Efficacy of sitagliptin for the hospital management of general medicine and surgery patients with type 2 diabetes (Sita-Hospital): a multicentre, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomised trial

Summary Background The role of incretin-based drugs in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes admitted to hospital has not been extensively assessed. In this study, we compared the safety and efficacy of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin) plus basal insulin with a basal–bolus insulin regimen for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes in general medicine and surgery in hospitals. Methods We did a multicentre, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomised clinical trial (Sita-Hospital) in five hospitals in the USA, enrolling patients aged 18–80 years with type 2 diabetes and a random blood glucose concentration of 7·8–22·2 mmol/L who were being treated with diet or oral antidiabetic drugs or had a total daily insulin dose of 0·6 units per kg or less, admitted to general medicine and surgery services. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either sitagliptin plus basal glargine once daily (the sitagliptin–basal group) or a basal–bolus regimen with glargine once daily and rapid-acting insulin lispro or aspart before meals (the basal–bolus group) during the hospital stay. All other antidiabetic drugs were discontinued on admission. The randomisation was achieved by computer-generated tables with block stratification according to randomisation blood glucose concentrations (ie, higher or lower than 11·1 mmol/L). The primary endpoint of the trial was non-inferiority in mean differences between groups in their daily blood glucose concentrations measured during the duration of the hospital stay, up to 10 days (point-of-care measurements; non-inferiority was deemed a difference Findings Between Aug 23, 2013, and July 27, 2015, we recruited 279 patients, and randomly assigned 277 to treatment; 138 to sitagliptin–basal and 139 to basal–bolus. The length of stay in hospital was similar for both groups (median 4 days [IQR 3–8] vs 4 [3–8] days, p=0·54). The mean daily blood glucose concentration in the sitagliptin–basal group (9·5 mmol/L [SD 2·7]) was not inferior to that in the basal–bolus group 9·4 mmol/L [2·7]) with a mean blood glucose difference of 0·1 mmol/L (95% CI −0·6 to 0·7). No deaths occurred in this trial. Treatment failure occurred in 22 patients (16%) in the sitagliptin–basal group versus 26 (19%) in the basal–bolus group (p=0·54). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 13 patients (9%) in the sitagliptin–basal group and in 17 (12%) in the basal–bolus group (p=0·45). No differences in hospital complications were noted between groups. Seven patients (5%) developed acute kidney injury in the sitagliptin–basal group and six (4%) in the basal–bolus group. One patient (0·7%) developed acute pancreatitis (in the basal–bolus group). Interpretation The trial met the non-inferiority threshold for the primary endpoint, because there was no significant difference between groups in mean daily blood glucose concentrations. Treatment with sitagliptin plus basal insulin is as effective and safe as, and a convenient alternative to, the labour-intensive basal–bolus insulin regimen for the management of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes admitted to general medicine and surgery services in hospital in the non-intensive-care setting. Funding Merck.