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

Efficacy and Safety of DPP-4 Inhibitors and Metformin Combinations in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

Several oral antidiabetic regimens are available for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) being one of them. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing DPP4i plus metformin (Met) combination with other Met-based oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) combinations used in treating patients with T2DM.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Embase from inception until 19th April, 2022 for phase II and phase III trials in patients with T2DM on Met-based traditional OADs. The primary outcome was assessed by change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-hour post-prandial blood glucose (2h-PPG). The secondary safety outcomes assessed were hypoglycemic events, serious adverse events (SAEs), cardiovascular (CV) events, and gastrointestinal (GI) events.

Results

Sixty-two trials were included in the analysis. The combination of DPP4i + Met revealed a comparable mean reduction in HbA1c levels to the glinides (Gli) + Met combination (mean difference [MD]: -0.03%, 95% CI: 0.69, -0.65), although the difference was not statistically significant. The mean HbA1c reduction with DPP4i + Met was greater than with sulfonylureas (SU) + Met (MD: -0.05, 95% CI: -0.29, 0.39), thiazolidinedione (TZD) + Met (MD: -0.69, 95% CI: -1.39, -0.02), and SU + TZD (MD: 0.21; 95% CI: -1.30, 1.71), with no statistical significance. DPP4i + Met demonstrated a non-significant lower incidence of CV events in comparison to TZD + Met (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.46, 2.45) and SU + Met (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.61, 2.06).

Conclusion

DPP4i in combination with Met was efficacious and had a well-tolerated safety profile compared with other traditional OADs. This combination can be considered as a suitable treatment option for patients with T2DM.

Benefits and risks of drug combination therapy for diabetes mellitus and its complications: a comprehensive review

Diabetes is a chronic metabolic disease, and its therapeutic goals focus on the effective management of blood glucose and various complications. Drug combination therapy has emerged as a comprehensive treatment approach for diabetes. An increasing number of studies have shown that, compared with monotherapy, combination therapy can bring significant clinical benefits while controlling blood glucose, weight, and blood pressure, as well as mitigating damage from certain complications and delaying their progression in diabetes, including both type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and related complications. This evidence provides strong support for the recommendation of combination therapy for diabetes and highlights the importance of combined treatment. In this review, we first provided a brief overview of the phenotype and pathogenesis of diabetes and discussed several conventional anti-diabetic medications currently used for the treatment of diabetes. We then reviewed several clinical trials and pre-clinical animal experiments on T1D, T2D, and their common complications to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different classes of drug combinations. In general, combination therapy plays a pivotal role in the management of diabetes. Integrating the effectiveness of multiple drugs enables more comprehensive and effective control of blood glucose without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or other serious adverse events. However, specific treatment regimens should be tailored to individual patients and implemented under the guidance of healthcare professionals.

Pharmacokinetic comparison of sitagliptin and metformin HCl extended-release tablets versus JANUMET® XR in healthy volunteers under fasting and fed conditions

Background and Objectives: Janumet^® XR is the combination of sitagliptin and extended metformin hydrochloride produced by Merck Sharp & Dohme. It is specially designed for diabetes mellitus patients taking both drugs already. Janumet^® XR exhibited clinically significant blood glucose lowering efficacy and long-term use safety. However, no generic form of Janumet^® XR has been approved in western countries. The relatively high cost made the medication less prescribed. A more affordable form of this drug may benefit an immense diabetes mellitus population. The current study compared the bioequivalence (BE) of sitagliptin 100 mg and metformin 1000 mg produced by Nanjing Chia-Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Company to Janumet^® XR in healthy Chinese subjects. Methods: Twenty-eight healthy Chinese subjects were enrolled in Study 1 and 2, respectively. Both studies were conducted with an open, randomized, two-period crossover design using the test (T) or the reference (R) drug. Study 1 is conducted under the fasting state, and Study 2 is under the fed state. Subjects received an oral dose of sitagliptin 100 mg and metformin 1000 mg, and plasma concentrations of sitagliptin and metformin were determined up to 72 h post-dose. Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, including maximum serum concentration (C_max) and area under the concentration-time curve up to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC_0-t) of both sitagliptin and metformin, were calculated and compared between the T and R treatments. Results: In the fasting study, the geometric mean ratios of C_max, AUC_0-t, and AUC_0-∞ for sitagliptin were 109.42%, 101.93%, and 101.95%, respectively; the corresponding ratios for metformin were 98.69%, 94.12%, and 93.42%, respectively. In the fed study, the geometric mean ratios of C_max, AUC_0-t, and AUC_0-∞ for sitagliptin were 98.41%, 100.30%, and 100.24%, respectively; the corresponding ratios for metformin were 97.79%, 99.28%, and 100.69%, respectively. The 90% CIs of C_max, AUC_0-t, and AUC_0-∞ in both studies were all within acceptance limits (80.00%-125.00%). Conclusion: The results demonstrated for the first time that sitagliptin 100 mg and metformin 1000 mg produced by Nanjing Chia-Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Company was bioequivalent to the branded Janumet^® XR, and both drugs were well tolerated.

