Binding to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 determines the disposition of linagliptin (BI 1356) - investigations in DPP-4 deficient and wildtype rats

A Quantitative Systems Pharmacology Model of the Incretin Hormones GIP and GLP1, Glucagon, Glucose, Insulin, and the Small Molecule DPP-4 Inhibitor, Linagliptin

In the current study, we established a comprehensive quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) model using linagliptin as the model drug, where drug disposition, drug intervention on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP), Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), glucagon, glucose, and insulin are integrated together with the cross talk and feedback loops incorporated among the whole glycemic control system. In the final linagliptin QSP model, the complicated disposition of linagliptin was characterized by a 2-compartment pharmacokinetic (PK) model with an enterohepatic cycling (EHC) component as well as target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD) processes occurring in both tissues and plasma, and the inhibitory effect of linagliptin on DPP-4 was determined by the linagliptin-DPP-4 complex in the central compartment based on target occupancy principle. The integrated GIP-GLP1-glucagon-glucose-insulin system contains five indirect response models as the "skeleton" structure with 12 feedback loops incorporated within the glucose control system. Our model adequately characterized the substantial nonlinear PK of linagliptin, time course of DPP-4 inhibition, as well as the kinetics of GIP, GLP-1, glucagon, and glucose simultaneously in humans. Our model provided valuable insights on linagliptin pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and complicated glucose homeostasis. Since the glucose regulation modeling framework within the QSP model is "drug-independent", our model can be easily adopted by others to evaluate the effect of other DPP-4 inhibitors on the glucose control system. In addition, our QSP model, which contains more components than other reported glucose regulation models, can potentially be used to evaluate the effect of combination antidiabetic therapy targeting different components of glucose control system.

Target-Mediated Drug Disposition-A Class Effect of Soluble Epoxide Hydrolase Inhibitors

Pharmacological target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD) represents a special source of nonlinear pharmacokinetics, and its occurrence in large-molecule compounds has been well recognized because numerous protein drugs have been reported to have TMDD due to specific binding to their pharmacological targets. Although TMDD can also happen in small-molecule compounds, it has been largely overlooked. In this mini-review, we summarize the occurrence of TMDD that we discovered recently in a series of small-molecule soluble epoxide hydrolase (sEH) inhibitors. Our journey started with an accidental discovery of target-mediated kinetics of 1-(1-propanoylpiperidin-4-yl)-3-[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]urea (TPPU), a potent sEH inhibitor, in a pilot clinical study. To confirm what we observed in humans, we conducted a series of mechanism experiments in animals, including pharmacokinetic experiments using sEH knockout mice as well as in vivo displacement experiments with co-administration of another potent sEH inhibitor. Our mechanism studies confirmed that the TMDD of TPPU is due to its pharmacological target sEH. We further expanded our evaluation to various other sEH inhibitors and found that TMDD is a class effect of this group of small-molecule sEH inhibitors. In addition to summarizing the occurrence of TMDD in sEH inhibitors, in this mini-review we also highlighted the importance of recognizing TMDD of small-molecule compounds and its impact in clinical development as well as using pharmacometric modeling in facilitating quantitative understanding of TMDD.

Incorporating Pharmacological Target-Mediated Drug Disposition (TMDD) in a Whole-Body Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Model of Linagliptin in Rat and Scale-up to Human

Linagliptin demonstrates substantial nonlinear pharmacokinetics due to its saturable binding to its pharmacological target dipeptidyl peptide 4 (DPP-4), a phenomenon known as target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD). In the current study, we established a novel whole-body physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK)-TMDD model for linagliptin. This comprehensive model contains plasma and 14 tissue compartments, among which TMDD binding process was incorporated in 9 of them, namely the plasma, kidney, liver, spleen, lung, skin, salivary gland, thymus, and reproductive organs. Our final model adequately captured the concentration-time profiles of linagliptin in both plasma and various tissues in both wildtype rats and DPP4-deficient rats following different doses. The association rate constant (k_on) in plasma and tissues were estimated to be 0.943 and 0.00680 nM^-1 h^-1, respectively, and dissociation rate constant (k_off), in plasma and tissues were estimated to be 0.0698 and 0.00880 h^-1, respectively. The binding affinity of linagliptin to DPP-4 (Kd) was predicted to be higher in plasma (0.0740 nM) than that in tissue (1.29 nM). When scaled up to a human, this model captured the substantial and complex nonlinear pharmacokinetic behavior of linagliptin in human adults that is characterized by less-than dose-proportional increase in plasma exposure, dose-dependent clearance and volume of distribution, as well as long terminal half-life with minimal accumulation after repeated doses. Our modeling work is not only novel but also of high significance as the whole-body PBPK-TMDD model platform developed using linagliptin as the model compound could be applied to other small-molecule compounds exhibiting TMDD to facilitate their optimal dose selection. Graphical abstract.

Formulation development of linagliptin solid lipid nanoparticles for oral bioavailability enhancement: role of P-gp inhibition

Linagliptin (LGP), a novel anti-diabetic drug, is a DPP-4 inhibitor used in the treatment of type II diabetes. One of the major disadvantages of LGP is its low oral bioavailability (29.5%) due to first-pass metabolism and P-gp efflux. In an attempt to increase the oral bioavailability, LGP solid lipid nanoparticles (LGP-SLNs) were developed with poloxamer 188 and Tween 80 as P-gp inhibitors. LGP-SLNs were formulated using palmitic acid, poloxamer 188 and Tween 80 as lipid, surfactant and co-surfactant, respectively, by hot homogenization ultrasonication method and optimized using 3² full factorial designs. Particle size, entrapment efficiency (%EE) and drug release at 24 h were evaluated as responses. An optimized batch of LGP-SLNs (L12) was evaluated for intestinal transport of LGP by conducting in situ single-pass intestinal perfusion (SPIP), everted gut sac and Caco-2 permeability study. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of L12 was carried out in albino Wistar rats. The mean particle size, polydispersity index, zeta potential and %EE of L12 were found to be 225.96 ± 2.8 nm, 0.180 ± 0.034, - 5.4 ± 1.07 mV and 73.8 ± 1.73%, respectively. %CDR of 80.96 ± 3.13% was observed in 24 h. The permeability values of LGP-SLNs in the absorptive direction were 1.82-, 1.76- and 1.74-folds higher than LGP-solution (LGP-SOL) in SPIP, everted gut sac and Caco-2 permeability studies, respectively. LGP-SLNs exhibited relative bioavailability of 300% and better reduction in glucose levels in comparison with LGP-SOL in rats. The enhanced oral bioavailability exhibited by LGP-SLNs bioavailability may be due to P-gp efflux inhibition and lymphatic targeting. Improved bioabsorption can cause reduction in dose, dose-related side effects and frequency of administration. Thus, LGP-SLNs can be considered promising carriers for oral delivery but clinical studies are required to confirm the proof of concept.Graphical abstract.

