further illustrated by the following Figures and Example.
For Week 24 (LOCF), the analysis included measurements obtained up to 3 days after the last dose of the double-blind investigational product injection on or before Visit 12 (Week 24), or Day 169 if Visit 12 (Week 24) is not available.
This example describes a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-arm, parallel-group, multinational study assessing the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide in comparison to placebo as an add-on treatment to sulfonylurea in combination with or without metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. The approximate minimum study duration per patient was 79 weeks (up to 3 weeks screening+24-week main treatment+variable extension+3 days follow-up). The study was conducted in 136 centers in 16 countries. The primary objective of the study was to assess the efficacy of lixisenatide on glycemic control in comparison to placebo in terms of HbA1c reduction (absolute change) over a period of 24 weeks.
A total of 859 patients were randomized to one of the two treatment groups (573 in the lixisenatide group and 286 in the placebo group). All randomized patients were exposed to the study treatment. Demographics and baseline characteristics were generally similar across the treatment groups. Eleven patients (9 patients on lixisenatide and 2 patients on placebo) were excluded from the mITT population for efficacy analyses due to lack of post-baseline efficacy data. During the overall study treatment period, 259 (30.2%) patients prematurely discontinued the study treatment. The percentages of patients who discontinued the treatment were similar between treatment groups (30.9% for lixisenatide and 28.7% for placebo). For the lixisenatide group, the main reason for treatment discontinuation was “adverse events” (12.4% versus 8.0% for placebo) followed by “other reasons” (11.7% versus 9.1% for placebo).
The least squared (LS) mean changes from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c were −0.85% for the lixisenatide group and −0.10% for the placebo group (LS mean difference vs. placebo=−0.74%; p-value <0.0001). A total of 198 patients (36.4%) in the lixisenatide group had HbA1c<7% at week 24 compared to 37 patients (13.5%) in the placebo group, and 105 (19.3%) of lixisenatide-treated patients had HBA1c≦6.5% compared to 13 (4.7%) of placebo-treated patients. The HbA1c responder analysis (HbA1c≦6.5 or <7% at week 24) using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method also showed a significant treatment difference versus placebo for lixisenatide group at week 24 (p-value <0.0001).
Treatment with lixisenatide also improved post-prandial glycemic control as shown by the results for the 2-hour post-prandial plasma glucose (PPG) assessment and for glucose excursion. A statistically significant improvement in PPG was demonstrated in the lixisenatide group, compared with the placebo group with a LS mean difference of −5.98 mmol/L (p-value <0.0001). Furthermore, treatment with lixisenatide demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in fasting plasma glucose (LS mean difference of −0.63 mmol/L; p-value <0.0001) and body weight (LS mean difference of −0.84 kg; p-value <0.0001) compared with the placebo group. For β-cell function assessed by NOMA-β, no significant difference was observed between treatment groups per a pre-specified parametric analysis. Since the normality assumption for the parametric model was violated, a sensitivity analysis using a nonparametric model was performed and it showed a statistically significant difference (p-value=0.0011) The percentage of patients requiring rescue therapy was statistically significantly lower for the lixisenatide group compared to placebo (20 patients [3.5%] in the lixisenatide group and 34 patients [12.0%] in the placebo group) without an adjustment for multiplicity.
Lixisenatide was well tolerated. The incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was higher in the lixisenatide group compared to the placebo group (81.5% in the lixisenatide group compared with 75.8% in the placebo group), which was mainly attributable to a difference in TEAE coming from the Primary System Organ Class “Gastrointestinal Disorders”, mainly nausea (28.0% in the lixisenatide group compared with 8.8% in the placebo group) and vomiting (10.6% in the lixisenatide group compared with 5.3% in the placebo group). Two patients in the lixisenatide group had TEAEs leading to death. Ninety three serious TEAEs occurred during the on-treatment period for the whole study with a slightly lower incidence rate in the lixisenatide group (10.1%) compared to the placebo group (12.3%). The most commonly reported TEAE for lixisenatide-treated patients was nausea (28.0% versus 8.8% for placebo-treated patients) followed by hypoglycemia (24.6% versus 19.3% for placebo-treated patients). One hundred twenty seven (22.1%) lixisenatide-treated patients had symptomatic hypoglycemia events as defined in the protocol during the on-treatment period whereas 51 (17.9%) patients in the placebo group reported symptomatic hypoglycemia during the same period. Three of the symptomatic hypoglycemia events were severe (2 patients [0.3%] in the lixisenatide group and 1 patient [0.4%] in the placebo group). A total of 12 patients (11 [1.9%] lixisenatide-treated patients and 1 [0.4%] placebo-treated patient) reported events adjudicated as an allergic reaction by the Allergic Reaction Assessment Committee (ARAC) but only one (lixisenatide-treated patient) of these (local reaction) was adjudicated as possibly related to the investigational product.