Role of Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors in Antidiabetic Treatment

In recent years, important changes have occurred in the field of diabetes treatment. The focus of the treatment of diabetic patients has shifted from the control of blood glucose itself to the overall management of risk factors, while adjusting blood glucose goals according to individualization. In addition, regulators need to approve new antidiabetic drugs which have been tested for cardiovascular safety. Thus, the newest class of drugs has been shown to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events, including sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) and some glucagon like peptide 1 receptor (GLP1) analog. As such, they have a prominent place in the hyperglycemia treatment algorithms. In recent years, the role of DPP4 inhibitors (DPP4i) has been modified. DPP4i have a favorable safety profile and anti-inflammatory profile, do not cause hypoglycemia or weight gain, and do not require dose escalation. In addition, it can also be applied to some types of chronic kidney disease patients and elderly patients with diabetes. Overall, DPP4i, as a class of safe oral hypoglycemic agents, have a role in the management of diabetic patients, and there is extensive experience in their use.

Optimizing the treatment of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus with combination of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and metformin: An expert opinion

The expanding burden of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) in today's world, with respect to incidence, prevalence, and cost incurred, is an existential risk to society. Various guidelines recommend individualization of treatment. This expert opinion aims to review the recent evidences and reach a consensus on the preferable combination therapy for use in newly diagnosed Indian T2DM patients with HbA_1C >7.5%. The core committee included seventeen diabetes specialists. Three statements were developed, discussed, and rated by specialists and recommendations were noted. Specialists were requested to rate the statements using a 9-point Likert's scale with score of 1 being “Strongly Disagree” and 9 being “Strongly Agree”. Statement-specific scores of all the specialists were added and mean score of ≥7.00 was considered to have achieved a consensus. Statements used to meet the consensus were: Statement 1. Majority of newly-diagnosed Indian diabetics have HbA_1C >7.5%; Statement 2. Patients with HbA_1C >7.5% may be initiated with dual therapy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) + Metformin; and Statement 3. In Indian patients with HbA_1C >7.5% at diagnosis, DPP4Is + Metformin may be considered as a first-line therapy. Literature review revealed that HbA_1C level at the time of diagnosis in majority of Indian T2DM patients is >7.5%. Consensus was reached that dual anti-diabetic therapy should be initiated in patients with HbA_1C >7.5%. DPP4Is + Metformin is the preferred cost-effective option and may be considered as a first-line therapy in Indian T2DM patients with HbA_1C >7.5% at diagnosis.

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) have been available for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus since 2006. Although they are a diverse group, DPP4i are all small, orally available molecules that interact with the catalytic site of DPP4 without disturbing any of its other known functions, including its effects on the immune system. DPP4i have no intrinsic glucose-lowering activity, so their efficacy as anti-diabetic agents is related directly to their ability to inhibit DPP4 activity and is mediated through the effects of the substrates they protect. Of these, the incretin hormone, glucagon-like peptide 1, is probably the most important. As the effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 are glucose-dependent, the risk of hypoglycaemia with DPP4i is low. Class effects, which are directly related to the mechanism of action, are common to all DPP4i; these include their overall good safety profile and tolerability, as well as their efficacy in improving glycaemic control, but also, potentially, a small increased risk of acute pancreatitis. Compound-specific effects are those related to their differing chemistries and/or pharmacokinetic profiles. These compound-specific effects could affect the way in which individual DPP4i are used therapeutically and potentially explain off-target adverse effects, such as hospitalization for heart failure, which is seen only with one DPP4i. Overall, DPP4i have a favourable therapeutic profile and are safe and effective in the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Infectious complications of newer agents in the fight against diabetes

Infectious complications have been reported with antidiabetic medications. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors have been associated with upper respiratory tract infections and urinary tract infections. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have been associated with lower limb amputations, urinary tract infections, genital mycotic infections, and Fournier gangrene.

