Fifty-two-week efficacy and safety of vildagliptin vs. glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy

Beneficial effects of PKF275-055, a novel, selective, orally bioavailable, long-acting dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor in streptozotocin-induced diabetic peripheral neuropathy

1-[(2-adamantyl)amino]acetyl-2-cyano-(S)-pyrrolidine, monohydrochloride (PKF275-055), a vildagliptin analog, is a novel, selective, potent, orally bioavailable, and long-acting dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor. We studied the effect of PKF275-055 administration on the prevention, protection, and treatment of diabetic neuropathy in the streptozotocin-induced diabetic rat. PKF275-055 improved body and muscle weight. Oral glucose tolerance tests showed a marked improvement in glucose metabolism under all treatment schedules. When tested in prevention and protection experiments, PKF275-055 completely averted the decrease of Na⁺/K⁺-ATPase activity and partially counteracted the nerve conduction velocity (NCV) deficit observed in untreated diabetic rats but had no effects on abnormal mechanical and thermal sensitivity. When used in a therapeutic setting, PKF275-055 induced a significant correction in the alteration in Na⁺,K⁺-ATPase activity and NCV present in untreated diabetics. Diabetic rats developed mechanical hyperalgesia within 2 weeks after streptozotocin injection and exhibited significantly longer thermal response latencies. It is noteworthy that PKF275-055 treatment restored mechanical sensitivity thresholds by approximately 50% (p < 0.01) and progressively improved the alteration in thermal responsiveness. In conclusion, PKF275-055 showed an anabolic effect, improved oral glucose tolerance, and counteracted the alterations in Na⁺,K⁺-ATPase activity, NCV, and nociceptive thresholds in diabetic rats. The present data support a potential therapeutic effect of PKF275-055 in the treatment of rodent diabetic neuropathy.

Comparison of vildagliptin-metformin and glimepiride-metformin treatments in type 2 diabetic patients

BACKGROUND

The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin-metformin treatment compared to those of glimepiride-metformin treatment for type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In a randomized, open-label, comparative study, 106 patients with type 2 diabetes were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a reduction in HbA1c from baseline and secondary endpoints included fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or 2-hour postprandial glucose (2h-PPG) reduction from baseline, as well as HbA1c responder rate and HbA1c reduction according to baseline HbA1c category.

RESULTS

Comparable HbA1c reduction was observed with a mean±standard deviation change from baseline to the 32-week endpoint of -0.94±1.15% in the vildagliptin group and -1.00±1.32% in the glimepiride group. A similar reduction in 2h-PPG (vildagliptin group 3.53±4.11 mmol/L vs. the glimepiride group 3.72±4.17 mmol/L) was demonstrated, and the decrements in FPG (vildagliptin group 1.54±2.41 mmol/L vs. glimepiride group 2.16±2.51 mmol/L) were not different between groups. The proportion of patients who achieved an HbA1c less than 7% at week 32 was 50.1% in the vildagliptin group and 56.0% in the glimepiride group. An average body weight gain of 2.53±1.21 kg in the glimepiride group was observed in contrast with the 0.23±0.69 kg weight gain noted in the vildagliptin group. A 10-fold lower incidence of hypoglycemia was demonstrated in the vildagliptin group, in addition to an absence of severe hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

Vildagliptin-metformin treatment provided blood glucose control efficacy comparable to that of glimepiride-metformin treatment and resulted in better adverse event profiles with lower risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

Clinical pharmacology of incretin therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus: implications for treatment

BACKGROUND

Increased understanding of the role of incretin hormones in maintaining glucose homeostasis has enabled the development of pharmacotherapies that target deficient incretin activity in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Incretin therapies are premised on 1 of 2 approaches: (1) augmenting the activity of the hormone glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 (GLP-1 receptor agonists) and (2) inhibiting the degradation of GLP-1 by dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 (DPP-4 inhibitors).

OBJECTIVE

This review discusses the pharmacokinetic properties and clinical profiles of the GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide twice daily, liraglutide once daily, exenatide once weekly, taspoglutide, and albiglutide) and the DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, saxagliptin, vildagliptin, and alogliptin) available for use or in late-stage development.

METHODS

A search of PubMed for literature published between 2000 and mid-2010 was conducted using the names of each agent as key words. Phase III and IV studies were included in the review of efficacy and tolerability. Supplemental searches of abstracts from major diabetes conferences provided additional information on pharmacokinetic properties. Searches of all reference lists were performed to identify additional references of interest.

RESULTS

The PubMed search identified multiple randomized, controlled clinical studies of the GLP-1 receptor agonists and the DPP-4 inhibitors administered as monotherapy or in combination regimens. Reductions from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin ranged from 0.4% to 1.5% with exenatide 5 to 10 μg/d (7 studies), 0.6% to 1.5% with liraglutide 0.6 to 1.8 mg/d (6 studies), 0.3% to 1.0% with sitagliptin 25 to 200 mg/d (9 studies), 0.5% to 0.9% with saxagliptin 2.5 to 10 mg/d (3 studies), 0.4% to 1.0% with vildagliptin 50 to 100 mg/d (6 studies), and 0.4% to 0.8% with alogliptin 12.5 to 25 mg/d (4 studies). Dosage adjustments and caution in prescribing incretin therapies are recommended in patients with renal disease, with those recommendations varying based on the agent and the degree of dysfunction. Incretin therapies have been associated with few interactions with commonly used antihyperglycemic and cardiovascular therapies.

CONCLUSION

Based on the pharmacokinetic and therapeutic characteristics described in previously published Phase III and IV studies of incretin therapies, these agents may provide an option for the management of T2DM.

Comparison of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin and the sulphonylurea gliclazide in combination with metformin, in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus fasting during Ramadan: results of the VECTOR study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the incidence of hypoglycaemic events (HEs) in a real-world setting in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus fasting during Ramadan.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a ≤16-week prospective, non-interventional, two-cohort study. Data were collected 1-6 weeks before and ≤6 weeks after fasting. Patients were enrolled who had been receiving vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) or sulphonylurea (SU) as add-on to metformin at least 4 weeks prior to fasting.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy endpoint was incidence of HEs during the Ramadan fast. Changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and body weight, as well as adherence to treatment, were also assessed.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were enrolled (vildagliptin, n = 30; SU, n = 41; no treatment, n = 1), of whom 23 (76.7%) and 36 (87.8%), respectively, completed the study. With vildagliptin, there were no HEs or severe HEs, compared with 34 HEs (15 patients, 41.7%) and one severe (grade 2) HE with SU. The mean between-group difference in the proportion who experienced at least one HE was -41.7% (95%CI -57.8%, -25.6%), p = 0.0002. Vildagliptin lowered mean HbA(1c) from 7.6% (SD 0.9%) at baseline to 7.2% (SD 0.7%) post-Ramadan, whereas SU had no effect (7.2% [SD 0.6%] vs 7.3% [SD 0.7%]; mean between-group difference -0.5% [95% CI -0.9%, -0.1%], p = 0.0262). The mean number of missed doses was markedly lower with vildagliptin (0.2 [SD 0.8] vs 7.6 [SD 14.9]; mean between-group difference -7.4 [95% CI -13.7, -1.20] doses; p = 0.0204). Body weight remained unchanged in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Vildagliptin caused no hypoglycaemia, was well adhered to and improved HbA(1c), making it a suitable treatment option for managing fasting. Study limitations are the sample size and the lack of diet and exercise data. When extrapolated to the global Muslim population with a similar clinical background, these findings could have considerable public health and clinical implications.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and HbA1c target of <7% in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

We assessed the efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors vildagliptin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin and alogliptin to reach the haemoglobin HbA1c target of <7% in people with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving DPP-4 inhibitors through September 2010. RCTs were included if they lasted at least 12 weeks, included 30 patients or more and reported the proportion of patients reaching the HbA1c target of <7%.