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model of the DPP-4 Inhibitor Linagliptin to Describe its Nonlinear Pharmacokinetics in Humans

Linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor, for type 2 diabetes exhibits nonlinear plasma protein binding in the therapeutic concentration range due to its high affinity binding to the pharmacological target DPP-4, and its pharmacokinetics both in plasma and urine is also nonlinear. The purpose of the present study was to explain the nonlinear pharmacokinetic profiles using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model with saturable binding of linagliptin to soluble and membrane-bound DPP-4 in blood and organs including kidneys. The model was first fitted to previously reported full-scale plasma concentrations and urinary excretion data at 4 intravenous (iv) dose levels. Additional fitting to the data from 4 oral (po) dose levels was then performed to yield the final iv-po based model including gastrointestinal absorption-associated parameters. Data from [¹⁴C]linagliptin mass balance study were also used for optimizing parameters related to enterohepatic circulation. The PBPK model was thus constructed and well describes the nonlinear pharmacokinetic profiles of linagliptin in both plasma and urine, demonstrating that the nonlinear pharmacokinetics are fully explained by its specific binding to target protein. The present study thus introduces the involvement of target-mediated disposition for linagliptin in humans.

Simultaneous Target-Mediated Drug Disposition Model for Two Small-Molecule Compounds Competing for Their Pharmacological Target: Soluble Epoxide Hydrolase

1-(1-propanoylpiperidin-4-yl)-3-[4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]urea (TPPU) and 1-(4-trifluoro-methoxy-phenyl)-3-(1-cyclopropanecarbonyl-piperidin-4-yl)-urea (TCPU) are potent inhibitors of soluble epoxide hydrolase (sEH) that have much better efficacy in relieving nociceptive response than the Food and Drug Administration-approved drug gabapentin in a rodent model of diabetic neuropathy. Experiments conducted in sEH knockout mice or with coadministration of a potent sEH displacer demonstrated that the pharmacokinetics of TPPU and TCPU were influenced by the specific binding to their pharmacologic target sEH, a phenomenon known as target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD). To quantitatively characterize the complex pharmacokinetics of TPPU and TCPU and gain better understanding on their target occupancy, population pharmacokinetics analysis using a nonlinear mixed-effect modeling approach was performed in the current study. The final model was a novel simultaneous TMDD interaction model, in which TPPU and TCPU compete for sEH, with TCPU binding to an additional unknown target pool with larger capacity that we refer to as a refractory pool. The total amount of sEH enzyme in mice was predicted to be 16.2 nmol, which is consistent with the experimental value of 10 nmol. The dissociate rate constants of TPPU and TCPU were predicted to be 2.24 and 2.67 hours^-1, respectively, which is close to the values obtained from in vitro experiments. Our simulation result predicted that 90% of the sEH will be occupied shortly after a low dose of 0.3 mg/kg TPPU administration, with ≥40% of sEH remaining to be bound with TPPU for at least 7 days. Further efficacy experiments are warranted to confirm the predicted target occupancy. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Although target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD) models have been well documented, most of them were established in a single compound scenario. Our novel model represents the first TMDD interaction model for two small-molecule compounds competing for the same pharmacological target.

Efficacy and Safety of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in Kidney Transplant Recipients with Post-transplant Diabetes Mellitus (PTDM)- a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplant recipients may develop post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM). Dipeptidyl peptidase 4(DPP-4) inhibitors are evolving agents in the management of patients with diabetes mellitus.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in the management of post-transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) in renal transplant recipients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the electronic databases using keys words and Mesh terms. Data were extracted and reviewed using structured proforma. A comprehensive review of the eligible studies was performed independently by each of two reviewers; conflicts were resolved by the third reviewer. The primary efficacy endpoint was the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) comparing any of the DPP-4 inhibitors to either placebo or other hypoglycaemic agent. The primary safety endpoints were the worsening of graft functions and change in Tacrolimus trough level. We performed the Random effect model using standardised mean difference.

RESULTS

We identified seven studies that were eligible for the systematic review; only one study compared Sitagliptin to insulin Glargine. One study involved head to head comparison of three DPP-4 inhibitors. The other five studies were pooled in the meta-analysis. DPP-4 inhibitors had a favourable glycemic effect as measured by HbA1c when compared to either placebo or oral anti-hyperglycemic medications (standardised mean difference in HbA1c = -0.993, 95% CI= -1.303 to -0.683, P=0.001). DPP-4 inhibitors use did not result in significant change in eGFR ((standardised mean difference = 0.147, 95% CI= -0.139 - 0.433, p=0.312).) nor Tacrolimus level (standardised Mean Difference= 0.152, 95% CI= -0.172 to 0.477, P=0.354).

CONCLUSION

Current evidence supports the short term efficacy and safety of DDP-4 inhibitor agents in the management of post transplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) in kidney transplant recipients. However, more RCTs are required to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of these agents in kidney transplant recipients.

Target-Mediated Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Endothelin Receptor Antagonists

PURPOSE

Bosentan, clazosentan, and tezosentan are three small-molecule endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs), displacing endothelin-1 (ET-1) from its binding site. A target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD) pharmacokinetic (PK) model described the non-linearity in the PK of bosentan caused by its high receptor binding affinity with time-dependent varying receptor expression or reappearance. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the presence of TMDD for clazosentan and tezosentan and to corroborate the hypothesis of a diurnal receptor synthesis.