Persistent whole day meal effects of three dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on glycaemia and hormonal responses in metformin-treated type 2 diabetes

AIM

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition has effects on both fasting and postprandial glucose. However, the extent of this effect over the whole day and whether different DPP-4 inhibitors have the same effects have not been established. We therefore explored the whole day effects of three different DPP-4 inhibitors versus placebo on glucose, islet and incretin hormones after ingestion of breakfast, lunch and dinner in subjects with metformin-treated and well-controlled type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

The study was single-centre and crossover designed, involving 24 subjects [12 men, 12 women, mean age 63 years, body mass index 31.0 kg/m² , glycated haemoglobin 44.7 mmol/mol (6.2%)], who underwent four test days in random order. Each whole day test included ingestion of standardized breakfast (525 kcal), lunch (780 kcal) and dinner (560 kcal) after intake of sitagliptin (100 mg) or vildagliptin (50 mg twice), or saxagliptin (5 mg) or placebo.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, DPP-4 inhibition reduced glucose levels, increased beta-cell function (insulin secretory rate in relation to glucose), suppressed glucagon, increased intact glucagon-like-peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) but suppressed total GLP-1 and GIP after all three meals. The effects were sustained throughout the daytime period with similar changes after each meal and did not differ between the DPP-4 inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

DPP-4 inhibition has persistent daytime effects on glucose, islet and incretin hormones with no difference between three different DPP-4 inhibitors.

Reduction in HbA1c with SGLT2 inhibitors vs. DPP-4 inhibitors as add-ons to metformin monotherapy according to baseline HbA1c: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

This study compared the reduction of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) with sodium-glucose cotransporter type-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) as add-ons to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with a specific focus on HbA1c changes according to baseline HbA1c.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were scrutinized for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the reduction of HbA1c from baseline (Δ HbA1c) with an SGLT2i or DPP-4i in patients with T2DM not well controlled by metformin monotherapy. The endpoint was Δ HbA1c using both indirect and direct comparisons.

RESULTS

Overall, Δ HbA1c was slightly greater with SGLT2is (-0.80±0.20% from 8.03±0.35%; 44 analyses, 29 RCTs, 15 with two doses, n=9321) than with DPP-4is (-0.71±0.23% from 8.05±0.43%; 61 analyses, 59 RCTs, n=17,914; P=0.0354). When the mean baseline HbA1c was<8% ([64mmol/mol] 7.79±0.15% vs. 7.71±0.23%), Δ HbA1c averaged -0.735±0.17% vs. -0.62±0.16% (P=0.0117) with SGLT2is vs. DPP-4is, respectively. However, this difference vanished when the mean baseline HbA1c was≥8% (-0.87±0.22% from 8.27±0.32% with SGLT2is vs. -0.80±0.24% from 8.35±0.33% with DPP-4is; P=0.2756). The relationship between Δ HbA1c and baseline HbA1c was only slightly stronger with SGLT2is (slope: -0.39, r²=-0.43; P<0.0001) than with DPP-4is (slope: -0.26, r²=-0.25; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Because of the small difference in Δ HbA1c whatever the baseline HbA1c level with SGLT2is vs. DPP-4is as add-ons to metformin, choosing between these glucose-lowering agents in clinical practice should be based on other efficacy criteria (such as weight and blood pressure changes, cardiovascular and renal protection) or on safety profiles rather than on HbA1c levels.