RESULTS

A total of 43 RCTs reporting 52 comparisons met the selection criteria, which included 19 101 study participants evaluated for the primary endpoint, 10 467 treated with a DPP-4 inhibitor and 8634 treated with placebo or a comparator drug. DPP-4 inhibitors showed a statistically significant reduction in HbA1c compared to placebo and approximately 40% of participants achieved the HbA1c goal of <7%: this was associated with weight neutrality and no greater hypoglycaemia. The reduction of the HbA1c level and the rate of HbA1c goal attainment was not different from comparator drugs, with similar hypoglycaemia, and different effect on weight owing to the nature of comparator (metformin, sulfonylurea or glitazones). Baseline HbA1c was the best predictor for achievement of A1C target (overall weighted r(2) value = 0.410, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A greater proportion of type 2 diabetic patients can achieve the HbA1c goal <7% with DPP-4 inhibitors compared to placebo, with no weight gain, and no hypoglycaemic risk when used alone; DPP-4 inhibitors were not different from comparator drugs.

Minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia with vildagliptin: Clinical experience, mechanistic basis, and importance in type 2 diabetes management

Even if the true incidence of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains difficult to estimate, with highly variable rates reported in the literature, it is likely more common than previously thought. While most hypoglycemic episodes in T2DM are considered "mild," they still have a substantial clinical impact. Severe hypoglycemia also exists in T2DM, with recent landmark studies prompting much debate about the potential role of severe hypoglycemia in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, even though there is currently no definitive evidence for causality. The challenge in the treatment of T2DM remains the achievement of optimal glycemic control to lower the risk for long-term complications while avoiding hypoglycemia. Successful treatment strategies should therefore include careful selection of therapies to prevent hypoglycemia, starting early in the disease management process, in order to best preserve counterregulation. The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, is a good treatment option to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia over time, while maintaining good glucose control. Extensive clinical experience is available for vildagliptin, with data published for all stages of the condition and with the low hypoglycemic potential stemming from a solid mechanistic basis.

Predictors of response to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: evidence from randomized clinical trials

AIM

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Available sub-group analysis of clinical trials does not allow a clear identification of predictors of therapeutic response to these drugs. The aim of this study is the assessment of predictors of response to DPP-4 inhibitors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed, exploring correlation between 24-week effects on HbA(1c) of maximal doses of DPP-4 inhibitors, compared either with placebo or with other active drugs, matches to baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in 63 randomized clinical trials, either published or unpublished but disclosed on different websites were studied.

RESULTS

DPP-4 inhibitors significantly reduce HbA(1c) at 24 weeks [by 0.6 (0.5-0.7)%] when compared with placebo; no difference in HbA(1c) was observed in comparisons with thiazolidinediones and α-glucosidase inhibitors, whereas sulfonylureas and metformin produced a greater reduction of HbA(1c) , at least in the short term. DPP-4 inhibitors produced a smaller weight gain than thiazolidinediones, and showed a lower hypoglycaemia risk than sulfonylureas. The placebo-subtracted effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on HbA(1c) was greater in older patients and in those with lower fasting plasma glucose at baseline. Similar results were obtained in comparisons with thiazolidinediones and metformin.

CONCLUSIONS

Although drugs for type 2 diabetes are studied in heterogeneous samples of patients, their efficacy can be predicted by some clinical parameters. DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be more effective in older patients with mild/moderate fasting hyperglycaemia. These data could be useful for a better definition of the profile of patients who are likely to benefit most from these drugs.

Vildagliptin: a review of its use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Vildagliptin (Galvus®, Jalra®, Xiliarx®) is an orally administered dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily is indicated for use in combination with metformin or a thiazolidinedione, and vildagliptin 50 mg once daily is indicated for use in combination with a sulfonylurea. A fixed-dose combination of vildagliptin/metformin (Eucreas®, Icandra®, Zomarist®) is also available. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as summarizing its pharmacological properties. The efficacy of monotherapy or combination therapy with oral vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes has been examined in randomized, double-blind, multicentre trials. Monotherapy with vildagliptin 50 mg once or twice daily reduced glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline to a significantly greater extent than placebo, according to the results of 12- to 52-week trials in patients with type 2 diabetes. In terms of the reduction from baseline in HbA(1c) seen in active comparator trials of 12-104 weeks' duration, the noninferiority of vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily was established versus acarbose or rosiglitazone, the noninferiority of vildagliptin 100 mg once daily (an off-label dosage) versus metformin was established in elderly patients and vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily was more effective than voglibose; however, the noninferiority of vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily versus metformin or gliclazide was not established in two other trials. Combination therapy with vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily plus metformin improved HbA(1c) to a significantly greater extent than monotherapy with metformin and/or vildagliptin alone in patients with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy or who were treatment naive, according to the results of 12- or 24-week trials. In addition, vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily plus metformin demonstrated noninferiority to pioglitazone plus metformin, glimepiride plus metformin or gliclazide plus metformin in terms of the change from baseline in HbA(1c) after 24 or 52 weeks' therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. The addition of vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily to pioglitazone or vildagliptin 50 mg once daily to glimepiride improved HbA(1c) to a significantly greater extent than a thiazolidinedione or glimepiride alone in patients with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled, according to the results of 24-week trials. Oral vildagliptin 50 mg once or twice daily was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes. In particular, vildagliptin was associated with a low risk of hypoglycaemia and was weight neutral. Increases in transaminase levels were sometimes observed with a vildagliptin dosage of 100 mg once daily in clinical trials, and liver function should be monitored in patients receiving vildagliptin. However, meta-analyses of clinical trial data suggested that vildagliptin 50 mg once or twice daily was not associated with an increased risk of hepatic adverse events, transaminase elevations ≥3 × the upper limit of normal, pancreatitis, cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, infections or skin-related toxicity. In conclusion, vildagliptin is an important option for use in combination with metformin, a sulfonylurea or a thiazolidinedione in patients with type 2 diabetes who require combination therapy.

New treatments for type 2 diabetes in the UK - an evolving landscape

New classes of treatments for type 2 diabetes have been developed recently and are now available in the UK. This review aims to summarise key clinical efficacy, tolerability and safety data for these agents, including liraglutide, which has received preliminary review by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and was launched in the UK in 2009.