METHODS

PK data from healthy subjects after intravenous (i.v.) administration of single ascending doses of bosentan, clazosentan, and tezosentan were analyzed. Frequent blood samples for PK measurements were collected. Population analyses, simulations, and evaluations were performed using a non-linear mixed-effects modeling approach.

RESULTS

Two-compartment TMDD models were successfully developed describing the PK of all three ERAs with different receptor-complex internalization properties. The observed multiple peaks in the concentration-time profiles were captured with cosine functions on the receptor synthesis rate mimicking a diurnal receptor expression or reappearance. The results strongly suggest that TMDD is a class effect of ERAs.

CONCLUSION

The developed TMDD PK models are a next step towards understanding the complex PK of ERAs and further support the hypothesis that TMDD is a class effect of ERAs.

Concept of Pharmacologic Target-Mediated Drug Disposition in Large-Molecule and Small-Molecule Compounds

Target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD) is a term to describe a nonlinear pharmacokinetic (PK) phenomenon that is caused by high-affinity binding of a compound to its pharmacologic targets. As the interaction between a drug and its pharmacologic target belongs to the process of pharmacodynamics (PD), TMDD can be viewed as a consequence of "PD affecting PK." Although there are numerous TMDD-related articles in the literature, most of them focus on characterizing TMDD using various mathematical models, which may not be suitable for those readers who have little interest in mathematical modeling and only want to have an understanding of the basic concept. The goal of this review is to serve as a "primer" on TMDD. This review explains (1) how TMDD happens; (2) why large-molecule and small-molecule compounds exhibiting TMDD demonstrate substantially different nonlinear PK behaviors; (3) what nonlinear PK profiles look like in large-molecule and small-molecule compounds exhibiting TMDD, using pegfilgrastim, erythropoietin, ABT-384, and linagliptin as case examples; and (4) how to identify whether the nonlinear PK of a compound is because of TMDD.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors for the Potential Treatment of Brain Disorders; A Mini-Review With Special Focus on Linagliptin and Stroke

Cerebral stroke is a leading cause of death and persistent disability of elderly in the world. Although stroke prevention by targeting several risk factors such as diabetes and hypertension has decreased the stroke incidence, the total number of strokes is increasing due to the population aging and new preventive therapies are needed. Moreover, post-stroke acute pharmacological strategies aimed to reduce stroke-induced brain injury have failed in clinical trials despite being effective in animal models. Finally, approximately 30% of surviving stroke patients do not recover from stroke and remain permanently dependent on supportive care in activities of daily living. Therefore, strategies to improve stroke recovery in the post-acute phase are highly needed. Linagliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor which is clinically approved to reduce hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes. The regulation of glycemia by dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibition is mainly achieved by preventing endogenous glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) degradation. Interestingly, linagliptin has also shown glycaemia-independent beneficial effects in animal models of stroke, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. In some case the preclinical data have been supported with some clinical data. Although potentially very interesting for the development of new strategies against stroke and neurodegenerative disorders, the mode of action of linagliptin in the brain is still largely unknown and seems to occur in a GLP-1R-independent manner. The purpose of this mini-review is to summarize and discuss the recent experimental and clinical work regarding the effects of linagliptin in the central nervous system, with special emphasis on acute neuroprotection, stroke prevention and post-stroke recovery. We also highlight the main questions in this research field that need to be addressed in clinical perspective.

Small-Molecule Compounds Exhibiting Target-Mediated Drug Disposition (TMDD): A Minireview

Nonlinearities are commonplace in pharmacokinetics, and 1 special source is the saturable binding of the drug to a high-affinity, low-capacity target, a phenomenon known as target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD). Compared with large-molecule compounds undergoing TMDD, which has been well recognized due to its high prevalence, TMDD in small-molecule compounds is more counterintuitive and has not been well appreciated. With more and more potent small-molecule drugs acting on highly specific targets being developed as well as increasingly sensitive analytical techniques becoming available, many small-molecule compounds have recently been reported to have nonlinear pharmacokinetics imparted by TMDD. To expand our current knowledge of TMDD in small-molecule compounds and increase the awareness of this clinically important phenomenon, this minireview provides an overview of the small-molecule compounds that demonstrate nonlinear pharmacokinetics imparted by TMDD. The present review also summarizes the general features of TMDD in small-molecule compounds and highlights the differences between TMDD in small-molecule compounds and large-molecule compounds.

Comparative Analysis of Binding Kinetics and Thermodynamics of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and Their Relationship to Structure

The binding kinetics and thermodynamics of dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors (gliptins) were investigated using surface plasmon resonance and isothermal titration calorimetry. Binding of gliptins to DPP-4 is a rapid electrostatically driven process. Off-rates were generally slow partly because of reversible covalent bond formation by some gliptins, and partly because of strong and extensive interactions. Binding of all gliptins is enthalpy-dominated due to strong ionic interactions and strong solvent-shielded hydrogen bonds. Using a congeneric series of molecules which represented the intermediates in the lead optimization program of linagliptin, the onset of slow binding kinetics and development of the thermodynamic repertoire were analyzed in the context of incremental changes of the chemical structures. All compounds rapidly associated, and therefore the optimization of affinity and residence time is highly correlated. The major contributor to the increasing free energy of binding was a strong increase of binding enthalpy, whereas entropic contributions remained low and constant despite significant addition of lipophilicity.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of linagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, with consideration of Asian patient populations

Our aims were to summarize the clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitor, linagliptin, and to consider how these characteristics influence its clinical utility. Differences between linagliptin and other dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitors were also considered, in addition to the influence of Asian race on the pharmacology of linagliptin. Linagliptin has a xanthine‐based structure, a difference that might account for some of the pharmacological differences observed with linagliptin versus other dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitors. The long terminal half‐life of linagliptin results from its strong binding to dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4. Despite this, linagliptin shows a short accumulation half‐life, as a result of saturable, high‐affinity binding to dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of linagliptin make it suitable for once‐daily dosing in a broad range of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Unlike most other dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitors, linagliptin has a largely non‐renal excretion route, and dose adjustment is not required in patients with renal impairment. Furthermore, linagliptin exposure is not substantially altered in patients with hepatic impairment, and dose adjustment is not necessary for these patients. The 5‐mg dose is also suitable for patients of Asian ethnicity. Linagliptin shows unique pharmacological features within the dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitor class. Although most clinical trials of linagliptin have involved largely Caucasian populations, data on the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of linagliptin show that these features are not substantially altered in Asian populations. The 5‐mg dose of linagliptin is suitable for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus irrespective of their ethnicity or the presence of renal or hepatic impairment.

