Clinical Trial Results:
Empagliflozin in Post-Transplantation Diabetes Mellitus
Summary
|
|
EudraCT number |
2016-001580-37 |
Trial protocol |
AT |
Global end of trial date |
07 Jun 2019
|
Results information
|
|
Results version number |
v1(current) |
This version publication date |
28 Jun 2021
|
First version publication date |
28 Jun 2021
|
Other versions |
Trial Information
Subject Disposition
Baseline Characteristics
End Points
Adverse Events
More Information
Subject Disposition
Baseline Characteristics
End Points
Adverse Events
More Information
|
|||
Trial identification
|
|||
Sponsor protocol code |
EMPTRA-PTDM
|
||
Additional study identifiers
|
|||
ISRCTN number |
- | ||
US NCT number |
NCT03113110 | ||
WHO universal trial number (UTN) |
- | ||
Sponsors
|
|||
Sponsor organisation name |
Medical University of Vienna
|
||
Sponsor organisation address |
Währinger Gürtel 18-20, Vienna, Austria, 1090
|
||
Public contact |
Clinical Trials Information, Medical University of Vienna, +43 0140400 55930, manfred.hecking@meduniwien.ac.at
|
||
Scientific contact |
Clinical Trials Information, Medical University of Vienna, +43 0140400 55930, manfred.hecking@meduniwien.ac.at
|
||
Paediatric regulatory details
|
|||
Is trial part of an agreed paediatric investigation plan (PIP) |
No
|
||
Does article 45 of REGULATION (EC) No 1901/2006 apply to this trial? |
No
|
||
Does article 46 of REGULATION (EC) No 1901/2006 apply to this trial? |
No
|
||
Results analysis stage
|
|||
Analysis stage |
Final
|
||
Date of interim/final analysis |
05 Jan 2019
|
||
Is this the analysis of the primary completion data? |
Yes
|
||
Primary completion date |
20 Nov 2018
|
||
Global end of trial reached? |
Yes
|
||
Global end of trial date |
07 Jun 2019
|
||
Was the trial ended prematurely? |
No
|
||
General information about the trial
|
|||
Main objective of the trial |
To assess whether monotherapy with empagliflozin has the same efficacy in controlling hyperglycaemia as standard basal insulin therapy (not succeeding 40 IE/day) in kidney transplanted patients with PTDM, as judged by 2-hour glucose levels during an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT).
|
||
Protection of trial subjects |
glycemic profiles, regularly monitoring of adverse events
|
||
Background therapy |
- | ||
Evidence for comparator |
- | ||
Actual start date of recruitment |
13 Jan 2017
|
||
Long term follow-up planned |
No
|
||
Independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) involvement? |
Yes
|
||
Population of trial subjects
|
|||
Number of subjects enrolled per country |
|||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Austria: 14
|
||
Worldwide total number of subjects |
14
|
||
EEA total number of subjects |
14
|
||
Number of subjects enrolled per age group |
|||
In utero |
0
|
||
Preterm newborn - gestational age < 37 wk |
0
|
||
Newborns (0-27 days) |
0
|
||
Infants and toddlers (28 days-23 months) |
0
|
||
Children (2-11 years) |
0
|
||
Adolescents (12-17 years) |
0
|
||
Adults (18-64 years) |
12
|
||
From 65 to 84 years |
2
|
||
85 years and over |
0
|
|
|||||||||||
Recruitment
|
|||||||||||
Recruitment details |
- | ||||||||||
Pre-assignment
|
|||||||||||
Screening details |
- | ||||||||||
Pre-assignment period milestones
|
|||||||||||
Number of subjects started |
14 | ||||||||||
Number of subjects completed |
14 | ||||||||||
Period 1
|
|||||||||||
Period 1 title |
Overall trial (overall period)
|
||||||||||
Is this the baseline period? |
Yes | ||||||||||
Allocation method |
Non-randomised - controlled
|
||||||||||
Blinding used |
Not blinded | ||||||||||
Arms
|
|||||||||||
Arm title
|
Treatment | ||||||||||
Arm description |
Patients have been switched from stable insulin therapy to SGLT-2 inhbititor | ||||||||||
Arm type |
Active comparator | ||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
Empagliflozin
|
||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product code |
EMEA/H/C/002677
|
||||||||||
Other name |
|||||||||||
Pharmaceutical forms |
Tablet
|
||||||||||
Routes of administration |
Oral use
|
||||||||||
Dosage and administration details |
10mg once daily in the morning
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Baseline characteristics reporting groups
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Overall trial
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
- | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject analysis sets
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject analysis set title |
Treatment
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject analysis set type |
Per protocol | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject analysis set description |
We chose the intra‐individual difference in the 2‐hour glucose level between the first OGTT (baseline) and the second OGTT as the primary study end point. We judged an average change of 30 mg/dL to be clinically meaningful, thereby suggesting noninfe‐ riority of the empagliflozin treatment if the 2‐hour blood glucose during the second OGTT did not show an increase of >30 mg/ dL.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject analysis set title |