The primary objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of lixisenatide on glycemic control in comparison to placebo as an add-on treatment to sulfonylurea, with or without metformin, in terms of absolute HbA1c reduction over a period of 24 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes.
The secondary objectives of this study were:
This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 2-arm, parallel-group multinational study with an unbalanced 2:1 randomization ratio (i.e., 570 lixisenatide and 285 placebo treated patients). The study was double-blind with regard to active and placebo treatments. The study drug volume (i.e., dose of active drug or matching placebo) was not blinded.
The patients were stratified by screening values of glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (<8%, ≧8%) and metformin use at screening (Yes, No). After a screening period, patients were centrally randomized via interactive voice response system (IVRS) in a 2:1 ratio to either lixisenatide or placebo.
Per the protocol amendment 4, the approximate minimum study duration per patient was 79 weeks (up to 3 weeks screening+24 weeks main double-blind treatment+variable extension+3 days follow-up). Patients who completed the 24-week main double-blind treatment period underwent a variable double-blind treatment extension period, which ended for all patients approximately at the scheduled date of week 76 visit (V25) for the last randomized patient.
Per the protocol amendment 3, patients who prematurely discontinued the study treatment were continued in the study up to the scheduled date of study completion. They were followed up according to the study procedures as specified in the protocol (except 3-day safety post-treatment follow-up, pharmacokinetics assessment, and meal challenge test).
The standardized meal challenge test was performed in all patients in selected centers (to obtain approximately 30% of all randomized patients).
The primary efficacy variable was the absolute change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24, which was defined as: HbA1c at week 24-HbA1c at baseline.
If a patient discontinued the treatment prematurely or received rescue therapy during the main 24-week double-blind treatment period or did not have HbA1c value at week 24 visit, the last post-baseline HbA1c measurement during the main 24-week double-blind on-treatment period was used as HbA1c value at week 24 (Last Observation Carry Forward [LOCF] procedure).
For secondary efficacy variables, the same procedure for handling missing assessment/early discontinuation was applied as for the primary variable.
The safety analysis was based on the reported TEAEs and other safety information including symptomatic hypoglycemia and severe symptomatic hypoglycemia, local tolerability at injection site, allergic events (as adjudicated by ARAC), suspected pancreatitis, increased calcitonin, vital signs, 12-lead ECG and laboratory tests.
Major cardiovascular events were also collected and adjudicated by a Cardiovascular Adjudication Committee (CAC). The adjudicated and confirmed events by CAC from this study and other lixisenatide phase 2-3 studies will be pooled for analyses and summarized in a separate report based on the statistical analysis plan for the overall cardiovascular assessment of lixisenatide.
The sample size calculation was based on the primary efficacy variable, change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c. This calculation assumed a common standard deviation of 1.3% with a 2-sided test at the 5% significance level and was based upon the 2-sample t-test, and was performed using nQuery Advisor® 5.0.
A sample size of 855 patients (570 for lixisenatide and 285 for placebo) was considered sufficient to detect a difference of 0.5% (or 0.4%) in the absolute change from baseline in HbA1c to week 24 between lixisenatide and placebo, with a power of 99% (or 98%).
The modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population consisted of all randomized patients who received at least one dose of double-blind investigational product (IP), and had both a baseline assessment and at least one post-baseline assessment of efficacy variables.