Role of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in new-onset diabetes after transplantation

Despite strict pre- and post-transplantation screening, the incidence of new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) remains as high as 60%. This complication affects the risk of cardiovascular events and patient and graft survival rates. Thus, reducing the impact of NODAT could improve overall transplant success. The pathogenesis of NODAT is multifactorial, and both modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors have been implicated. Monitoring and controlling the blood glucose profile, implementing multidisciplinary care, performing lifestyle modifications, using a modified immunosuppressive regimen, administering anti-metabolite agents, and taking a conventional antidiabetic approach may diminish the incidence of NODAT. In addition to these preventive strategies, inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) by the gliptin family of drugs has recently gained considerable interest as therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus and NODAT. This review focuses on the role of DPP4 inhibitors and discusses recent literature regarding management of NODAT.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of linagliptin in African American patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

This was an open label, multicentre phase I trial to study the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin in African American patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Forty-one African American patients with T2DM were included in this study. Patients were admitted to a study clinic and administered 5 mg linagliptin once daily for 7 days, followed by 7 days of outpatient evaluation.

RESULTS

Primary endpoints were area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC), maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) and plasma DPP-4 trough inhibition at steady-state. Linagliptin geometric mean AUC was 194 nmol l(-1) h (geometric coefficient of variation, 26%), with a Cmax of 16.4 nmol l(-1) (41%). Urinary excretion was low (0.5% and 4.4% of the dose excreted over 24 h, days 1 and 7). The geometric mean DPP-4 inhibition at steady-state was 84.2% at trough and 91.9% at maximum. The exposure range and overall pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile of linagliptin in this study of African Americans with T2DM was comparable with that in other populations. Laboratory data, vital signs and physical examinations did not show any relevant findings. No safety concerns were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study in African American patients with T2DM support the use of the standard 5 mg dose recommended in all populations.

Linagliptin: A thorough Characterization beyond Its Clinical Efficacy

Linagliptin, one of the five dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors available, has recently entered the market both in the US and in most European countries for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. It presents a xanthine-based structure, and is characterized by unique pharmacokinetics, with non-linear profile, long terminal half-life allowing prolonged exposure to the drug. It is eliminated predominately through the intestinal tract and only minimally into urine, so that it can be administered, without any dose adjustment, in conditions of renal impairment. Linagliptin is effective in modifying all parameters of hyperglycemia either in monotherapy, or as add-on therapy, together with metformin or a sulfonylurea. It also exhibits a good tolerability profile with few side effects, absence (when used in monotherapy), or low risk (when in combination with a sulfonylurea) of hypoglycemia. More importantly it has a weight neutral effect. A comprehensive report of the literature on linagliptin is provided, paying attention in particular to preclinical studies, interactions with other drugs, safety and tolerability, and results obtained in animal models that highlight properties of linagliptin suggestive of potential additional uses. Particularly promising appear the data demonstrating a positive effect of linagliptin on metabolic dysfunction and renal and/or cardiovascular damage together with more recently reported effects of linagliptin on tissue repair and neuroprotection.

Comparative clinical pharmacokinetics of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors collectively comprise a presently unique form of disease management for persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The aim of this review is to compare the clinical pharmacokinetics of available DPP-4 inhibitors (alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin and vildagliptin) for the purpose of identifying potential selection preferences according to individual patient variables and co-morbidities. DPP-4 inhibitors are readily absorbed orally. Following oral ingestion, absorption occurs mainly in the small intestine, with median times to maximum (peak) plasma concentration ranging from 1 to 3 hours. The fraction of each dose absorbed ranges from approximately 30% with linagliptin to 75-87% for all others. Numerical differences in maximum (peak) plasma drug concentrations and areas under the plasma concentration-time curve among the DPP-4 inhibitors vary by an order of magnitude. However, functional capacity measured in terms of glucose-lowering ability remains comparable among all available DPP-4 inhibitors. Distribution of DPP-4 inhibitors is strongly influenced by both lipophilicity and protein binding. Apparent volumes of distribution (V(d)) for most agents range from 70 to 300 L. Linagliptin exhibits a V(d) of more than 1000 L, indicating widespread distribution into tissues. Binding to target proteins in plasma and peripheral tissues exerts a major influence upon broadening linagliptin distribution. DPP-4 inhibitor metabolism is widely variable, with reported terminal half-lives ranging from approximately 3 to more than 200 hours. Complex relationships between rates of receptor binding and dissociation appear to strongly influence the durations of action of those DPP-4 inhibitors with comparatively shorter half-lives. Durations of activity often are not reflective of clearance and, with the exception of vildagliptin which may be administered either once daily in the evening or twice daily, these medications are effective when used with a once-daily dosing schedule. Saxagliptin and, to a lesser extent, sitagliptin are largely metabolized by hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and 3A5 isoforms. With the exception of the primary hydroxylated metabolite of saxagliptin, which is 2-fold less potent than its parent molecule, metabolic products of hepatic biotransformation are minimally active and none appreciably contribute to either the therapeutic or the toxic effects of DPP-4 inhibitors. No DPP-4 inhibitor has been shown to inhibit or to induce hepatic CYP-mediated drug metabolism. Accordingly, the number of clinically significant drug-drug interactions associated with these agents is minimal, with only saxagliptin necessitating dose adjustment if administered concurrently with medications that strongly inhibit CYP3A4. Linagliptin undergoes enterohepatic cycling with a large majority (85%) of the absorbed dose eliminated in faeces via biliary excretion. Other DPP-4 inhibitors predominantly undergo renal excretion, with 60-85% of each dose eliminated as unchanged parent compound in the urine. Systematic reviews of clinical trials suggest that the overall efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes generally is similar. Apart from these generalizations, pharmacokinetic distinctions that potentially influence product selection are tentative. When considered in total, data reviewed in this report suggest that the best overall balance between potency and the clinical pharmacokinetic characteristics of distribution, metabolism and elimination may be observed with linagliptin followed closely by vildagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin and alogliptin.

