for the Aliskiren in Left Ventricular Hypertrophy (ALLAY) Trial InvestigatorsBackground-Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, a marker of cardiac end-organ damage, is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may reduce LV mass to a greater extent than other antihypertensive agents. We compared the effect of aliskiren, the first orally active direct renin inhibitor, the angiotensin-receptor blocker losartan, and their combination on the reduction of LV mass in hypertensive patients. Methods and Results-We randomized 465 patients with hypertension, increased ventricular wall thickness, and body mass index Ͼ25 kg/m 2 to receive aliskiren 300 mg, losartan 100 mg, or their combination daily for 9 months. Patients were treated to standard blood pressure targets with add-on therapy, excluding other inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and ␤-blockers. Patients underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of LV mass at baseline and at study completion. The primary objective was to compare change in LV mass index from baseline to follow-up in the combination and losartan arms; the secondary objective was to determine whether aliskiren was noninferior to losartan in reducing LV mass index from baseline to follow-up. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were reduced similarly in all treatment groups (6.5Ϯ14.9/3.8Ϯ10.1 mm Hg in the aliskiren group; 5.5Ϯ15.6/3.7Ϯ10.7 mm Hg in the losartan group; 6.6Ϯ16.6/4.6Ϯ10.5 mm Hg in the combination arm; PϽ0.0001 within groups, Pϭ0.81 between groups). LV mass index was reduced significantly from baseline in all treatment groups (4.9-, 4.8-, and 5.8 g/m 2 reductions in the aliskiren, losartan, and combination arms, respectively; PϽ0.0001 for all treatment groups). The reduction in LV mass index in the combination group was not significantly different from that with losartan alone (Pϭ0.52). Aliskiren was as effective as losartan in reducing LV mass index (PϽ0.0001 for noninferiority). Safety and tolerability were similar across all treatment groups. Conclusions-Aliskiren was as effective as losartan in promoting LV mass regression. Reduction in LV mass with the combination of aliskiren plus losartan was not significantly different from that with losartan monotherapy, independent of blood pressure lowering. These findings suggest that aliskiren was as effective as an angiotensin receptor blocker in attenuating this measure of myocardial end-organ damage in hypertensive patients with LV hypertrophy. (Circulation. 2009;119:530-537.)

In this 24-week study of 515 patients with T2DM and moderate or severe RI, vildagliptin added to ongoing antidiabetic therapy had a safety profile similar to placebo. Further, relative to placebo, vildagliptin elicited a statistically and clinically significant decrease in A1C in patients with moderate or severe RI.

No abstract

Aim Assess long‐term safety and efficacy of the dipeptidlyl peptidase-4 (DPP‐4) inhibitor vildagliptin in 369 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and moderate or severe renal impairment (RI). Methods Double‐blind, randomized, parallel‐group, 52‐week clinical trial comparing safety and efficacy of vildagliptin (50 mg qd, n = 216) and placebo (n = 153) added to ongoing stable antihyperglycaemic treatment, in patients with T2DM and moderate or severe (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] ≥30 to <50 ml/min/1.73 m2and < 30 ml/min/1.73 m2) RI. Results The study population comprised 122 and 89 patients with moderate RI and 94 and 64 patients with severe RI randomized to vildagliptin and placebo, respectively, with the majority of patients receiving background insulin therapy (72% and 82% for moderate and severe RI, respectively). After 1 year, the between‐treatment difference in adjusted mean change in A1C was −0.4 ± 0.2% (p = 0.005) in moderate RI (baseline = 7.8%) and −0.7 ± 0.2% (p < 0.0001) in severe RI (baseline = 7.6%). In patients with moderate RI, similar proportions of patients experienced any adverse event (AE) (84 vs. 85%), any serious adverse event (SAE) (21 vs. 19%), any AE leading to discontinuation (5% vs. 6%) and death (1% vs. 0%) with vildagliptin and placebo, respectively. This was also true for patients with severe RI: AEs (85% vs. 88%), SAEs (25% vs. 25%), AEs leading to discontinuation (10% vs. 6%) and death (3% vs. 2%). Conclusions In patients with T2DM and moderate or severe RI, vildagliptin added to ongoing antidiabetic therapy had a safety profile similar to placebo during 1‐year observation. Furthermore, relative to placebo, a clinically significant decrease in A1C was maintained throughout 1‐year treatment with vildagliptin.

Vildagliptin 50 mg bid added to insulin significantly reduced HbA1c in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by insulin, with or without metformin. Vildagliptin was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo. These results were achieved without weight gain or an increase in hypoglycaemia incidence or severity in spite of improved glycaemic control.

Compared with placebo, vildagliptin had no major effect on LVEF but did lead to an increase in left ventricular volumes, the cause and clinical significance of which is unknown. More evidence is needed regarding the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. (Effect of Vildagliptin on Left Ventricular Function in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Congestive Heart Failure; NCT00894868).

This large meta-analysis indicates that vildagliptin is not associated with an increased risk of adjudicated MACEs relative to comparators. Moreover, this analysis did not find a significant increased risk of HF in vildagliptin-treated patients.

AimThe broadly used combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (SU) often fails to bring patients to glycaemic goal. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin plus glimepiride combination in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycaemic control.MethodsA multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized patients to receive treatment with vildagliptin 50 mg bid (n = 158) or placebo (n = 160) for 24 weeks.ResultsAfter 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was −1.01% with vildagliptin (baseline 8.75%) and −0.25% with placebo (baseline 8.80%), with a between-treatment difference of −0.76% (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients on vildagliptin achieved the HbA1c target <7% (28.3% vs. 5.6%; p < 0.001). The difference in fasting plasma glucose reduction between vildagliptin and placebo was −1.13 mmol/l (p < 0.001). In subgroup of patients with baseline HbA1c ≤8%, vildagliptin reduced HbA1c by 0.74% from baseline 7.82% (between-treatment difference: –0.97%; p < 0.001) with significantly more patients achieving the HbA1c target <7% (38.6% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.014). Vildagliptin was well tolerated with low incidence of hypoglycaemia, slightly higher than with placebo (5.1% vs. 1.9%) and no clinically relevant weight gain.ConclusionsVildagliptin significantly improved glycaemic control in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin plus glimepiride combination. The addition of vildagliptin was well tolerated with low risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain. This makes vildagliptin an attractive treatment option for patients failing on metformin plus SU particularly in patients with baseline HbA1c ≤8%.