The safety population was defined as all randomized patients who took at least one dose of the double-blind IP.
The primary efficacy variable (change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24) was analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment, randomization strata of screening HbA1c (<8.0, ≧8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No) and country as fixed effects and using the baseline value as a covariate. Difference between lixisenatide and placebo and two-sided 95% confidence interval as wells as p-value were estimated within the framework of ANCOVA.
The primary analysis of the primary efficacy variable was performed based on the mITT population and the measurements obtained during the main 24-week double-blind on-treatment period for efficacy variables. The main 24-week double-blind on-treatment period for efficacy variables except those from the meal challenge test was defined as the time from the first dose of the double-blind IP up to 3 days (except for FPG by central laboratory, which was up to 1 day) after the last dose of the double-blind IP injection on or before V12/week 24 visit (or D169 if V12/week 24 visit was missing), or up to the introduction of the rescue therapy, whichever was the earliest. The main 24-week double-blind on-treatment period for efficacy variables from the meal challenge test including PPG, glucagon, plasma insulin, proinsulin, C-peptide, glucose excursion, HOMA-β and proinsulin-to-insulin ratio was defined as the time from the first dose of the double-blind IP up to the date of the last dose of the double-blind IP injection on or before V12/week 24 visit (or D169 if V12/week 24 visit was missing), or up to the introduction of the rescue therapy, whichever was the earliest. The LOCF procedure was used by taking this last available post-baseline on-treatment HbA1c measurement (before the introduction of rescue therapy) as the HbA1c value at week 24.
A stepwise testing procedure was applied in order to ensure control of type 1 error. Once the primary variable was statistically significant at α=0.05, the testing procedure was performed to test the following secondary efficacy variables by the following prioritized order. The tests stop as soon as an endpoint was found not statistically significant at α=0.05.
Similar to the analyses of HbA1c, all continuous secondary efficacy variables as described in Section 3.2.1 were analyzed by ANCOVA as already described. The adjusted estimates of the treatment mean difference between lixisenatide and placebo and two-sided 95% confidence intervals were provided.
The following categorical secondary efficacy variables were analyzed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified on randomization strata (screening HbA1c [<8.0, ≧8%] and metformin, use at screening [Yes, No]):
Number and percentage of patients with 5% weight loss from baseline at week 24 were presented by treatment groups.
All secondary endpoints at the end of treatment were only evaluated by descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, median and ranges).
The safety analyses were primarily based on the on-treatment period for the whole study. The on-treatment period for the whole study was defined as the time from the first dose of double-blind IP up to 3 days after the last dose of IP administration during the whole study period regardless of rescue status. The 3-day interval was chosen based on the half-life of the IP (approximately 5 times the half-life).
The summary of safety results (descriptive statistics or frequency tables) is presented by treatment groups.
The study was conducted in 136 centers in 16 countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Egypt, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Netherlands, Romania, Russian Federation, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey and United States). A total of 1438 patients were screened and 859 were randomized to one of the two treatment groups. The main reason for screening failure was HbA1c value at the screening visit out of the protocol defined ranges (306 [21.3%] out of 1438 screened patients).
All 859 randomized patients were exposed to the study treatment. Eleven patients (9 patients in the lixisenatide group and 2 patients in the placebo group) were excluded from mITT population for efficacy analyses due to lack of post-baseline efficacy data. Table 1 provides the number of patients included in each analysis population. One patient (#158503006) who was randomized to placebo by 1VRS received the lixisenatide kits most of the time during the study (543 out of 561 days) due to a site dispensing error and consequently an error in IVRS. Therefore, she was considered a placebo patient in the mITT population (for efficacy analysis) but a lixisenatide-treated patient in the safety population (for safety analysis) per the data handling convention for mixed treatments.
All 468 randomized patients (155 in placebo group and 313 in lixisenatide group) in Israel, Japan, Korea, Russian Federation and United States participated in meal challenge test. Out of 468 patients, 463 (154 in the placebo group and 309 in the lixisenatide group) are in the mITT population.
