STUDY DESIGN: This was a 54-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of DPP-4 inhibition with sitagliptin 100 mg once daily as initial oral therapy in youth with T2D. The 190 participants, aged 10-17 years, had HbA1c 6.5%-10% (7.0%-10% if on insulin). All were negative for pancreatic autoantibodies and overweight/obese at screening or diagnosis. The trial was placebo controlled for the first 20 weeks, after which metformin replaced placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20.

RESULTS: Treatment groups were well balanced at baseline (mean ± SD HbA1c = 7.5% ± 1.0, BMI percentile = 97.1% ± 6.8, age = 14.0 years ± 2.0 [57.4% <15], 60.5% female). At Week 20, least squares mean changes from baseline in HbA1c were -0.01% (sitagliptin) and 0.18% (placebo); between-group difference (95% CI) = -0.19% (-0.68, 0.30), p = 0.448. At Week 54, the changes in HbA1c were 0.45% (sitagliptin) and -0.11 (placebo/metformin). There were no notable between-group differences in the adverse event profiles through Week 54.

STUDY DESIGN: Data were pooled from two 54-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of sitagliptin 100 mg daily or placebo added onto treatment of 10- to 17-year-old youth with T2D and inadequate glycemic control on metformin ± insulin. Participants (N = 220 randomized and treated) had HbA1c 6.5%-10% (7.0%-10% if on insulin), were overweight/obese at screening or diagnosis and negative for pancreatic autoantibodies. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20.

RESULTS: Treatment groups were well balanced at baseline (mean HbA1c = 8.0%, BMI = 30.9 kg/m2 , age = 14.4 years [44.5% <15], 65.9% female). The dose of background metformin was >1500 mg/day for 71.8% of participants; 15.0% of participants were on insulin therapy. At Week 20, LS mean changes from baseline (95% CI) in HbA1c for sitagliptin/metformin and placebo/metformin were -0.58% (-0.94, -0.22) and -0.09% (-0.43, 0.26), respectively; difference = -0.49% (-0.90, -0.09), p = 0.018; at Week 54 the LS mean (95% CI) changes were 0.35% (-0.48, 1.19) and 0.73% (-0.08, 1.54), respectively. No meaningful differences between the adverse event profiles of the treatment groups emerged through Week 54.

METHODS: Patients with MAFLD-ACLF were recruited from the AARC registry. The diagnosis of MAFLD-ACLF was made when the treating unit had identified the etiology of chronic liver disease (CLD) as MAFLD (or previous nomenclature such as NAFLD, NASH, or NASH-cirrhosis). Patients with coexisting other etiologies of CLD (such as alcohol, HBV, HCV, etc.) were excluded. Data was randomly split into derivation (n=258) and validation (n=111) cohorts at a 70:30 ratio. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Only the baseline clinical, laboratory features and severity scores were considered.

RESULTS: The derivation group had 258 patients; 60% were male, with a mean age of 53. Diabetes was noted in 27%, and hypertension in 29%. The dominant precipitants included viral hepatitis (HAV and HEV, 32%), drug-induced injury (DILI, 29%) and sepsis (23%). MELD-Na and AARC scores upon admission averaged 32±6 and 10.4±1.9. At 90 days, 51% survived. Non-viral precipitant, diabetes, bilirubin, INR, and encephalopathy were independent factors influencing mortality. Adding diabetes and precipitant to MELD-Na and AARC scores, the novel MAFLD-MELD-Na score (+12 for diabetes, +12 for non-viral precipitant) and MAFLD-AARC score (+5 for each) were formed. These outperformed the standard scores in both cohorts.