Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes (DEPICT-1):24 week results from a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

Background Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin as an add-on to adjustable insulin in patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. Methods DEPICT-1 was a double-blind, randomised, parallel-controlled, three-arm, phase 3, multicentre study done at 143 sites in 17 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18–75 years and had inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes (HbA1cbetween ≥7·7% and ≤11·0% [≥61·0 mmol/mol and ≤97·0 mmol/mol]) and had been prescribed insulin for at least 12 months before enrolment. After an 8 week lead-in period to optimise diabetes management, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive voice response system to dapagliflozin 5 mg or 10 mg once daily, given orally, or matched placebo. Randomisation was stratified by current use of continuous glucose monitoring, method of insulin administration, and baseline HbA1c. The primary efficacy outcome was the change from baseline in HbA1cafter 24 weeks of treatment in the full analysis set, which consisted of all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. An additional 55 patients who were incorrectly and non-randomly allocated to only dapagliflozin treatment groups were included in the safety analysis set. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02268214; data collection for the present analysis was completed on Jan 4, 2017, and a 28 week extension phase is ongoing. Findings Between Nov 11, 2014, and April 16, 2016, 833 patients were assigned to treatment groups and included in safety analyses (dapagliflozin 5 mg [n=277] vs dapagliflozin 10 mg [n=296] vs placebo [n=260]; 778 of these patients were randomly assigned and included in the full analysis set for efficacy analyses (259 vs 259 vs 260; difference due to randomisation error affecting 55 patients). Mean baseline HbA1cwas 8·53% (70 mmol/mol; SD 0·67% [7·3 mmol/mol]). At week 24, both doses of dapagliflozin significantly reduced HbA1ccompared with placebo (mean difference from baseline to week 24 for dapagliflozin 5 mg vs placebo was −0·42% [95% CI −0·56 to −0·28; p<0·0001] and for dapagliflozin 10 mg vs placebo was −0·45% [−0·58 to −0·31; p<0·0001]). Among patients in the dapagliflozin 5 mg (n=277), dapagliflozin 10 mg (n=296), and placebo (n=260) groups, the most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis (38 [14%] vs 36 [12%] vs 39 [15%]), urinary tract infection (19 [7%] vs 11 [4%] vs 13 [5%]), upper respiratory tract infection (15 [5%] vs 15 [5%] vs 11 [4%]), and headache (12 [4%] vs 17 [6%] vs 11 [4%]). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 220 (79%), 235 (79%), and 207 (80%) patients in the dapagliflozin 5 mg, dapagliflozin 10 mg, and placebo groups, respectively; severe hypoglycaemia occurred in 21 (8%), 19 (6%), and 19 (7%) patients, respectively. Adjudicated definite diabetic ketoacidosis occurred in four (1%) patients in the dapagliflozin 5 mg group, five (2%) in the dapagliflozin 10 mg group, and three (1%) in the placebo group. Interpretation Our results suggest that dapagliflozin is a promising adjunct treatment to insulin to improve glycaemic control in patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. Funding AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health