Evaluation and prediction of potential drug-drug interactions of linagliptin using in vitro cell culture methods

Linagliptin is a highly potent dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Unlike other DPP-4 inhibitors, linagliptin is cleared primarily via the bile and gut. We used a panel of stably and transiently transfected cell lines to elucidate the carrier-mediated transport processes that are involved in linagliptin disposition in vivo and to assess the potential for drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Our results demonstrate that linagliptin is a substrate of organic cation transporter 2 (OCT2) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) but not of organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B1 and 1B3; organic anion transporter 1, 3, and 4; OCT1; or organic cation/carnitine transporter 1 and 2, suggesting that OCT2 and P-gp play a role in the disposition of linagliptin in vivo. Linagliptin inhibits transcellular transport of digoxin by P-gp with an apparent IC(50) of 66.1 μM, but it did not inhibit activity of multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 and breast cancer resistance protein as represented by transport of probe substrate into membrane vesicles from respective transporter-expressing cells. In addition, the inhibitory effect of linagliptin on major solute carrier transporter isoforms was investigated. Linagliptin showed inhibitory potency against only OCT1 and OCT2 out of all major solute carrier transporter isoforms examined, and those inhibition potencies, evaluated using three different in vitro probe substrates, were substrate-specific. Considering the low therapeutic plasma concentration of linagliptin, our data clearly suggest a very low risk for transporter-mediated DDIs with comedications in clinical practice.

Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of linagliptin

Linagliptin is an orally active small-molecule inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4, which was first licensed in the US, Europe, Japan and other territories in 2011 to improve glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Linagliptin is the first and thus far the only DPP-4 inhibitor, and oral antihyperglycaemic drug in general, to be approved as a single-strength once-daily dose (5 mg). Compared with other available DPP-4 inhibitors, linagliptin has a unique pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profile that is characterized by target-mediated nonlinear pharmacokinetics, concentration-dependent protein binding, minimal renal clearance and no requirements for dose adjustment for any intrinsic or extrinsic factor. After single or multiple oral doses of 1-10 mg, linagliptin displays less than dose-proportional increases in maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC). Linagliptin is rapidly absorbed after oral administration, with C(max) occurring after approximately 90 minutes, and reaches steady-state concentrations within 4 days. With the therapeutic dose, steady-state C(max) (11-12 nmol/L) and AUC (∼150 nmol · h/L) are approximately 1.3-fold greater than after a single dose, indicating little drug accumulation with repeat dosing. Linagliptin exhibits concentration-dependent protein binding in human plasma in vitro (99% at 1 nmol/L to 75-89% at >30 nmol/L) and has a large apparent volume of distribution, demonstrating extensive distribution into tissues. The nonlinear pharmacokinetics of linagliptin are best described by a two-compartmental model that incorporates target-mediated drug disposition resulting from high-affinity, saturable binding to DPP-4. The oral bioavailability of linagliptin estimated with this model is approximately 30%. Linagliptin has a long terminal half-life (>100 hours); however, its accumulation half-life is much shorter (approximately 10 hours), accounting for the rapid attainment of steady state. The majority of linagliptin is eliminated as parent compound, demonstrating that metabolism plays a minor role in the overall pharmacokinetics in humans. The main, pharmacologically inactive S-3-hydroxypiperidinyl metabolite accounted for approximately 17% of the total drug-related compounds in plasma. Linagliptin is eliminated primarily in faeces, with only around 5% of the oral therapeutic dose excreted in the urine at steady state. Linagliptin potently inhibits DPP-4 (inhibition constant 1 nmol/L), and trough drug concentrations achieved with therapeutic dosing inhibit >80% of plasma DPP-4 activity, the threshold associated with maximal antihyperglycaemic effects in animal models. There are no clinically relevant alterations in linagliptin pharmacokinetics resulting from renal impairment, hepatic impairment, coadministration with food, race, body weight, sex or age. In vitro, linagliptin is a weak substrate and weak inhibitor of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and permeability glycoprotein (P-gp) but not of other CYP isozymes or ATP-binding cassette transporters. Clinical studies have revealed no relevant drug interactions when coadministered with other drugs commonly prescribed to patients with type 2 diabetes, including the narrow therapeutic index drugs warfarin and digoxin. Linagliptin plasma exposure is reduced by potent inducers of CYP3A4 or P-gp. Linagliptin has demonstrated a large safety window (>100-fold the recommended daily dose) and clinically relevant antihyperglycaemic effects in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Renal and cardiac effects of DPP4 inhibitors--from preclinical development to clinical research

Inhibitors of type 4 dipeptidyl peptidase (DDP-4) were developed and approved for the oral treatment of type 2 diabetes. Its mode of action is to inhibit the degradation of incretins, such as type 1 glucagon like peptide (GLP-1), and GIP. GLP-1 stimulates glucose-dependent insulin secretion from pancreatic beta-cells and suppresses glucagon release from alpha-cells, thereby improving glucose control. Besides its action on the pancreas type 1 glucagon like peptide has direct effects on the heart, vessels and kidney mainly via the type 1 glucagon like peptide receptor (GLP-1R). Moreover, there are substrates of DPP-4 beyond incretins that have proven renal and cardiovascular effects such as BNP/ANP, NPY, PYY or SDF-1 alpha. Preclinical evidence suggests that DPP-4 inhibitors may be effective in acute and chronic renal failure as well as in cardiac diseases like myocardial infarction and heart failure. Interestingly, large cardiovascular meta-analyses of combined phase II/III clinical trials with DPP-4 inhibitors point all in the same direction: a potential reduction of cardiovascular events in patients treated with these agents. A pooled analysis of pivotal phase III, placebo-controlled, registration studies of linagliptin further showed a significant reduction of urinary albumin excretion after 24 weeks of treatment. The observation suggests direct renoprotective effects of DPP-4 inhibition that may go beyond its glucose-lowering potential. Type 4 dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitors have been shown to be very well tolerated in general, but for those excreted via the kidney dose adjustments according to renal function are needed to avoid side effects. In conclusion, the direct cardiac and renal effects seen in preclinical studies as well as meta-analysis of clinical trials may offer additional potentials - beyond improvement of glycemic control - for this newer class of drugs, such as acute kidney failure, chronic kidney failure as well as acute myocardial infarction and heart failure.

Linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor with a unique pharmacological profile, and efficacy in a broad range of patients with type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Increasing population age, obesity and physical inactivity mean that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasingly common. Current treatments may be limited by adverse events, drug-drug interactions or contraindication/need for dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews studies that evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and clinical efficacy and safety of linagliptin , a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, recently approved in the US, Japan and Europe for the treatment of T2DM.

EXPERT OPINION

Oral linagliptin, 5 mg once daily, is an effective, well-tolerated DPP-4 inhibitor, suitable for use in a wide range of patients with T2DM. It is weight-neutral, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia, and can be administered either alone or in combination with other diabetes treatments. It has a unique pharmacological profile within its class and, unlike other DPP-4 inhibitors, linagliptin does not require dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment.

Excretion of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in rats is primarily by biliary excretion and P-gp-mediated efflux

Linagliptin is a selective, competitive dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, recently approved in the USA, Japan and Europe for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. It has non-linear pharmacokinetics and, unlike other DPP-4 inhibitors, a largely non-renal excretion route. It was hypothesised that P-glycoprotein (P-gp)-mediated intestinal transport could influence linagliptin bioavailability, and might contribute to its elimination. Two studies evaluated the role of P-gp-mediated transport in the bioavailability and intestinal secretion of linagliptin in rats. In the bioavailability study, male Wistar rats received single oral doses of linagliptin, 1 or 15 mg/kg, plus either the P-gp inhibitor, zosuquidar trihydrochloride, or vehicle. For the intestinal secretion study, rats underwent bile duct cannulation, and urine, faeces, and bile were collected. At the end of the study, gut content was sampled. Inhibition of intestinal P-gp increased the bioavailability of orally administered linagliptin, indicating that this transport system plays a role in limiting the uptake of linagliptin from the intestine. This effect was dependent on linagliptin dose, and could play a role in its non-linear pharmacokinetics after oral dosing. Systemically available linagliptin was mainly excreted unchanged via bile (49% of i.v. dose), but some (12%) was also excreted directly into the gut independently of biliary excretion. Thus, direct excretion of linagliptin into the gut may be an alternative excretion route in the presence of liver and renal impairment. The primarily non-renal route of excretion is likely to be of benefit to patients with type 2 diabetes, who have a high prevalence of renal insufficiency.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin in persons with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by a combination of metformin and sulphonylurea: a 24-week randomized study

AIMS

To examine the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in persons with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled [HbA(1c) 53-86 mmol/mol (7.0-10.0%)] by metformin and sulphonylurea combination treatment.

METHODS

A multi-centre, 24-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in 1058 patients comparing linagliptin (5 mg once daily) and placebo when added to metformin plus sulphonylurea. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA(1c) after 24 weeks.

RESULTS

At week 24, the linagliptin placebo-corrected HbA(1c) adjusted mean change from baseline was -7 mmol/mol (-0.62%) [95% CI -8 to -6 mmol/mol (-0.73 to -0.50%); P < 0.0001]. More participants with baseline HbA(1c) ≥ 53 mmol/mol (≥ 7.0%) achieved an HbA(1c) < 53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) with linagliptin compared with placebo (29.2% vs. 8.1%, P< 0.0001). Fasting plasma glucose was reduced with linagliptin relative to placebo (-0.7 mmol/l, 95% CI -1.0 to -0.4; P<0.0001). Improvements in homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function were seen with linagliptin (P<0.001). The proportion of patients who reported a severe adverse event was low in both groups (linagliptin 2.4%; placebo 1.5%). Symptomatic hypoglycaemia occurred in 16.7 and 10.3% of the linagliptin and placebo groups, respectively. Hypoglycaemia was generally mild or moderate; severe hypoglycaemia was reported in 2.7 and 4.8% of the participants experiencing hypoglycaemic episodes in the linagliptin and placebo groups, respectively. No significant weight changes were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with Type 2 diabetes, adding linagliptin to metformin given in combination with a sulphonylurea significantly improved glycaemic control and this was well tolerated. Linagliptin could provide a valuable treatment option for individuals with inadequate glycaemic control despite ongoing combination therapy with metformin and a sulphonylurea.

Efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with linagliptin and pioglitazone in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

AIMS

To compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of linagliptin or placebo administered for 24 weeks in combination with pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) exhibiting insufficient glycaemic control (HbA1c 7.5-11.0%).

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive the initial combination of 30 mg pioglitazone plus 5 mg linagliptin (n = 259) or pioglitazone plus placebo (n = 130), all once daily. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment, adjusted for baseline HbA1c and prior antidiabetes medication.

RESULTS

After 24 weeks of treatment, the adjusted mean change (±s.e.) in HbA1c with the initial combination of linagliptin plus pioglitazone was -1.06% (±0.06), compared with -0.56% (±0.09) for placebo plus pioglitazone. The difference in adjusted mean HbA1c in the linagliptin group compared with placebo was -0.51% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.71, -0.30; p < 0.0001). Reductions in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were significantly greater for linagliptin plus pioglitazone than with placebo plus pioglitazone; -1.8 and -1.0 mmol/l, respectively, equating to a treatment difference of -0.8 mmol/l (95% CI -1.2, -0.4; p < 0.0001). Patients taking linagliptin plus pioglitazone, compared with those receiving placebo plus pioglitazone, were more likely to achieve HbA1c of <7.0% (42.9 vs. 30.5%, respectively; p = 0.0051) and reduction in HbA1c of ≥0.5% (75.0 vs. 50.8%, respectively; p < 0.0001). β-cell function, exemplified by the ratio of relative change in adjusted mean HOMA-IR and disposition index, improved. The proportion of patients that experienced at least one adverse event was similar for both groups. Hypoglycaemic episodes (all mild) occurred in 1.2% of the linagliptin plus pioglitazone patients and none in the placebo plus pioglitazone group.