GLP-1 Analogs and DPP-4 Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes Therapy: Review of Head-to-Head Clinical Trials

The incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) are released from enteroendocrine cells in response to the presence of nutrients in the small intestines. These homones facilitate glucose regulation by stimulating insulin secretion in a glucose dependent manner while suppressing glucagon secretion. In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), an impaired insulin response to GLP-1 and GIP contributes to hyperglycemia. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors block the breakdown of GLP-1 and GIP to increase levels of the active hormones. In clinical trials, DPP-4 inhibitors have a modest impact on glycemic control. They are generally well-tolerated, weight neutral and do not increase the risk of hypoglycemia. GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) are peptide derivatives of either exendin-4 or human GLP-1 designed to resist the activity of DPP-4 and therefore, have a prolonged half-life. In clinical trials, they have demonstrated superior efficacy to many oral antihyperglycemic drugs, improved weight loss and a low risk of hypoglycemia. However, GI adverse events, particularly nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea are seen. Both DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs have demonstrated safety in robust cardiovascular outcome trials, while several GLP-1 RAs have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in persons with T2DM with pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD). Several clinical trials have directly compared the efficacy and safety of DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs. These studies have generally demonstrated that the GLP-1 RA provided superior glycemic control and weight loss relative to the DPP-4 inhibitor. Both treatments were associated with a low and comparable incidence of hypoglycemia, but treatment with GLP-1 RAs were invariably associated with a higher incidence of GI adverse events. A few studies have evaluated switching patients from DPP-4 inhibitors to a GLP-1RA and, as expected, improved glycemic control and weight loss are seen following the switch. According to current clinical guidelines, GLP-1RA and DPP-4 inhibitors are both indicated for the glycemic management of patients with T2DM across the spectrum of disease. GLP-1RA may be preferred over DPP- 4 inhibitors for many patients because of the greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c and weight loss observed in the clinical trials. Among patients with preexisting CVD, GLP-1 receptor agonists with a proven cardiovascular benefit are indicated as add-on to metformin therapy.

Does evidence matter? Comparative effectiveness research and prescribing of Type 2 diabetes mellitus drugs

Aim: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) can help ascertain value of new drugs; however, limited research assesses the translation of CER into clinical practice. The objective of this study was to analyze the association between CER evidence and prescribing trends within two markets of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: A retrospective analysis to determine the prescribing trends from 2006 to 2016 and an electronic literature search to identify CER comparing different drugs was conducted. Results: In glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists market, CER showed superiority of Liraglutide. Prescribing of Exenatide twice daily dropped by 50% points as Liraglutide entered the market. In dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors market, CER did not suggest conclusive superiority. Nevertheless, Sitagliptin, the first entrant, continued to dominate throughout. Conclusion: CER evidence appeared to be associated with prescribing trends in GLP-1 agonists market; however, no associations were found in DPP4 inhibitors market. The translation of evidence into practice can be limited by the availability of superiority trials and timing of their availability.

Efficacy and safety of evogliptin versus sitagliptin as an add-on therapy in Indian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin: A 24-week randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority, EVOLUTION INDIA study

AIM

This study aimed to assess efficacy and safety of evogliptin versus sitagliptin, when added to background metformin therapy in Indian patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

METHOD

Overall, 184 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (7% ≤ HbA_1c < 10%) receiving ≥8 weeks of stable metformin monotherapy (≥1 g/day), were randomized to receive add-on treatment (evogliptin 5 mg or sitagliptin 100 mg) for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was change in HbA_1c from baseline to 12 weeks (non-inferiority margin: <0.35).

RESULTS

Mean reductions in HbA1c at 12 weeks in evogliptin- and sitagliptin-treated patients were -0.37 (1.06) and -0.32 (1.14), respectively. The adjusted mean difference between treatment groups was -0.022 (95% CI: -0.374, 0.330; P = 0.901), that demonstrated non-inferiority. Reductions in FPG and PPG were similar between evogliptin and sitagliptin at 12 and 24 weeks. Changes in body weight were comparable between the treatment groups. Patients achieving target HbA_1c < 7.0% (evogliptin, 26.7% vs. sitagliptin, 20%) was almost equal in both groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events occured in 52 patients (evogliptin, 25% and sitagliptin, 31.5%) and were generally mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Evogliptin was non-inferior to sitagliptin in HbA_1c reduction. It effectively improved glycemic control and was well tolerated in type 2 diabetes patients inadequately controlled by metformin alone.

