Efficacy and safety of alogliptin versus acarbose in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients with high cardiovascular risk or coronary heart disease treated with aspirin and inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy or drug‐naive: A multicentre, randomized, open‐label, prospective study (ACADEMIC). Issue 6 (22nd March 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gao, Bin; Gao, Weiguo; Wan, Hailong; Xu, Fengmei; Zhou, Rong; Zhang, Xia; Ji, Qiuhe
• Is Part Of: Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. Volume 24:Issue 6(2022)
• Page Start: 991
• Page End: 999
• Publication Date: 2022-03-22
• Subjects: cardiovascular disease -- DPP‐IV inhibitor -- glycaemic control -- phase IV study -- randomised trial -- type 2 diabetes; Diabetes -- Periodicals; Obesity -- Periodicals; Metabolism -- Disorders -- Periodicals; Clinical pharmacology -- Periodicals; 616.462
• DOI: 10.1111/dom.14661
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-8902

Abstract

Abstract: 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.