CONCLUSION

Initial combination therapy with linagliptin plus pioglitazone was well tolerated and produced significant and clinically meaningful improvements in glycaemic control. This combination may offer a valuable additive initial treatment option for T2DM, particularly where metformin either is not well tolerated or is contraindicated, such as in patients with renal impairment.

The oral DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin significantly lowers HbA1c after 4 weeks of treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

To investigate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

After screening and a 14-day washout, subjects received linagliptin 2.5, 5 or 10 mg or placebo once-daily for 28 days in this randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled within-dose groups study.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients entered the study (linagliptin: 61; placebo: 16). Four patients withdrew prematurely. There was little evidence of linagliptin accumulation. Exposure, maximum and trough plasma concentrations of linagliptin increased less than dose-proportionally. Rapid and sustained inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 reached 91-93% across linagliptin doses at steady state. At the end of the 24-h dosing interval, inhibition was still high (82-90%). There were marked increases in plasma glucagon-like peptide-1 after 28 days of dosing. Compared to placebo, all linagliptin doses resulted in statistically significant decreases of the area under the glucose curve following a meal tolerance test on day 29, that is, 24 h after the last study drug intake. After 28 days of treatment with linagliptin the placebo-corrected mean change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (median baseline 7.0%) was -0.31% (2.5-mg dose), -0.37% (5-mg dose) and -0.28% (10-mg dose). The frequency of adverse events was similar for linagliptin (31%) and placebo (34%). There were no notable safety concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin administration led to attenuation of postprandial glucose excursions and, despite a low HbA1c at baseline, statistically significant reductions in HbA1c after only 4 weeks of treatment. Linagliptin had a safety and tolerability profile similar to placebo in T2DM patients.

Effect of linagliptin monotherapy on glycaemic control and markers of β-cell function in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

To assess the safety and efficacy of the potent and selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin 5 mg when given for 24 weeks to patients with type 2 diabetes who were either treatment-naive or who had received one oral antidiabetes drug (OAD).

METHODS

This multicentre, randomized, parallel group, phase III study compared linagliptin treatment (5 mg once daily, n = 336) with placebo (n = 167) for 24 weeks in type 2 diabetes patients. Before randomization, patients pretreated with one OAD underwent a washout period of 6 weeks, which included a placebo run-in period during the last 2 weeks. Patients previously untreated with an OAD underwent a 2-week placebo run-in period. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline after 24 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Linagliptin treatment resulted in a placebo-corrected change in HbA1c from baseline of -0.69% (p < 0.0001) at 24 weeks. In patients with baseline HbA1c ≥ 9.0%, the adjusted reduction in HbA1c was 1.01% (p < 0.0001). Patients treated with linagliptin were more likely to achieve a reduction in HbA1c of ≥0.5% at 24 weeks than those in the placebo arm (47.1 and 19.0%, respectively; odds ratio, OR = 4.2, p < 0.0001). Fasting plasma glucose improved by -1.3 mmol/l (p < 0.0001) with linagliptin vs. placebo, and linagliptin produced an adjusted mean reduction from baseline after 24 weeks in 2-h postprandial glucose of -3.2 mmol/l (p < 0.0001). Statistically significant and relevant treatment differences were observed for proinsulin/insulin ratio (p = 0.025), Homeostasis Model Assessment-%B (p = 0.049) and disposition index (p = 0.0005). There was no excess of hypoglycaemic episodes with linagliptin vs. placebo and no patient required third-party intervention. Mild or moderate renal impairment did not influence the trough plasma levels of linagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Monotherapy with linagliptin produced a significant, clinically meaningful and sustained improvement in glycaemic control, accompanied by enhanced parameters of β-cell function. The safety profile of linagliptin was comparable with that of placebo.

Evaluation of the pharmacokinetic interaction after multiple oral doses of linagliptin and digoxin in healthy volunteers

The aim of this study was to investigate whether multiple doses of the oral and highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin affect the steady-state pharmacokinetics of the P-glycoprotein substrate digoxin. This single-center, open-label, two-period cross-over study involved healthy subjects (n = 20), randomized to treatment sequence AB or BA, where A comprised 0.25 mg digoxin qd for 5 days, then 0.25 mg digoxin qd plus 5 mg linagliptin qd for 6 days, and B comprised 0.25 mg digoxin qd for 11 days. A treatment-free period (≥35 days for AB and 14 days for BA) separated each treatment in both sequences. There were no clinically significant changes in steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters of digoxin when it was co-administered with linagliptin. The ratio of the adjusted-by-treatment geometric mean ratios and associated 90% confidence intervals for the AUC(τ,ss), C (max,ss) and renal clearance (CL( R,0-24,ss)) of digoxin were all within the bioequivalence range 80-125%, which is important as digoxin has a narrow therapeutic range. There was a low incidence of adverse events, which were randomly distributed between treatment groups. In conclusion, linagliptin did not alter the pharmacokinetics of digoxin in this study, indicating that linagliptin does not inhibit P-glycoprotein or other transporters relevant for digoxin pharmacokinetics. These results suggest that linagliptin and digoxin can be co-administered without dose adjustment. Administration of digoxin alone and with linagliptin was well tolerated.