Table 2 provides the summary of patient disposition for each treatment group. During the overall treatment period, 259 (30.2%) patients prematurely discontinued the study treatment. The percentages of patients who discontinued the treatment were similar between treatment groups (30.9% for lixisenatide and 287% for placebo). For the lixisenatide group, the main reason for treatment discontinuation was “adverse events” (12.4% versus 8.0% for placebo) followed by “other reasons” (11.7% versus 9.1% for placebo). Similar results were observed for the 24-week main treatment period, where a total of 105 (12.2%) patients prematurely discontinued the study treatment with the main reason also being adverse events (8.4% for lixisenatide and 3.8% for placebo). The time-to-onset of treatment discontinuation due to any reason for the overall treatment period is depicted in
Out of 23 placebo-treated patients who discontinued the treatment due to an AE (Table 2), one discontinued the treatment due to an AE (injection site pain) that started prior to the first dosing (i.e., pre-treatment AE), while 22 had TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation (Table 20).
The demographic and patient baseline characteristics were generally similar between the two treatment groups for the safety population (Table 3). The median age of the study population was 58.0 years. The majority of the patients were Caucasian (52.2%) and Asian (44.8%).
Disease characteristics including diabetic history were generally comparable between the two treatment groups (Table 4). The median duration of sulfonylurea treatment for the study population was 4.23 years (Table 5). Patients were mainly on glimepiride (42.1%), glibenclamide (24.9%) and gliclazide LM (12.7%). Of 859 patients, 134 (15.6%) was on the sulfonylurea only and 725 (84.4%) had both sulfonylurea and metformin at the screening visit (Table 6). There was a discrepancy in the number of patients between “randomization strata of metformin use at screening” and actual “metformin use at screening” due to randomization strata errors.
HbA1c and FPG at baseline were comparable between the two treatment groups for the safety population (Table 7). A higher mean body weight at baseline was observed in the placebo group (84.42 kg) compared with the lixisenatide group (82.30 kg), but mean baseline BMI was similar between the two treatment groups (30.13 kg/m2 for lixisenatide versus 30.42 kg/m2 for placebo) as shown in Table 3.
The average treatment exposure was similar between the two treatment groups: 531.7 days (76.0 weeks) for the lixisenatide group and 528.4 days (75.5 weeks) for the placebo group [Table 8]. Out of 859 patients, 739 (85.2% in the lixisenatide group and 87.7% in the placebo group) had at least 169 days (24 Weeks) of treatment and 571 (66.0% in the lixisenatide group and 67.4% in the placebo group) had at least 547 days (18 months) of treatment. Sixteen patients (13 for lixisenatide and 3 for placebo) had the last administration date on the “End of treatment” CRF missing mainly due to lost to follow-up (9 for lixisenatide and 2 for placebo) and hence their treatment durations were set to missing following the SAP data handling convention.
For the lixisenatide group, 509 (88.7%) patients and 515 (89.7%) patients were at the target total daily dose of 20 μg at the end of the 24-week double-blind treatment period and at the end of double-blind treatment, respectively (Tables 9 and 10). For the placebo group, 277 (97.2%) patients and 276 (96.8%) patients were at the target total daily dose of 20 μg at the end of 24-week double-blind treatment period and at the end of double-blind treatment, respectively (Tables 9 and 10).
Table 11 summarizes the results of the primary efficacy parameter, change from baseline to week 24 (LOCF) in HbA1c using an ANCOVA analysis.
The pre-specified primary analysis showed that treatment with lixisenatide resulted in a statistically significant decrease in HbA1c from baseline to week 24, compared with the placebo group (LS mean difference versus the placebo group=−0.74%; pvalue <0.0001)
aAnalysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (lixisenatide and placebo), randomization strata of screening HbA1c (<8.0, ≧8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening, and country as fixed effects and baseline HbA1c value as a covariate.