Are sulfonylureas less desirable than DPP-4 inhibitors as add-on to metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes?

Sulfonylureas (SUs) are commonly used as add-on to metformin in treatment of type 2 diabetes in patients who are insufficiently controlled by metformin alone. They have good efficacy and have been shown to prevent microvascular complications. However, treatment with SUs is also associated with a high frequency of hypoglycemia, increased body weight, and a high risk of secondary failure. During recent years, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have emerged as alternatives to SUs. They show similar efficacy as SUs but with lower risk of hypoglycemia, and reduction or no change in body weight, and if confirmed in humans, they may preserve islet function and thereby minimize the risk for secondary failure. Their limitation at present is the lack of long-term (>5 years) experience on durability and safety. Overall, therefore, the conclusion emerges that SUs are less desirable than DPP-4 inhibitors in management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes.

Safety and efficacy of saxagliptin in combination with submaximal sulphonylurea versus up-titrated sulphonylurea over 76 weeks

To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on sulphonylurea monotherapy, 768 patients were randomised to saxagliptin 2.5 or 5 mg in combination with glyburide 7.5 mg versus placebo added to up-titrated glyburide over 76 weeks (24 weeks plus 52-week extension) in this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial; 557 patients completed the study, 142 without being rescued. At 76 weeks, adjusted mean changes from baseline HbA(1C) (repeated measures model) (95% confidence interval) for saxagliptin 2.5 mg, saxagliptin 5 mg, and up-titrated glyburide were 0.11% (-0.05, 0.27), 0.03% (-0.14, 0.19), and 0.69% (0.47, 0.92), respectively (post hoc and nominal p < 0.0001 for saxagliptin 2.5 and 5 mg vs. up-titrated glyburide). Adverse event frequency was similar in all treatment groups; reported hypoglycaemia event rates were 24.2%, 22.9%, and 20.6% with saxagliptin 2.5 mg, saxagliptin 5 mg, and up-titrated glyburide, respectively. Saxagliptin plus glyburide provided sustained incremental efficacy compared with up-titrated glyburide over 76 weeks, and was generally well tolerated.

Clinical evidence and mechanistic basis for vildagliptin's action when added to metformin

Several new oral antidiabetic agents, known as 'gliptins' or 'enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitors', have been developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and a key clinical use of the gliptins is in combination with metformin. There are important differences in the kinetics of the interaction of different gliptins with the catalytic site of DPP-4, which may lead to varying pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and dosing regimens. Therefore, individual gliptins need to be characterized and here we discuss the extensively studied DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin, which has binding characteristics that ensure inhibition of the enzyme beyond the presence of detectable drug levels in plasma. As vildagliptin has been used most often at doses of 50 mg once or twice daily, in combination with metformin, this review focuses on these dose regimens. All clinical trials employing vildagliptin (50 mg once or twice daily) as an add-on therapy to metformin (identified by MEDLINE search using keywords vildagliptin and metformin or known by authors to be in press) are reviewed, as is current knowledge of the mechanism of action of vildagliptin. Vildagliptin added to a stable dose of metformin elicits a dose-related decrease in both HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose. The additional efficacy seen with 50 mg twice daily [ΔHbA1c ∼- 1.1% (-12.1 mmol/mol)] relative to 50 mg once daily [ΔHbA1c ∼- 0.7% (-7.7 mmol/mol)] is attributable to an overnight effect of the evening dose of vildagliptin, with prolonged DPP-4 inhibition and elevated fasting levels of the intact and insulinotropic form of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1). Vildagliptin's therapeutic actions are primarily mediated by GLP-1 and metformin enhances vildagliptin's effect to raise plasma levels of intact GLP-1. Vildagliptin is weight-neutral and has a very low hypoglycaemic potential, explained by its remarkable ability to enhance both α-cell and β-cell sensitivity to glucose. Therefore, vildagliptin offers a clinically important outcome when added to metformin with a twice daily dose regimen, taking advantage of its tight binding and slow dissociation characteristics that lead to a sustained overnight effect.

Second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: a systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although there is general agreement that metformin should be used as first-line pharmacotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes, uncertainty remains regarding the choice of second-line therapy once metformin is no longer effective. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of all available classes of antihyperglycemic therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials published in English from 1980 to October 2009. Additional citations were obtained from grey literature and conference proceedings and through stakeholder feedback. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Key outcomes of interest were hemoglobin A1c, body weight, hypoglycemia, quality of life, long-term diabetes-related complications, serious adverse drug events and mortality. Mixed-treatment comparison and pairwise meta-analyses were conducted to pool trial results, when appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified 49 active and non-active controlled randomized trials that compared 2 or more of the following classes of antihyperglycemic agents and weight-loss agents: sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues, insulins, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, sibutramine and orlistat. All classes of second-line antihyperglycemic therapies achieved clinically meaningful reductions in hemoglobin A1c (0.6% to 1.0%). No significant differences were found between classes. Insulins and insulin secretagogues were associated with significantly more events of overall hypoglycemia than the other agents, but severe hypoglycemia was rarely observed. An increase in body weight was observed with the majority of second-line therapies (1.8 to 3.0 kg), the exceptions being DPP-4 inhibitors, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues (0.6 to -1.8 kg). There were insufficient data available for diabetes complications, mortality or quality of life.

INTERPRETATION

DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues achieved improvements in glycemic control similar to those of other second-line therapies, although they may have modest benefits in terms of weight gain and overall hypoglycemia. Further long-term trials of adequate power are required to determine whether newer drug classes differ from older agents in terms of clinically meaningful outcomes.

Assessing the general safety and tolerability of vildagliptin: value of pooled analyses from a large safety database versus evaluation of individual studies

Aim:

Analyzing safety aspects of a drug from individual studies can lead to difficult-to-interpret results. The aim of this paper is therefore to assess the general safety and tolerability, including incidences of the most common adverse events (AEs), of vildagliptin based on a large pooled database of Phase II and III clinical trials.

Methods:

Safety data were pooled from 38 studies of ≥12 to ≥104 weeks’ duration. AE profiles of vildagliptin (50 mg bid; N = 6116) were evaluated relative to a pool of comparators (placebo and active comparators; N = 6210). Absolute incidence rates were calculated for all AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuations due to AEs, and deaths.

Results:

Overall AEs, SAEs, discontinuations due to AEs, and deaths were all reported with a similar frequency in patients receiving vildagliptin (69.1%, 8.9%, 5.7%, and 0.4%, respectively) and patients receiving comparators (69.0%, 9.0%, 6.4%, and 0.4%, respectively), whereas drug-related AEs were seen with a lower frequency in vildagliptin-treated patients (15.7% vs 21.7% with comparators). The incidences of the most commonly reported specific AEs were also similar between vildagliptin and comparators, except for increased incidences of hypoglycemia, tremor, and hyperhidrosis in the comparator group related to the use of sulfonylureas.