COntrol
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject analysis set type |
Per protocol | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subject analysis set description |
We chose the intra‐individual difference in the 2‐hour glucose level between the first OGTT (baseline) and the second OGTT as the primary study end point. We judged an average change of 30 mg/dL to be clinically meaningful, thereby suggesting noninfe‐ riority of the empagliflozin treatment if the 2‐hour blood glucose during the second OGTT did not show an increase of >30 mg/ dL.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
End points reporting groups
|
|||
Reporting group title |
Treatment
|
||
Reporting group description |
Patients have been switched from stable insulin therapy to SGLT-2 inhbititor | ||
Subject analysis set title |
Treatment
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Per protocol | ||
Subject analysis set description |
We chose the intra‐individual difference in the 2‐hour glucose level between the first OGTT (baseline) and the second OGTT as the primary study end point. We judged an average change of 30 mg/dL to be clinically meaningful, thereby suggesting noninfe‐ riority of the empagliflozin treatment if the 2‐hour blood glucose during the second OGTT did not show an increase of >30 mg/ dL.
|
||
Subject analysis set title |
COntrol
|
||
Subject analysis set type |
Per protocol | ||
Subject analysis set description |
We chose the intra‐individual difference in the 2‐hour glucose level between the first OGTT (baseline) and the second OGTT as the primary study end point. We judged an average change of 30 mg/dL to be clinically meaningful, thereby suggesting noninfe‐ riority of the empagliflozin treatment if the 2‐hour blood glucose during the second OGTT did not show an increase of >30 mg/ dL.
|
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
2-hour glucose difference between the first and the second Oral glucose tolerance test | ||||||||||||
End point description |
|||||||||||||
End point type |
Primary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
4 weeks
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Mean Difference and Standarddeviation | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
We summarized numerical data as means ± standard deviation or me‐ dians with interquartile ranges (IQRs), depending on their distribution. For value comparisons of ordinal and numerical data (primary and sec‐ ondary outcomes), we used the Wilcoxon signed rank test for depend‐ ent samples or the paired Student t test, if data were approximately normally distributed. For nominal parameters, we used the McNemar test for paired samples.
A P < .05 was considered statisti‐ cally significant. For calc
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Treatment v COntrol
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
28
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
non-inferiority | ||||||||||||
P-value |
< 0.05 | ||||||||||||
Method |
t-test, 2-sided | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Mean difference (final values) | ||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adverse events information [1]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timeframe for reporting adverse events |
17.03.2017-10.05.2017
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Assessment type |
Non-systematic | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary used for adverse event reporting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary name |
MedDRA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary version |
20.0
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting groups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Overall trial
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
- | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [1] - There are no non-serious adverse events recorded for these results. It is expected that there will be at least one non-serious adverse event reported. Justification: There were no serious adverse events |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frequency threshold for reporting non-serious adverse events: 4% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
Substantial protocol amendments (globally) |
|||
Were there any global substantial amendments to the protocol? Yes | |||
Date |
Amendment |
||
09 Jan 2017 |
Changes to the protocol with a new Version 6.1. 27.12.2016
- Change in Titel
- Change in CRF, including now blood glucose protocol and urinary analysis protocol
- Including the collection of a blood sample for Renin Angiotensin System Analysis
- Including Body composite measurements (BCM)
- Patients will be included until a eGFR of 30ml/min./1.73 m2), study medication will be stopped if GFR droppes below 15 ml/min
|
||
Interruptions (globally) |
|||
Were there any global interruptions to the trial? No | |||
Limitations and caveats |
|||
Limitations of the trial such as small numbers of subjects analysed or technical problems leading to unreliable data. | |||
None reported |