Table 12 summarizes the proportion of patients with treatment response
(HbA1c≦6.5% or <7% at week 24, respectively). The analysis of HbA1c responders using the CMH method showed a significant treatment difference versus placebo for the lixisenatide-treated group (p-value <0.0001). At week 24, 19.3% of lixisenatide-treated patients and 4.7% of placebo-treated patients had achieved HbA1c values ≦6.5%; 36.4% of patients in the lixisenatide group and 13.5% of patients in the placebo group had achieved HbA1c values <7%.
aCochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by randomization strata of screening HbA1c (<8.0 or ≧8.0%) and randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes or No).
Tables 13, 14, 15 and 17 summarize the ANCOVA analyses of 2-hour post-prandial plasma glucose, FPG, body weight and HOMA-β, respectively.
The results of the 2-hour post-prandial plasma glucose assessment showed a statistically significant improvement from baseline to week 24 in lixisenatide group compared with the placebo group (LS mean difference versus placebo=5.98 mmol/L; p-value <0.0001)
For FPG, a statistically significant decrease from baseline to week 24 was observed in lixisenatide group compared with the placebo group (LS mean difference versus placebo=0.63 mmol/L; p-value <0.0001)
The LS mean body weight change from baseline at week 24 was −1.76 kg for the lixisenatide-treated patients and −0.93 kg for the placebo-treated patients (LS mean difference versus placebo=−0.84 kg) with statistically significant difference observed between treatment groups (p-value <0.0001). Body weight continued to decrease after the 24 week main treatment period in both treatments (
For p-cell function assessed by HOMA-β, a median increase of 4.37 for the lixisenatide group compared with −0.33 for the placebo group was observed, with no significant difference between treatment groups (LS mean difference versus placebo=1.80; p-value=0/387) per a pre-specified parametric analysis (Table 17). The mean change in HOMA-β from baseline to week 24 in the lixisenatide group (4.76) was higher compared with the placebo group (3.05), but the change in LS mean for the lixisenatide group (4.83) was lower compared with the placebo group (6.63) due to an outlier in the lixisenatide group. This outlier did not affect the conclusion from the parametric model. Since the normality assumption for the parametric model was violated, a sensitivity analysis using a nonparametric model was performed and it showed a statistically significant difference (p-value=0.0011).
As per the testing strategy adjusting for multiplicity, inferential testing for the percentages of patients requiring rescue therapy at week 24 was exploratory since the preceding test (HOMA-β) failed to show a statistically significant difference between groups.
The percentages of patients requiring rescue therapy at week 24 was significantly lower for the lixisenatide group compared to placebo (20 patients [3.5%] in the lixisenatide group and 34 patients [12.0%] in the placebo group) without an adjustment for multiplicity (Table 18).
Treatment with lixisenatide substantially decreased glucose excursion from baseline to week 24 compared with the placebo group (LS mean difference=−5.57 mmol/L, 95% CI=−6.397 to −4.744) as shown in Table 19.
aAnalysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (lixisenatide and placebo), randomization strata of screening HbA1c (<8.0, ≧8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and country as fixed effects and baseline 2-hour post-prandial plasma glucose value as a covariate.
aAnalysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (lixisenatide and placebo), randomization strata of screening HbA1c (<8.0, ≧8.0%), metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and country as fixed effects and baseline fasting plasma glucose as a covariate.
aAnalysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (lixisenatide and placebo), randomization strata of screening HbA1c (<8.0, ≧8.0%), metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and country as fixed effects and baseline body weight as a covariate.
aAnalysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (lixisenatide and placebo), randomization strata of screening HbA1c (<8.0, ≧8.0%), metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and country as fixed effects and baseline HOMA-β value as a covariate.
aCochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) method stratified by randomization strata of screening HbA1c (<8.0 or ≧8.0%) and metformin use at screening (Yes, No).
aAnalysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment groups (lixisenatide and placebo), randomization strata of screening HbA1c (<8.0, ≧8.0%), randomization strata of metformin use at screening (Yes, No), and country as fixed effects and baseline glucose excursion value as a covariate.