Conclusions:

The present pooled analysis shows that vildagliptin was overall well tolerated in clinical trials of up to >2 years in duration. The data further emphasize the value of a pooled analysis from a large safety database versus assessing safety and tolerability from individual studies.

Incretin therapies in the management of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Aging is characterized by a progressive increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), which approaches 20% by age 70 years. Older patients with T2DM are a very heterogeneous group with multiple comorbidities, an increased risk of hypoglycemia, and a greater susceptibility to adverse effects of antihyperglycemic drugs, making treatment of T2DM in this population challenging. The risk of severe hypoglycemia likely represents the greatest barrier to T2DM care in the elderly. Although recent guidelines recommend more flexibility in treating this population with individualized targets, inadequate glycemic control is still closely linked to poor outcome in elderly patients. Incretins (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide [GIP] and glucagon-like peptide-1 [GLP-1]) are hormones released post-meal from intestinal endocrine cells that stimulate insulin secretion and suppress postprandial glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner. "Incretin therapies," comprising the injectable GLP-1 analogs and oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, are promising new therapies for use in older patients because of their consistent efficacy and low risk of hypoglycemia. However, data with these new agents are still scarce in this population, which has not been particularly well represented in clinical trials, highlighting the need for additional specific studies. The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the available data and potential role of these novel incretin therapies in managing T2DM in the elderly. With the exception of the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin, there is no published trial to date dedicated to this population, although a few studies are currently ongoing. Therefore, available data from elderly subgroups of individual studies were also reviewed when available, as well as pooled analyses by age subgroups across clinical programs conducted with incretin therapies.

Pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes: the potential of incretin-based therapies

Management guidelines recommend metformin as the first-line therapy for most patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled by diet and exercise. Efficacy with metformin therapy is usually of limited duration, which necessitates the early introduction of one or two additional oral agents or the initiation of injections, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists or insulin. Although safe and effective, metformin monotherapy has been associated with gastrointestinal side effects (≈20% of treated patients in randomized studies) and is contraindicated in patients with renal insufficiency or severe liver disease. Patients treated with a sulphonylurea are at increased risk for hypoglycaemia and moderate weight gain, whereas those receiving a thiazolidinedione are subject to an increased risk of weight gain, oedema, heart failure or fracture. Weight gain and hypoglycaemia are associated with insulin use. Thus, there is an unmet need for a safe and efficacious add-on agent after initial-therapy failure. Evidence suggests that incretin-based agents, such as GLP-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, can successfully achieve glycaemic targets and potentially provide cardiovascular and β-cell-function benefits. This review will examine current approaches for treating type 2 diabetes and discuss the place of incretin therapies, mainly GLP-1 agonists, in the type 2 diabetes treatment spectrum.

Severe sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia: a problem of uncritical prescription and deficiencies of diabetes care in geriatric patients

OBJECTIVE

Severe sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia (SH) remains a life-threatening and under-reported condition. We investigated the incidence of SH and clinical characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) to demonstrate typical risk constellations.

METHODS

In a prospective population-based observational study, all consecutive cases of SH in the period 2000 - 2009 in a German area with 200,000 inhabitants were registered. Severe hypoglycemia was defined as a symptomatic event requiring treatment with intravenous glucose and was confirmed by a blood glucose measurement of < 50 mg/dl.

RESULTS

A mean incidence of seven episodes of SH per year and 100,000 inhabitants was registered. The 139 hypoglycemic individuals had been treated with glimepiride (n = 98), glibenclamide (n = 40) or gliquidone (n = 1). No preparation showed a constant dose-effect relationship, SH occurring within a wide dose range. The patients were characterized as follows: age 77.5 + or - 9.4 years, duration of diabetes 11 + or - 7 years, body mass index 26.3 + or - 4.9 kg/m(2), HbA1c 6.6 + or - 1.3%, creatinine clearance 46 + or - 24 ml/min with renal insufficiency in 73% and co-medication 7 + or - 3 drugs. Two-thirds of all subjects lived independently at home whereas a third were cared for by a home nursing service or received care in nursing homes. In all, 30% had participated in diabetes education programs. In 31%, systematic blood glucose monitoring was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Uncritical prescription of sulfonylureas neglecting crucial contraindications - particularly renal insufficiency - and deficiencies of diabetes care contributed substantially to the risk of SH in the mainly geriatric patients. There is a need for alternative therapeutic concepts that minimize the risk of hypoglycemia in geriatric patients with T2DM.

Patient considerations and clinical utility of a fixed dose combination of saxagliptin/metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Targeting glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels below 7.0% is considered a primary goal of diabetes care, given its importance in obtaining a sustained reduction in microvascular, and possibly macrovascular complications.

AIM

The aim of this review was to evaluate the clinical utility of a fixed dose combination of saxagliptin/metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The combination of saxagliptin/metformin was well tolerated and produced sustained glycemic control for up to 76 weeks, with greater improvements in glycemic parameters compared with either drug alone. The saxagliptin/metformin combination also proved its non-inferiority compared with either sulfonylurea/metformin or sitagliptin/metformin combinations.

PLACE IN THERAPY

Clinical practice recommends lifestyle interventions together with starting metformin at the time that the type 2 diabetes mellitus is diagnosed. Once metformin fails to maintain glycemic control, the addition of DPP-4 inhibitors should be the logical choice because of their effects on HbA(1c) compared to the addition of a sulfonylurea or glitazone, and because of their positive effects on beta cell function and their neutral effects on body weight. Furthermore, DPP-4 inhibitors prevent the risk of hypoglycemia posed by sulfonylureas.

Initial combination therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus: is it ready for prime time?

The increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is primarily being driven by the increasing global rates of overweight/obesity. Given the magnitude of this epidemic, we can expect these metabolic abnormalities to play an increasing role in the development of cardiovascular disease. In a pathophysiologic sense, type 2 diabetes is a multiorgan, multifactorial condition, characterized by β-cell dysfunction, insulin resistance in peripheral tissues and the liver, defective incretin activity, and elevated levels of free fatty acids and proinflammatory mediators. Despite the considerable burden of disease associated with type 2 diabetes, most patients are not at, or are unable to achieve, recommended glycemic control guideline targets. In part, this is because of the relentlessly progressive nature of the disease, but it may also be attributable to the current diabetes treatment paradigm, which is characterized by ineffective lifestyle interventions, followed by monotherapy and frequent early treatment failure with prolonged periods of elevated glucose as a consequence of clinical inertia. Thus, it is most appropriate to rethink the current treatment paradigm for type 2 diabetes in the context of a more aggressive initial therapy; specifically with early initiation of combination therapy. Our current understanding of the complex pathophysiology of the disease and the progressive deterioration in glycemic control over time supports the philosophy of earlier intervention with a more comprehensive initial therapy. Thus, while control of hyperglycemia remains the paramount goal, focusing on the underlying pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes is increasingly becoming the therapeutic strategy, with the aim of potentially providing disease modification. Although this is a logical approach, it remains to be demonstrated that early combination therapy will result in disease modification in a clinical setting. Not surprisingly, the incretin-based therapies have gained a great deal of attention in the context of being a component of initial combination therapy, given their potential beneficial effects on β-cell function with lowered risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia.

