Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin compared with acarbose in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on metformin monotherapy: Results of a Phase IV open-label randomized controlled study (the SMART study)

5 years ago

Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin compared with acarbose in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus uncontrolled on metformin monotherapy: Results of a Phase IV open-label randomized controlled study (the SMART study)

Liya Shen, Hui Fang, Li Liang, Jin Du, Xueying Wang, Fang Bian, Fengmei Xu, Chun Xu, Wei Li, Yiming Mu

Aim To investigate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of saxagliptin compared with acarbose in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy. Methods SMART was a 24-week, multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, open-label Phase IV study conducted at 35 sites in China (September 24, 2014 to September 29, 2015). The primary outcome was absolute change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24. Secondary outcomes assessed at Week 24 included the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 7.0%, the proportion of patients with gastrointestinal adverse events (GI AEs), and the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 7.0% without GI AEs. Safety and tolerability were also assessed in all patients who received ≥1 dose of study medication. Results Four-hundred and eighty-eight patients were randomized (1:1) to saxagliptin or acarbose via a central randomization system (interactive voice/web response system); 241 and 244 patients received saxagliptin and acarbose, respectively, and 238 and 243 of these had ≥1 pre- and ≥1 post-baseline efficacy values recorded. Saxagliptin was non-inferior to acarbose for glycaemic control [Week 24 HbA1c change: −0.82% and −0.78%, respectively; difference (95% confidence interval): −0.04 (−0.22, 0.13)%], with similar proportions of patients in both treatment groups achieving HbA1c < 7.0%. However, fewer GI AEs were reported with saxagliptin compared with acarbose, and a greater number of patients who received saxagliptin achieved HbA1c < 7.0% without GI AEs compared with those receiving acarbose. Conclusion Both therapies had similar efficacy profiles. However, saxagliptin was associated with fewer GI AEs, suggesting it might be preferential for clinical practice. Clinical trial registration number: NCT02243176, clinicaltrials.gov.

Publisher URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi

DOI: 10.1111/dom.12942