Efficacy and Safety of Switching to Teneligliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors: A 12-Week Interim Report

INTRODUCTION

Teneligliptin, an antidiabetic agent classified as a class III dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, has a unique structural feature that provides strong binding to DPP-4 enzymes. We investigated the efficacy and safety of switching patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycemic control on a stable dose of other DPP-4 inhibitors to teneligliptin.

METHODS

Patients with T2DM whose glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were ≥ 7% despite taking DPP-4 inhibitors other than teneligliptin, with or without other hypoglycemic agents, for at least 3 months were enrolled. The DPP-4 inhibitors taken before participating in the study were switched to 20 mg qd teneligliptin, and this was to be maintained for 52 weeks. The primary end point was the change in HbA1c levels after 12 weeks. Metabolic parameters including fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and blood lipids were assessed also. To assess safety, adverse and hypoglycemic events were monitored. The data from baseline to week 12 were used for analysis in this interim report.

RESULTS

The mean change in HbA1c levels from baseline to week 12 was - 0.44%. At week 12, the percentage of patients achieving HbA1c < 7.0% was 31.6% and that of achieving HbA1c < 6.5% was 11.4%, respectively. In 41.2% of patients, the HbA1c levels decreased by at least 0.5% at 12 weeks. The mean change in FPG levels from baseline to week 12 was - 11.5 mg/dl. No severe hypoglycemia was reported.

CONCLUSION

After switching to teneligliptin, HbA1c levels decreased significantly in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with other DPP-4 inhibitors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03793023.

FUNDING

Handok Inc.

The Role of DPP-4 Inhibitors in the Treatment Algorithm of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: When to Select, What to Expect

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a growing global public health problem, the prevalence of which is projected to increase in the succeeding decades. It is potentially associated with many complications, affecting multiple organs and causing a huge burden to the society. Due to its multi-factorial pathophysiology, its treatment is varied and based upon a multitude of pharmacologic agents aiming to tackle the many aspects of the disease pathophysiology (increasing insulin availability [either through direct insulin administration or through agents that promote insulin secretion], improving sensitivity to insulin, delaying the delivery and absorption of carbohydrates from the gastrointestinal tract, or increasing urinary glucose excretion). DPP-4 (dipeptidyl peptidase-4) inhibitors (or “gliptins”) represent a class of oral anti-hyperglycemic agents that inhibit the enzyme DPP-4, thus augmenting the biological activity of the “incretin” hormones (glucagon-like peptide-1 [GLP-1] and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide [GIP]) and restoring many of the pathophysiological problems of diabetes. They have already been used over more than a decade in the treatment of the disease. The current manuscript will review the mechanism of action, therapeutic utility, and the role of DPP-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Therapeutic Experience of Saxagliptin as First Add-on after Metformin in Indian Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Non-interventional, Prospective, Observational Study (ONTARGET-INDIA)

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors are widely used in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients but the data available in existing clinical trial programmes on DPP4 inhibitors include limited number of patients from India. Hence, this study attempted to understand usage, efficacy and safety of saxagliptin as first add-on after metformin in Indians with T2DM.

METHODOLOGY

It was a multicenter, prospective, non-interventional and observational study planned to enrol T2DM patients who were inadequately controlled with metformin alone and had been recently (i.e., within past 15 days) prescribed saxagliptin as an add-on to metformin. Type 1 diabetes mellitus, use of glucose lowering drugs apart from metformin or saxagliptin, pregnancy, lactation, and medical condition, which could interfere with safe completion of the study were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 1109 participants (658 men and 451 women) with mean ± SD age of 51.17 ± 11.85 years were enrolled from 50 centres throughout India. Significant reduction was observed in mean ± SD change of HbA1c as - 0.86% ± 1.76 from baseline to after 3 months of therapy (P < 0.0001). The quality of life assessed by World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire was reported to be "good" or "neither good nor bad" by majority of the participants at baseline and after 3 months of treatment. A total of 15 adverse events (AEs) were reported in the study, however, no serious adverse event (SAE) occurred during the study. All AEs were of mild intensity and did not require any intervention.