Safety and efficacy of linagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the potent and selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin administered as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control.

METHODS

This 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study was carried out in 82 centres in 10 countries. Patients with HbA1c levels of 7.0-10.0% on metformin and a maximum of one additional antidiabetes medication, which was discontinued at screening, continued on metformin ≥1500 mg/day for 6 weeks, including a placebo run-in period of 2 weeks, before being randomized to linagliptin 5 mg once daily (n = 524) or placebo (n = 177) add-on. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment, evaluated with an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were 8.1% and 9.4 mmol/l, respectively. Linagliptin showed significant reductions vs. placebo in adjusted mean changes from baseline of HbA1c (-0.49 vs. 0.15%), FPG (-0.59 vs. 0.58 mmol/l) and 2hPPG (-2.7 vs. 1.0 mmol/l); all p < 0.0001. Hypoglycaemia was rare, occurring in three patients (0.6%) treated with linagliptin and five patients (2.8%) in the placebo group. Body weight did not change significantly from baseline in both groups (-0.5 kg placebo, -0.4 kg linagliptin).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of linagliptin 5 mg once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in glycaemic control without weight gain or increased risk of hypoglycaemia.

Clinical experience with vildagliptin in the management of type 2 diabetes in a patient population ≥75 years: a pooled analysis from a database of clinical trials

AIM

To report the experience with vildagliptin in a patient population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) ≥75 years.

METHODS

Efficacy data from seven monotherapy and three add-on therapy to metformin studies, respectively, of ≥24 weeks duration were pooled; effects of 24 weeks of treatment with vildagliptin (50 mg bid) in patients ≥75 years were assessed in these two pooled datasets. Safety data were pooled from 38 studies of ≥12 to ≥104 weeks duration; adverse events (AEs) profiles of vildagliptin (50 mg bid) were evaluated relative to a pool of comparators; 301 patients ≥75 years were analysed. Data in patients <75 years are provided as a reference.

RESULTS

Mean age of the elderly population was 77 years. Changes in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) with vildagliptin in the patient group ≥75 years were -0.9% from a baseline of 8.3% in monotherapy (p < 0.0001) and -1.1% from a baseline of 8.5% in add-on therapy to metformin (p = 0.0004), and these reductions were similar to those seen in the younger patients. The corresponding weight changes in the elderly patients were -0.9 kg (p = 0.0277) and -0.2 kg [not significant (NS)], respectively, and no confirmed hypoglycaemic events, including no severe events, were reported. AEs, drug-related AEs, serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths were reported with a lower frequency in older patients receiving vildagliptin than comparators [133.9 vs. 200.6, 14.5 vs. 21.8, 8.8 vs. 16.5 and 0.0 vs. 1.7 events per 100 subject year exposure (SYE), respectively], and the incidence of discontinuations due to AEs was similar in the two groups (7.2 vs. 7.5 events per 100 SYE, respectively). The safety profile of vildagliptin was overall similar in younger and older patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin was effective and well-tolerated in type 2 diabetic patients ≥75 years (mean age 77 years).

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a comparative review

The dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors are a new class of antihyperglycaemic agents which were developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes by rational drug design, based on an understanding of the underlying mechanism of action and knowledge of the structure of the target enzyme. Although they differ in terms of their chemistry, they are all small molecules which are orally available. There are some differences between them in terms of their absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination, as well as in their potency and duration of action, but their efficacy, both in terms of inhibiting plasma DPP-4 activity and as antidiabetic agents, appears to be similar. They improve glycaemic control, reducing both fasting and postprandial glucose levels to lower HbA1c levels, without weight gain and with an apparently benign adverse event profile. At present, there seems to be little to distinguish between the different inhibitors in terms of their efficacy as antidiabetic agents and their safety. Long-term accumulated clinical experience will reveal whether compound-related characteristics lead to any clinically relevant differences.

Incretin-based therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus: properties, functions, and clinical implications

The incretin hormones, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1), which are secreted by cells of the gastrointestinal tract in response to meal ingestion, exercise important glucoregulatory effects, including the glucose-dependent potentiation of insulin secretion by pancreatic β-cells. Research on the defective incretin action in type 2 diabetes mellitus suggests that the observed loss of insulinotropic activity may be due primarily to a decreased responsiveness of β-cells to GIP. GLP-1 does retain efficacy, albeit not at physiologic levels. Accordingly, augmentation of GLP-1 is a logical therapeutic strategy to ameliorate this deficiency, although the short metabolic half-life of the native hormone renders direct infusion impractical. GLP-1 receptor agonists that resist degradation by the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) and have protracted-action kinetics have been developed, and DPP-4 inhibitors that slow the enzymatic cleavage of native GLP-1 provide alternative approaches to enhancing incretin-mediated glucose control. However, GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors are premised on highly divergent mechanisms of action. DPP-4 is ubiquitously expressed in many tissues and is involved in a wide range of physiologic processes in addition to its physiologic influence on incretin hormone biological activity. GLP-1 receptor agonists provide a pharmacologic level of GLP-1 receptor stimulation, whereas DPP-4 inhibitors appear to increase levels of circulating GLP-1 to within the physiologic range. This article examines the physiology of the incretin system, mechanistic differences between GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors used as glucose-lowering agents in the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and the implications of these differences for treatment. The results of recent head-to-head trials are reviewed, comparing the effects of incretin-based therapies on a range of clinical parameters, including glycemia, β-cell function, weight, and cardiovascular function.

Add-on therapies to metformin for type 2 diabetes

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

As of 2010, approximately 285 million people worldwide have diabetes; that number is estimated to increase to 439 million by 2030. The majority of these individuals (> 90%) have type 2 diabetes, a chronic and progressive disease.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

Metformin monotherapy is a safe and effective option. However, its effects on glycemia are typically of limited durability. Progressive loss of β-cell function and failure of metformin monotherapy to control glucose adequately prompt the addition of other oral antidiabetic drugs, such as sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones, which have their own limitations. Evidence suggests that incretin-based agents can successfully achieve glycemic control while potentially providing cardiovascular and β-cell-function benefits.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Knowledge of the available clinical evidence on the incretin-based therapies and other pharmacotherapeutic options for patients with type 2 diabetes who fail first-line therapy with metformin, through an analysis of improved glycemic parameters and overall risk:benefit profiles.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Traditional oral antidiabetic agents, recommended as first- and second-line therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with diet/exercise or monotherapy, have limited durability of effect and are associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors provide glycemic control and are promising additions to the pharmacotherapeutic armamentarium.

Saxagliptin is non-inferior to glipizide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin alone: a 52-week randomised controlled trial

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin vs. glipizide as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and inadequate glycaemic control on metformin alone.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

A total of 858 patients [age ≥ 18 years; glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c) ) > 6.5 - 10.0%; on stable metformin doses ≥ 1500 mg/day] were randomised 1 : 1 to saxagliptin 5 mg/day or glipizide up-titrated as needed from 5 to 20 mg/day for 52 weeks. The primary objective was to assess if the change from baseline HbA(1c) achieved with saxagliptin plus metformin was non-inferior to glipizide plus metformin.

