Safety and tolerability of sitagliptin in clinical studies: a pooled analysis of data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In a previous pooled analysis of 12 double-blind clinical studies that included data on 6,139 patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, was shown to be generally well tolerated compared with treatment with control agents. As clinical development of sitagliptin continues, additional studies have been completed, and more patients have been exposed to sitagliptin. The purpose of the present analysis is to update the safety and tolerability assessment of sitagliptin by pooling data from 19 double-blind clinical studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The present analysis included data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes who received either sitagliptin 100 mg/day (N = 5,429; sitagliptin group) or a comparator agent (placebo or an active comparator) (N = 4,817; non-exposed group). The 19 studies from which this pooled population was drawn represent the double-blind, randomized studies that included patients treated with the usual clinical dose of sitagliptin (100 mg/day) for between 12 weeks and 2 years and for which results were available as of July 2009. These 19 studies assessed sitagliptin taken as monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin or pioglitazone, or as add-on combination therapy with other antihyperglycemic agents (metformin, pioglitazone, a sulfonylurea ± metformin, insulin ± metformin, or rosiglitazone + metformin). Patients in the non-exposed group were taking placebo, metformin, pioglitazone, a sulfonylurea ± metformin, insulin ± metformin, or rosiglitazone + metformin. The analysis used patient-level data from each study to evaluate between-group differences in the exposure-adjusted incidence rates of adverse events.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Summary measures of overall adverse events were similar in the sitagliptin and non-exposed groups, except for an increased incidence of drug-related adverse events in the non-exposed group. Incidence rates of specific adverse events were also generally similar between the two groups, except for increased incidence rates of hypoglycemia, related to the greater use of a sulfonylurea, and diarrhea, related to the greater use of metformin, in the non-exposed group and constipation in the sitagliptin group. Treatment with sitagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this updated pooled safety analysis of data from 10,246 patients with type 2 diabetes, sitagliptin 100 mg/day was generally well tolerated in clinical trials of up to 2 years in duration.</p

Report from the european myeloma network on interphase FISHin multiple myeloma and related disorders.

The European Myeloma Network has organized two workshops on fluorescence in situ hybridization in multiple myeloma. The first aimed to identify specific indications and consensus technical approaches of current practice. A second workshop followed a quality control exercise in which 21 laboratories analyzed diagnostic cases of purified plasma cells for recurrent abnormalities. The summary report was discussed at the EHA Myeloma Scientific Working Group Meeting 2010. During the quality control exercise, there was acceptable agreement on more than 1,000 tests. The conclusions from the exercise were that the primary clinical applications for FISH analysis were for newly diagnosed cases of MM or frank relapse cases. A range of technical recommendations included: 1) material should be part of the first draw of the aspirate; 2) samples should be sent at suitable times to allow for the lengthy processing procedure; 3) most importantly, PCs must be purified or specifically identified; 4) positive cut-off levels should be relatively conservative: 10% for fusion or break-apart probes, 20% for numerical abnormalities; 5) informative probes should be combined to best effect; 6) in specialist laboratories, a single experienced analyst is considered adequate; 7) at least 100 PC should be scored; 8) essential abnormalities to test for are t(4;14), t(14;16) and 17p13 deletions; 9) suitable commercial probes should be available for clinically relevant abnormalities; 10) the clinical report should be expressed clearly and must state the percentage of PC involved and the method used for identification; 11) a retrospective European based FISH data bank linked to clinical data should be generated; and 12) prospective analysis should be centralized for upcoming trials based on the recommendations made. The European Myeloma Network aims to build on these recommendations to establish standards for a common European data base to define subgroups with prognostic significance

Report from the european myeloma network on interphase FISHin multiple myeloma and related disorders.

The European Myeloma Network has organized two workshops on fluorescence in situ hybridization in multiple myeloma. The first aimed to identify specific indications and consensus technical approaches of current practice. A second workshop followed a quality control exercise in which 21 laboratories analyzed diagnostic cases of purified plasma cells for recurrent abnormalities. The summary report was discussed at the EHA Myeloma Scientific Working Group Meeting 2010. During the quality control exercise, there was acceptable agreement on more than 1,000 tests. The conclusions from the exercise were that the primary clinical applications for FISH analysis were for newly diagnosed cases of MM or frank relapse cases. A range of technical recommendations included: 1) material should be part of the first draw of the aspirate; 2) samples should be sent at suitable times to allow for the lengthy processing procedure; 3) most importantly, PCs must be purified or specifically identified; 4) positive cut-off levels should be relatively conservative: 10% for fusion or break-apart probes, 20% for numerical abnormalities; 5) informative probes should be combined to best effect; 6) in specialist laboratories, a single experienced analyst is considered adequate; 7) at least 100 PC should be scored; 8) essential abnormalities to test for are t(4;14), t(14;16) and 17p13 deletions; 9) suitable commercial probes should be available for clinically relevant abnormalities; 10) the clinical report should be expressed clearly and must state the percentage of PC involved and the method used for identification; 11) a retrospective European based FISH data bank linked to clinical data should be generated; and 12) prospective analysis should be centralized for upcoming trials based on the recommendations made. The European Myeloma Network aims to build on these recommendations to establish standards for a common European data base to define subgroups with prognostic significance