An overview of the adverse events observed during the on-treatment period for the whole study is provided in Table 20. The percentage of patients with treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 81.5% in the lixisenatide group compared with 75.8% in the placebo group. Two patients (in the lixisenatide group) had TEAEs leading to death. Ninety three serious TEAEs occurred during the on-treatment period for the whole study with a slightly lower incidence rate in the lixisenatide group (10.1%) compared to the placebo group (12.3%). The percentage of patients with TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation was higher in the lixisenatide group compared to the placebo group (12.4% in the lixisenatide group compared with 7.7% in the placebo group). Tables 21, 22, and 23 summarize TEAEs leading to death, serious TEAEs, and TEAEs leading to treatment discontinuation by primary SOC, HLGT, HLT and PT, respectively. The most common TEAE leading to treatment discontinuation was nausea in the lixisenatide group (24 patients [4.2%]). The corresponding number of patients (%) in the placebo group was 1 (0.4%).
Table 33 in the appendix presents the incidences of TEAEs during the on-treatment period for the whole study occurring in at least 1% of patients in any treatment group. Nausea was the most frequently reported TEAE in the lixisenatide group (161 patients [28.0%]) versus 25 placebo-treated patients (8.8%). The second most frequently reported TEAE in the lixisenatide group was hypoglycemia (141 patients [24.6%] for lixisenatide versus 55 patients [19.3%] for placebo) followed by nasopharyngitis (91 patients [15.9%] for lixisenatide versus 58 [20.4%] for placebo), diarrhoea (71 patients [12.4%] for lixisenatide versus 27 [9.5%] for placebo), vomiting (61 patients [10.6%] for lixisenatide versus 15 [5.3%] for placebo), and dizziness (60 patients [10.5%] for lixisenatide versus 18 [6.3%] for placebo).
One hundred twenty seven (22.1%) lixisenatide-treated patients had 389 symptomatic hypoglycemia events per protocol definition during the on-treatment period for the whole study, whereas 51 (17.9%) placebo-treated patients reported 230 symptomatic hypoglycemia events during the same period (Table 24). Of these patients who had symptomatic hypoglycemia events per protocol definition, 2 lixisenatide-treated patients and 1 placebo-treated patient had the investigator reported terms other than hypoglycemia (hunger and restlessness for the lixisenatide-treated patients and dizziness for the placebo-treated patient) on the AE form for symptomatic hypoglycemia with complementary page. As a result, these 3 patients were included in the respective PT (other than hypoglycemia PT) summary for TEAE summary tables. In addition, 21 additional patients (16 for lixisenatide and 5 for placebo) reported hypoglycemia on the AE form for symptomatic hypoglycemia but their events did not meet the protocol-specified definition: 16 patients (13 for lixisenatide and 3 for placebo) with their associated glucose values ≧60 mg/dL, 2 lixisenatide-treated patients without prompt recovery after oral carbohydrate intake, 2 patients (1 in each group) without their associated glucose values and without counter measurements, and 1 placebo-treated patient without the associated glucose value and without the information on prompt recovery.
Two (0.3%) lixisenatide-treated patients had severe symptomatic hypoglycemia events per protocol definition during the on-treatment period for the whole study, whereas 1 (0.4%) placebo-treated patient reported a severe symptomatic hypoglycemia during the same period (Table 25).
Symptomatic hypoglycemia is defined as an event with clinical symptoms that are considered to result from a hypoglycemic episode (e.g., sweating, palpitations, hunger, restlessness, anxiety, fatigue, irritability, headache, loss of concentration, somnolence, psychiatric or visual disorders, transient sensory or motor defects, confusion, convulsions, or coma) with an accompanying plasma glucose <60 mg/dL (3.3 mmol/L) or associated with prompt recovery after oral carbohydrate administration if no plasma glucose value is available. Symptoms with an associated plasma glucose ≧60 mg/dL (3.3 mmol/L) should not be reported as a hypoglycemia.
Symptomatic hypoglycemia is to be reported as an adverse event. Additional information should be collected on a specific symptomatic hypoglycemic event complementary form.