RESULTS

The per-protocol analysis demonstrated non-inferiority of saxagliptin vs. glipizide; adjusted mean changes from baseline HbA(1c) were -0.74% vs. -0.80%, respectively; the between-group difference was 0.06% (95% CI, -0.05% to 0.16%). Treatment with saxagliptin vs. glipizide was associated with a significantly smaller proportion of patients with hypoglycaemic events (3.0% vs. 36.3%; p < 0.0001) and a divergent impact on body weight (adjusted mean change from baseline -1.1 kg with saxagliptin vs. 1.1 kg with glipizide; p < 0.0001). There was a significantly smaller rise in HbA(1c) (%/week) from week 24 to 52 with saxagliptin vs. glipizide (0.001% vs. 0.004%; p = 0.04) indicating a sustained glycaemic effect beyond week 24. Excluding hypoglycaemic events, the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events (AEs) was similar (60.0% saxagliptin vs. 56.7% glipizide); treatment-related AEs were less common with saxagliptin vs. glipizide (9.8% vs. 31.2%), attributable to the higher frequency of hypoglycaemia in glipizide patients. Discontinuation rates resulting from AEs were similar (∼4%).

CONCLUSION

Saxagliptin plus metformin was well tolerated, provided a sustained HbA(1c) reduction over 52 weeks, and was non-inferior to glipizide plus metformin, with reduced body weight and a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia.

Emerging treatment options for type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is rapidly increasing in prevalence and is a major public health problem. It is a progressive disease which commonly requires multiple pharmacotherapy. Current options for treatment may have undesirable side effects (particularly weight gain and hypoglycaemia) and contraindications, and little effect on disease progression. Incretin based therapy is one of several newer therapies to improve glycaemia and is available in two different forms, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists. Use of these agents results in a 'glucose-dependant' increase in insulin secretion and glucagon suppression resulting in improved glycaemia with low incidence of hypoglycaemia. DPP-4 inhibitors are oral drugs which are weight neutral, while GLP-1 agonists are injected subcutaneously and help promote weight loss while improving glycaemia. GLP-1 agonists have also been shown to increase beta cell mass in rat models. Bariatric surgery is another option for the obese patient with T2DM, with blood glucose normalizing in over half of the patients following surgery. Other therapies in development for the treatment of T2DM include sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, glucagon receptor antagonists, glucokinase activators and sirtuins. In this article, we will review the various existing and emerging treatment options for T2DM.

Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in combination with metformin compared with sitagliptin in combination with metformin in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors improve glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus when used as monotherapy or in combination with other anti-diabetic drugs (metformin, sulphonylurea, or thiazolidinedione). This 18-week, phase 3b, multicentre, double-blind, noninferiority trial compared the efficacy and safety of two dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, saxagliptin and sitagliptin, in patients whose glycaemia was inadequately controlled with metformin.

METHODS

Adult type 2 diabetes mellitus patients (N = 801) with glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) 6.5-10% on stable metformin doses (1500-3000 mg/day) were randomized 1 : 1 to add-on 5 mg saxagliptin or 100 mg sitagliptin once daily for 18 weeks. The primary efficacy analysis was a comparison of the change from baseline HbA(1c) at week 18 in per-protocol patients. Noninferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the HbA(1c) difference between treatments was < 0.3%.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean changes in HbA(1c) following the addition of saxagliptin or sitagliptin to stable metformin therapy were - 0.52 and - 0.62%, respectively. The between-group difference was 0.09% (95% confidence interval, - 0.01 to 0.20%), demonstrating noninferiority. Both treatments were generally well tolerated; incidence and types of adverse events were comparable between groups. Hypoglycaemic events, mostly mild, were reported in approximately 3% of patients in each treatment group. Body weight declined by a mean of 0.4 kg in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Saxagliptin added to metformin therapy was effective in improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by metformin alone; saxagliptin plus metformin was noninferior to sitagliptin plus metformin, and was generally well tolerated.

Vildagliptin add-on to metformin produces similar efficacy and reduced hypoglycaemic risk compared with glimepiride, with no weight gain: results from a 2-year study

AIM

To show that vildagliptin added to metformin is non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA1c levels from baseline over 2 years.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, active-comparator study of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled (HbA1c 6.5-8.5%) by metformin monotherapy. Patients received vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) or glimepiride (up to 6 mg/day) added to metformin.

RESULTS

In all, 3118 patients were randomized (vildagliptin, n = 1562; glimepiride, n = 1556). From similar baseline values (7.3%), after 2 years adjusted mean (s.e.) change in HbA1c was comparable between vildagliptin and glimepiride treatment: -0.1% (0.0%) and -0.1% (0.0%), respectively. The primary objective of non-inferiority was met. A similar proportion of patients reached HbA1c <7% (36.9 and 38.3%, respectively), but with vildagliptin more patients reached this target without hypoglycaemia (36.0% vs. 28.8%; p = 0.004). The initial response (IR) was sustained for a mean (s.d.) of 309 (244) days with vildagliptin versus 270 (223) days for glimepiride (p < 0.001) (IR = nadir HbA1c where change from baseline > or =0.5% or HbA1c < or =6.5% within the first six months of treatment. After IR was detected, sustained response = time between nadir and an increase of >0.3% above IR). Independent of disease duration, age was a predictor of effect sustainability. Fewer patients experienced hypoglycaemia with vildagliptin (2.3% vs. 18.2% with glimepiride) with a 14-fold difference in the number of hypoglycaemic events (59 vs. 838). Vildagliptin had a beneficial effect on body weight [mean (s.e.) change from baseline -0.3 (0.1) kg; between-group difference -1.5 kg; p < 0.001]. Overall, both treatments were well tolerated and displayed similar safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin add-on has similar efficacy to glimepiride after 2 years' treatment, with markedly reduced hypoglycaemia risk and no weight gain.

Weight neutrality with the DPP-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin: mechanistic basis and clinical experience

Various factors may confound how diabetes medications affect a patient’s weight. Agents that induce hypoglycemia may promote weight gain through “defensive eating”. Conversely, patients whose hyperglycemia exceeds the renal glucose threshold may overeat to compensate for calories lost in urine and so gain weight when drug therapy ablates glycosuria. Some drugs, such as thiazolidinediones, may promote weight gain via increased lipid storage. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists increase satiety, delay gastric emptying, and generally produce weight loss. Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors are generally weight-neutral, although modest weight loss has been observed with the DPP-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, in patients with relatively low baseline glycemia. The weight neutrality of vildagliptin likely results in part from its intrinsically low risk for hypoglycemia. Recent studies point to additional potential mechanisms. One study found that drug-naïve patients randomized to vildagliptin exhibited significantly lower chylomicron lipid and apolipoprotein levels than placebo patients, suggesting that vildagliptin may inhibit intestinal fat extraction. Another trial found that patients randomized to vildagliptin versus placebo experienced paradoxical postprandial increases in markers of fatty acid mobilization and oxidation, in conjunction with increased sympathetic stimulation. Elaboration of these and other pathways could further clarify the origins of the favorable weight profile of vildagriptin.