Assessment of the pharmacokinetic interaction between the novel DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin and a sulfonylurea, glyburide, in healthy subjects

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin on the pharmacokinetics of glyburide (a CYP2C9 and CYP3A4 substrate) and vice versa. This randomized, open-label, three-period, two-way crossover study examined the effects of co-administration of multiple oral doses of linagliptin (5 mg/day × 6 days) and single doses of glyburide (1.75 mg/day × 1 day) on the relative bioavailability of either compound in healthy subjects (n = 20, age 18-55 years). Coadministration of glyburide did not alter the steady-state pharmacokinetics of linagliptin. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) [90% CI] for (linagliptin + glyburide)/linagliptin AUC(τ,ss) and C(max,ss) were 101.7% [97.7-105.8%] and 100.8% [89.0-114.3%], respectively. For glyburide, there was a slight reduction in exposure of ∼14% when coadministered with linagliptin (GMRs [90% CI] for (glyburide + linagliptin)/glyburide AUC(0-∞) and C(max) were 85.7% [79.8-92.1%] and 86.2% [79.6-93.3%], respectively). However, this was not seen as clinically relevant due to the absence of a reliable dose-response relationship and the known large pharmacokinetic interindividual variability of glyburide. These results further support the assumption that linagliptin is not a clinically relevant inhibitor of CYP2C9 or CYP3A4 in vivo. Coadministration of linagliptin and glyburide had no clinically relevant effect on the pharmacokinetics of linagliptin or glyburide. Both agents were well tolerated and can be administered together without the need for dosage adjustments.

DPP-4 inhibitors: what may be the clinical differentiators?

Attenuation of the prandial incretin effect, mediated by glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP), contributes to hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Since the launch of sitagliptin in 2006, a compelling body of evidence has accumulated showing that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which augment endogenous GLP-1 and GIP levels, represent an important advance in the management of T2DM. Currently, three DPP-4 inhibitors - sitagliptin, vildagliptin and saxagliptin - have been approved in various countries worldwide. Several other DPP-4 inhibitors, including linagliptin and alogliptin, are currently in clinical development. As understanding of, and experience with, the growing number of DPP-4 inhibitors broadens, increasing evidence suggests that the class may offer advantages over other antidiabetic drugs in particular patient populations. The expanding evidence base also suggests that certain differences between DPP-4 inhibitors may prove to be clinically significant. This therapeutic diversity should help clinicians tailor treatment to the individual patient, thereby increasing the proportion that safely attain target HbA(1c) levels, and reducing morbidity and mortality. This review offers an overview of DPP-4 inhibitors in T2DM and suggests some characteristics that may provide clinically relevant differentiators within this class.

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin exhibits time- and dose-dependent localization in kidney, liver, and intestine after intravenous dosing: results from high resolution autoradiography in rats

Linagliptin is an orally active dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor that is under development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and shows dose-dependent pharmacokinetics in rats and humans. With microscopic autoradiography, the dose dependence of cellular distribution of [(3)H]linagliptin-related radioactivity was investigated in kidney at 3 h after intravenous injection of 7.4, 100, and 2000 microg/kg [(3)H]linagliptin. Furthermore, distribution of radioactivity in kidney, liver, and small intestine was investigated in relation to time (2 min, 3 h, and 192 h) after intravenous injection of 7.4 microg/kg [(3)H]linagliptin. The localization of radioactivity in the kidney at 3 h after administration of 7.4, 100, and 2000 microg/kg [(3)H]linagliptin changed with increasing dose from cortical glomeruli and parts of proximal tubule parts to parts of medullar proximal tubule. In addition, the compound distribution in the kidney shifted with time after administration of 7.4 microg/kg [(3)H]linagliptin from glomeruli (2 min) to the lower parts of proximal tubules (192 h). The radioactivity within proximal tubules was located primarily in the brush border. In the liver, the radioactivity persisted mainly around the portal triads and in the bile duct from 2 min to 192 h. In the small intestine, the radioactivity shifted from the lamina propria (2 min) to the surface of the villi and/or intestinal lumen (192 h). In conclusion, the cellular distribution pattern of [(3)H]linagliptin-related radioactivity reflected the known distribution of DPP-4. Together with the persistence of binding, this result supports the high relevance of DPP-4 binding of linagliptin for its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

The metabolism and disposition of the oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, linagliptin, in humans

The pharmacokinetics and metabolism of linagliptin (BI1356, 8-(3R-amino-piperidin-1-yl)-7-but-2-ynyl-3-methyl-1-(4-methyl-quinazolin-2-ylmethyl)-3,7-dihydro-purine-2,6-dione) were investigated in healthy volunteers. The 10- and 5-mg (14)C-labeled drug was administered orally or intravenously, respectively. Fecal excretion was the dominant excretion pathway with 84.7% (p.o.) and 58.2% (i.v.) of the dose. Renal excretion accounted for 5.4% (p.o.) and 30.8% (i.v.) of the dose. Unchanged linagliptin was the most abundant radioactive species in all matrices investigated. The exposure (area under the curve 0-24 h) to the parent compound in plasma accounted for 191 nM . h (p.o.) and 356 nM . h (i.v.), respectively. The main metabolite 7-but-2-ynyl-8-(3S-hydroxy-piperidin-1-yl)-3-methyl-1-(4-methyl-quinazolin-2-ylmethyl)-3,7-dihydro-purine-2,6-dione (CD1790) was observed with >10% of parent compound systemic exposure after oral administration. The metabolite was identified as S-3-hydroxypiperidinly derivative of linagliptin. Experiments that included stable-labeled isotope techniques indicated that CD1790 was formed by a two-step mechanism via the ketone 7-but-2-yn-1-yl-3-methyl-1-[(4-methylquinazolin-2-yl)methyl]-8-(3-oxopiperidin-1-yl)-3,7-dihydro-1H-purine-2,6-dione (CD10604). The initial ketone formation was CYP3A4-dependent and rate-limiting for the overall reaction to CD1790. Aldo-keto reductases with minor contribution of carbonyl reductases were involved in the subsequent stereoselective reduction of CD10604 to CD1790. The antipodes of linagliptin and CD1790 were not observed with adequate enantioselective liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry methods. Other minor metabolites were identified by mass spectrometry and NMR investigations. However, it was concluded that the metabolites of linagliptin only play a minor role in the overall disposition and elimination of linagliptin.