Severe symptomatic hypoglycemia is defined as an event with clinical symptoms that are considered to result from hypoglycemia in which the patient required the assistance of another person, because the patient could not treat him/herself due to acute neurological impairment directly resulting from the hypoglycemic event, and one of the following:
The definition of severe symptomatic hypoglycemia includes all episodes in which neurological impairment was severe enough to prevent self-treatment and which were thus thought to place patients at risk for injury to themselves or others. Note that “requires assistance” means that the patient could not help himself or herself. Someone being kind that assists spontaneously the patient when not necessary does not qualify as “requires assistance.”
Severe symptomatic hypoglycemia will be qualified as an SAE only if it fulfills SAE criteria.
aCalculated as (number of patients with events * 100 divided by total exposure + 3 days in patient years).
aCalculated as (number of patients with events * 100 divided by total exposure + 3 days in patient years).
Thirty six patients (4.9% for lixisenatide and 2.8% for placebo) experienced injection site reaction AEs (Table 26). The injection site reaction AEs were identified by searching the term “injection site” in either the investigator reported AE PTs or PTs from the ARAC diagnosis during the allergic reaction adjudication. None of the reactions was serious or severe in intensity.
A total of 44 events were reported as a suspected allergic event by investigators during the on-treatment period for the whole study and sent to ARAC for adjudication. Of these, 13 events from 12 patients (11 [1.9%] lixisenatide-treated patients and 1[0.4%] placebo-treated patient) were adjudicated as an allergic reaction by the ARAC, but only one event (local reaction) from one lixisenatide-treated patient (#764501007) was adjudicated as possibly related to IP (Table 27).
In the lixisenatide treated patients, there are 2 patients with anaphylactic shocks: one anaphylactic shock was due to a bee sting and the other one occurred during a surgery (after intravenous application of an antibiotic drug).
Per protocol, any confirmed increase in amylase and/or lipase above twice the upper limit of normal range (ULN) was to be monitored and documented on a specific form: “adverse event form for suspected pancreatitis”. During the on-treatment period for the whole study, this form was completed for 9 (3.2%) placebo-treated patients and 15 (2.6%) lixisenatide-treated patients (Table 28). Among these 15 patients, the PT was acute pancreatitis for two patients and pancreatitis for two other patients:
Of the two acute pancreatitis events in the lixisenatide group, one was serious with a lipase value >3 ULN as well as amylase value >3 ULN during the on-treatment period (patient #100505015, amylase 12.5 ULN and lipase 67.1 ULN on Day 364) and the other (patient #840527002) was not serious with a lipase value >3 ULN and an amylase value >2 ULN.
None of the two pancreatits events in the lixisenatide group was serious. One of the patients had a lipase value >3 ULN and the other had a lipase value >2 ULN and an amylase value >2 ULN.
Patients who had at least one value of lipase or amylase ≧3 ULN during the on-treatment period are summarized in Table 29. A total of 26 patients (17 [3.0%] patients in the lixisenatide group and 9 [3.2%] in the placebo group) with elevated lipase (≧3ULN) was observed. Three (0.5%) patients in the lixisenatide group had elevated amylase (≧3ULN), and none in the placebo group.
Per protocol, any calcitonin value confirmed as being ≧20 pg/mL, was to be monitored and reported on a specific adverse event form for “increased calcitonin ≧20 pg/mL”. During the on-treatment period for whole study, this form wase completed for 5 (1.8%) placebo-treated patients and 8 (1.4%) lixisenatide-treated patients (Table 30). For 7 of these 8 patients, the PT was blood calcitonin increased: 2 patients had a calcitonin value ≧50 ng/L, 4 had a calcitonin value ≧20 ng/L but <50 ng/L and one had a value <20 ng/L (the specific form was unnecessarily completed for this patient). For the eighth patient, the event with PT thyroid C-cell hyperplasia was reported:
Ten (2.0%) patients in the lixisenatide group and 7 (2.8%) patients in the placebo group had at least one value of calcitonin ≧20 ng/L during the on-treatment period (Table 31). It should be pointed out that calcitonin measurements were added in a protocol amendment after most patients were already randomized in this study. Therefore, baseline calcitonin values are missing for most patients.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11160270.2 | Mar 2011 | EP | regional |