Role of vildagliptin in managing type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) increases with age. Older patients have an increased likelihood for T2DM-related morbidity and mortality. The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the challenges in managing T2DM in the elderly, with an emphasis on prevention of hypoglycaemia and the role of the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin in this patient population.

METHODS

A search of PubMed was conducted (from 2003 to 2010) to identify English-language articles relevant to the management of elderly patients with T2DM, with an emphasis on vildagliptin treatment. A limitation of this review is that it does not provide an overview of the entire class of dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

FINDINGS

Management of T2DM in elderly patients is complicated by numerous factors, including a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and other comorbidities and a high frequency of polypharmacy issues. Hypoglycaemia may pose the greatest barrier to optimal glycaemic control in elderly patients, who are less likely to recognise and respond to hypoglycaemic episodes, leading to increased frequency and severity of events. Data on the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin indicate that reductions in A1C in elderly patients are at least as good as those observed in younger patients and are achieved with minimal risk of hypoglycaemia. T2DM in older individuals is associated with relative hyperglucagonaemia and elevated postprandial glucose (PPG). Vildagliptin treatment appears to address both these defects. Vildagliptin improves the ability of alpha- and beta-cells to respond appropriately to changes in plasma glucose levels. This, in the face of high glucose levels, results in reduced inappropriate glucagon secretion and PPG excursions. In the face of low glucose, however, the protective glucagon response is well-preserved. These factors help explain the efficacy and minimal risk of hypoglycaemia observed with vildagliptin in elderly patients.

CONCLUSION

The elderly population with T2DM poses unique treatment challenges and have not been particularly well-represented in clinical trials, highlighting the need for additional studies to better define appropriate glucose targets and to ascertain the best strategies for achieving and maintaining appropriate glycaemic levels. Because vildagliptin does not expose patients to hypoglycaemic risk, it seems particularly suited to oral therapy of T2DM in the elderly.

Key considerations around the risks and consequences of hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes

Hypoglycaemia and its consequences represent a significant risk for many people who have type 2 diabetes, and hypoglycaemia is currently under-recognised and commonly avoidable. Current clinical guidelines recommend the targeting of tight glycaemic control and this strategy may also be associated with an increased risk of hypoglycaemia. Hypoglycaemia impacts on morbidity, mortality and quality of life of people with type 2 diabetes, and improved recognition of the symptoms of hypoglycaemia will allow effective treatment and reduce the risk of progression to more severe episodes. A common cause of hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes is glucose-lowering medication, in particular, those which raise insulin independently of ambient glucose concentration such as sulphonylureas and exogenous insulin. The recently published National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guideline recommends the use of Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors or thiazolidinediones (glitazones) as alternative second-line therapy instead of a sulphonylurea in those patients who are at significant risk of hypoglycaemia and its consequences.

Is the ADA/EASD algorithm for the management of type 2 diabetes (January 2009) based on evidence or opinion? A critical analysis

The ADA and the EASD recently published a consensus statement for the medical management of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. The authors advocate initial treatment with metformin monotherapy and lifestyle modification, followed by addition of basal insulin or a sulfonylurea if glycaemic goals are not met (tier 1 recommendations). All other glucose-lowering therapies are relegated to a secondary (tier 2) status and only recommended for selected clinical settings. In our view, this algorithm does not offer physicians and patients the appropriate selection of options to individualise and optimise care with a view to sustained control of blood glucose and reduction both of diabetes complications and cardiovascular risk. This paper critically assesses the basis of the ADA/EASD algorithm and the resulting tiers of treatment options.

Partnering with patients to improve therapeutic outcomes: incretin-based therapy for type 2 diabetes

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus has reached epidemic proportions. Current treatment options for patients with diabetes include lifestyle modifications (eg, diet and exercise) along with pharmacotherapy (eg, oral antidiabetic drugs [OADs], incretin-based therapies, and insulin). Despite the availability of effective and safe treatments, many patients do not achieve recommended glycemic targets, thereby increasing their risk of long-term complications. Given the progressive nature of diabetes and the need for extensive patient management, it is important that physicians and patients develop a partnership to achieve therapeutic goals. At diagnosis, the diabetes care team, led by the patient, should evaluate all aspects of management, including appropriate treatment options that are suited to the patient's quality of life, convenience, and therapeutic goals. Treatment should also consider the patient's comorbidities, including hypertension and obesity. Management of early type 2 diabetes should include OADs and incretin-based therapies, and preference should be given to agents that do not cause either hypoglycemia or weight gain. A basal insulin should be initiated if glycemic control is not achieved with >or= 1 agents or if presenting glucose control is poor. Irrespective of pharmacotherapy, all patients should be encouraged to maintain a healthy diet and exercise regimen. Patients also need to become active participants in disease management by monitoring blood glucose, complying with medication, adhering to lifestyle modifications, and setting weight loss goals when appropriate. This article emphasizes the need for physicians and other health care providers to partner with patients to achieve therapeutic goals and presents a novel, multifaceted approach toward improving the management of diabetes in a clinical practice setting.

An assessment of adverse effects of vildagliptin versus comparators on the liver, the pancreas, the immune system, the skin and in patients with impaired renal function from a large pooled database of Phase II and III clinical trials

AIM

To assess the safety of vildagliptin versus all comparators (ACs) with regard to organs, systems or tissues of particular interest in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and areas of potential concern with dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODS

Data were pooled from 38 studies where vildagliptin was given for > or =12 to > 104 weeks in patients with T2DM. Absolute and exposure-adjusted incidence rates and Peto odds ratios (ORs) versus ACs with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

There were > 7000 subject-years of exposure (SYE) to vildagliptin 50 mg bid and > 6500 SYE to ACs. For mild hepatic enzyme elevations with and without elevated bilirubin levels, the ORs for vildagliptin 50 mg bid were 1.24 (95% CI: [0.80, 1.93]) and 1.19 (95% CI: [0.29, 4.90]), respectively. The exposure-adjusted incidences of markedly elevated hepatic enzymes and for enzyme elevations with bilirubin > or = 2x ULN with vildagliptin 50 mg bid were < or = those in the ACs group. For hepatic and pancreatitis-related AEs, the ORs for vildagliptin 50 mg bid were 0.87 (95% CI: [0.64, 1.19]) and 0.70 (95% CI: [0.26, 1.88]), respectively, and for any AE in the infections and infestations SOC, this was 1.04 (95% CI: [0.96, 1.13]). The incidences of skin-related AEs were low and the risk with vildagliptin 50 mg bid was not significantly different from ACs [(OR = 1.10 (95% CI: [0.80, 1.51])].

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analyses indicate that vildagliptin was not associated with increased risk of hepatic events or hepatic enzyme elevations indicative of drug-induced liver injury, pancreatitis, infections or skin-related toxicity.

Assessing the cardio-cerebrovascular safety of vildagliptin: meta-analysis of adjudicated events from a large Phase III type 2 diabetes population

AIM

To assess the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular (CCV) safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitor vildagliptin.

METHODS

Data were pooled from 25 Phase III studies of vildagliptin, used either as monotherapy or combination therapy, with durations of 12 weeks to > or = 2 years. The safety of vildagliptin [50 mg qd (N = 1393) or 50 mg bid (N = 6116)] was assessed relative to a pool of all comparators [both placebo and active comparators (N = 6061)]. CCV events were adjudicated in a prospective, blinded fashion by an independent CCV adjudication committee. Meta-analysis of confirmed CCV events was performed with Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs); categories included in the composite endpoint were acute coronary syndrome, transient ischaemic attack (with imaging evidence of infarction), stroke and CCV death. Subgroup analyses by age (< and > or = 65 years), gender and cardiovascular (CV) risk status [high CV risk status defined as a previous history of events in the Standard MedDRA Queries of ischaemic heart disease, cardiac failure, ischaemic cerebrovascular conditions and/or embolic/thrombotic events, arterial) were also carried out. In addition, unadjusted and exposure-adjusted incidences are presented for both the composite endpoint and its components.

RESULTS

Relative to all comparators, the RRs for the composite endpoint were < 1 for both vildagliptin 50 mg qd [RR = 0.88; 95% CI (0.37, 2.11)] and vildagliptin 50 mg bid [RR = 0.84; 95% CI (0.62, 1.14)]. The results were consistent across subgroups defined by age, gender and CV risk status, including the higher CV risk subgroups of elderly patients [RR for vildagliptin 50 mg bid vs. all comparators = 1.04; 95% CI (0.62, 1.73)], males [RR = 0.87; 95% CI (0.60, 1.24)] or patients with a high CV risk status [RR = 0.78; 95% CI (0.51, 1.19)]. The exposure-adjusted incidences of each component of the composite endpoint for vildagliptin 50 mg bid were also lower than or similar to those of all comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large meta-analysis, vildagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of adjudicated CCV events relative to all comparators in the broad population of type 2 diabetes including patients at increased risk of CCV events.

Avoiding hypoglycaemia while achieving good glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes through optimal use of oral agent therapy

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes appear to be at relatively low risk of severe hypoglycaemia and hypoglycaemia unawareness in the early stages of disease. However, declining endogenous insulin secretory capacity due to beta-cell dysfunction/failure eventually produces vulnerability similar to type 1 diabetes. Severe hypoglycaemia itself is associated with serious morbidity and sometimes mortality, and represents an important barrier to achieving glycaemic goals and thus may reduce the protection from diabetes-related morbidity provided by good glycaemic control. Achieving an optimal balance of good glycaemic control and low risk of hypoglycaemia is key to providing optimum care in individuals with type 2 diabetes. This article discusses the issues related specifically to hypoglycaemia associated with oral agent therapy and how these agents may be best employed to provide an optimal balance between hypoglycaemia and good glycaemic control.

METHODS

Embase and Medline searches from 1998 to 2009 using the search terms DPP-4 inhibitors, metformin, oral agents, sulphonylureas, thiazolidinediones AND hypoglycaemia were conducted to identify relevant articles. The limitations inherent in this retrospective, narrative review of previously published publications chosen at the author's discretion are acknowledged.

FINDINGS

Failure to address even mild hypoglycaemia and glycaemic control early in the course of the disease may compromise the success of treatment in the longer term. Metformin, thiazolidinediones and DPP-4 inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with each other, have a well-characterised low propensity to cause hypoglycaemia compared with other therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin, thiazolidinediones and DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be the most appropriate oral options for minimising the risk of hypoglycaemia. Early and ongoing attention to hypoglycaemia should form an integral part of any long-term glucose control strategy.

Age-related change in endothelial and microvessel function and therapeutic consequences

As the absolute numbers and proportion of older adults increases across most of the developed world, a greater understanding of the aetiopathogenic mechanisms of the increased vascular risk and their therapeutic implications becomes essential to all clinicians assessing and managing the geriatric patient. The role of endothelial function and the microcirculation is increasingly recognized in the maintenance of adequate perfusion, and their dysfunction is thought to be an early and potentially reversible mechanism by which age acts to increase cardiovascular risk.

Here we review evidence that altered microvascular function appears before other recognized predictors of vascular disease, and progresses from childhood to late adult life, preceding fulminant atherosclerotic or arteriosclerotic disease. Low birth-weight babies have reduced endothelial function in skin microvessels at 3 months, and by age ten brachial artery endothelial function is reduced in comparison with normal birth-weight babies. In overweight/obese adolescent children with clustering of traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors, endothelial function is lower compared with normal weight children and this appears to persist into early adulthood. Adult ageing is associated with impaired microvessel endothelial function and an increase in capillary blood pressure, independent of brachial artery blood pressure. Biological and lifestyle factors that influence microvessel function include body fat and visceral adiposity, sex hormone status, diet and physical activity.

Exploration of the therapeutic implications for management of endothelial dysfunction remains in embryonic state. The use of ACE-inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and direct renin inhibitors in patients with evidence of microvascular damage such as retinopathy and microalbuminuria has been established; however, in the general older population the benefit has yet to be established. Therefore current recommendations are to screen for microvascular damage and if present target treatments after control of other vascular risk factors such as hypertension.

Comparative evaluation of incretin-based antidiabetic medications and alternative therapies to be added to metformin in the case of monotherapy failure

Aims/Introduction:  To compare clinical consequences of using inretin-based medications versus conventional antidiabetic agents as add-on to metformin in case of monotherapy failure in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

  The medical literature including recent abstracts from international diabetes conferences was searched for reports from clinical trials with incretin mimetics (GLP-1 receptor agonists), inhibitors of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4, incretin enhancers) and conventional antidiabtic drugs coadministered with metformin after monotherapy failure. A scoring system is suggested to compare the clinical utility of using incretin-based versus conventional antidiabetic agents in this situation.

RESULTS

  Incretin mimetics and DPP-4 inhibitors on top of metformin treatment help achieve glycaemic control comparable to other efficient antidiabetic drugs, both if separate or head-to-head trials were considered. Incretin-based antidiabetic drugs did not cause hypoglycaemia (different from sulfonylureas, meglitinides and insulin) and weight gain (different from sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones, and insulin). DPP-4 inhibitors were weight neutral, incretin mimetics lead to weight loss. The clinical profile of incretin-based medications received the highest scores, followed by α-glucosidase inhibitors, with far lower scores assigned to insulin, glitazones, and sulfonyureas (in this order).

CONCLUSIONS

  Based on the results from clinical trials, incretin-based medications have been shown to be efficacious antidiabetic drugs with a favourable adverse event and tolerability profile. This leads to high scores using a novel system paying attention to multiple facets contributing to the selection of antidiabetic drugs for general recommendation and individual treatment choices.