CONCLUSION

Overall, saxagliptin in combination with metformin was generally well tolerated in Indian T2DM patients and new safety event identified is an increased risk of hospitalisation in heart failure patients. This study is also registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02588859).

Sustained 52-week efficacy and safety of triple therapy with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin versus dual therapy with sitagliptin added to metformin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of an intensification strategy of early triple combination therapy with dapagliflozin (DAPA) plus saxagliptin (SAXA) to a dual therapy strategy with sitagliptin (SITA) in patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled with metformin (MET) monotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multinational, active-controlled, parallel-group phase 3b trial randomized 461 patients, at least 18 years of age, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 8%-10.5% (64-91 mmol/mol), to either DAPA plus SAXA or SITA, added to MET, for a 26-week double-blind treatment period and an extension of a 26-week blinded treatment period.

RESULTS

Mean (± SD) baseline HbA1c was 8.8% ± 0.9% (73.0 ± 9.3 mmol/mol). DAPA plus SAXA (n = 232) provided a greater reduction from baseline in HbA1c at Weeks 26 and 52 compared with SITA (n = 229) (adjusted mean ± SE change, Week 26: -1.41 ± 0.07% vs -1.07 ± 0.07% [-15.4 ± 0.8 mmol/mol vs 11.7 ± 0.8 mmol/mol]; P = 0.0008; Week 52: -1.29 ± 0.08% vs -0.81 ± 0.09% [14.1 ± 0.9 mmol/mol vs 8.9 ± 1.0 mmol/mol]). The between-group difference in adjusted mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c increased from -0.34 (-0.54, -0.14) at Week 26 to -0.48 (-0.71, -0.25) at Week 52. DAPA plus SAXA was generally well tolerated and the incidence of adverse events was similar in both treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Early intensification to triple therapy with DAPA plus SAXA results in better, more durable glycaemic control than addition of SITA only (dual therapy) in patients with high HbA1c levels who are uncontrolled with MET monotherapy.

Dapagliflozin versus saxagliptin as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin

OBJECTIVE

This analysis compared the efficacy and safety of the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, dapagliflozin, and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor, saxagliptin, both added on to metformin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a post-hoc analysis from a double-blind, randomized, 24-week clinical trial (NCT01606007) of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with metformin. We compared the dapagliflozin 10 mg (n = 179) and saxagliptin 5 mg (n = 176) treatment arms.

RESULTS

Dapagliflozin showed significantly greater mean reductions versus saxagliptin in HbA1c (difference versus saxagliptin [95% CI]: -0.32% [-0.54, -0.10]; p < 0.005), fasting plasma glucose (-0.98 [-1.42, -0.54] mmol/L; p < 0.0001), body weight (-2.39 [-3.08, -1.71] kg; p < 0.0001) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (-3.89 [-6.15, -1.63] mmHg; p < 0.001). More dapagliflozintreated than saxagliptin-treated patients achieved the composite endpoint of HbA1c reduction ≥ 0.5%, weight loss ≥ 2 kg, SBP reduction ≥ 2 mmHg and no major/minor hypoglycemia (24% versus 7%). No major events of hypoglycemia were reported. More patients on dapagliflozin (6%) versus saxagliptin (0.6%) experienced genital infections.

CONCLUSION

Dapagliflozin demonstrated greater glycemic efficacy than saxagliptin with additional benefits on weight and SBP, and the safety profile was consistent with previous studies.

Higher Frequency of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor Intake in Bullous Pemphigoid Patients than in the French General Population

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors have been suspected to induce bullous pemphigoid (BP). The objective of this study was to compare the observed frequency of gliptin intake in a large sample of 1,787 BP patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2015 in France, with the expected frequency after indirect age standardization on 225,412 individuals extracted from the database of the National Healthcare Insurance Agency. The secondary objective was to assess the clinical characteristics and the course of gliptin-associated BP, depending on whether gliptin was continued or stopped. The observed frequencies of intake of the whole gliptin class and that of vildagliptin in the BP population were higher than those in the general population after age standardization (whole gliptin class: 6.0%; 95% confidence interval = 4.9-7.1% vs. 3.6%, observed-to-expected drug intake ratio = 1.7; 95% confidence interval = 1.4-2.0; P < 0.0001; vildagliptin = 3.3%; 95% confidence interval = 2.5-4.1% vs. 0.7%, ratio = 4.4; 95% confidence interval = 3.5-5.7; P < 0.0001). The association of any gliptin+metformin was also higher than in the general population, ratio = 1.8 (95% confidence interval = 1.3-2.4; P < 0.0001). Gliptin-associated BP had no specific clinical characteristics. Gliptin was stopped in 48 (45.3%) cases. Median duration to achieve disease control, rate, and delay of relapse were not different whether gliptin was stopped or continued. This study strongly supports the association between gliptin intake, particularly vildagliptin, and the onset of BP.

Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of saxagliptin for type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and two Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing saxagliptin with placebo or active comparators was performed up to July 2017. A complementary search was done to cover literature until March 2018. For continuous data, estimates were pooled using inverse variance methodology to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs). Dichotomous data were presented as Mantel-Haenzel risk ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine references of 30 RCTs involving 29,938 patients were analyzed. Compared with placebo, saxagliptin significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, WMD -0.52%, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.44) and fasting plasma glucose (WMD -13.78 mg/dL, 95% CI -15.31 to -12.25), and increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.75). When combined with submaximal-dose metformin, saxagliptin significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% compared with acarbose (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.83) and uptitrated metformin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.63). Saxagliptin was similar to other DPP-4 inhibitors but inferior to liraglutide and dapagliflozin on glycemic control. Saxagliptin significantly decreased the incidences of overall adverse events compared with acarbose (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89) and liraglutide (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) when added to metformin. Weight gain and hypoglycemia with saxagliptin was slightly but significantly higher than placebo and lower than sulfonylureas. Saxagliptin did not increase the risk of arthralgia, heart failure, pancreatitis and other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, saxagliptin has similar efficacy compared with most oral antidiabetic drugs and may be more effective than acarbose, while having a better safety profile than both acarbose and sulfonylureas.

Incretin-based therapy in type 2 diabetes: An evidence based systematic review and meta-analysis

Incretin based therapies such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) are increasingly used for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. In clinical practice and in previously performed clinical trials, these agents are often used in combination with other oral anti-diabetic agents (OADs) and Insulin. Prior meta-analytic reviews however do not adequately address the impact of background therapy and active comparator arms. Accordingly, we aimed to further investigate the efficacy of incretin based therapies by updating existing reviews by including clinical trial evidence after 2008; estimating the pooled effect of incretin therapies on glycemic efficacy and weight-loss, stratified by comparator therapy (placebo, mono-therapy, etc.), estimating the impact of background OADs and within class (GLP-1Ra or DPP-4i) comparative efficacy, on glycemia control. 82 randomized controlled trials after 2008 with glycemic control and weight loss as primary end-points were included. Both DPP-4i and GLP-1Ra reduced HbA1c, but only GLP-1Ra caused weight loss when compared to either active comparator drugs or placebo. GLP-1Ra were more effective than DPP-4i in glycemia lowering. Long acting GLP-1Ra were more effective in HbA1c lowering than short-acting agents but with similar weight loss effect. The effect of DPP-4i incretin glycemic efficacy was not modified by background therapy used in the study.

Linagliptin versus sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Diabetes is one of the most common chronic and costly diseases worldwide and type 2 diabetes is the most common type which accounts for about 90% of cases with diabetes. New medication-therapy regimens such as those containing linagliptin alone or in combination with other medications (within the category of DDP-4 inhibitors) must be evaluated in terms of efficacy and compared with other currently used drugs and then enter the medication list of the country. Hence, this study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of the two drugs, i.e. linagliptin and sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify all clinical trials published by 2015 which compared the two drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes. Using keywords such as “linagliptin”, “type 2 diabetes mellitus”, “sitagliptin” and related combinations, we searched databases including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated using the Jadad score. Considering primary and secondary outcomes extracted from the reviewed studies, a network meta-analysis was used to conduct a systematic comparison between the two studied drugs.

Results

This network meta-analysis included 32 studies (Linagliptin vs PLB: n = 8, Sitagliptin vs PLB: n = 13, Linagliptin + MET vs PLB + MET: n = 4, and Sitagliptin + MET vs PLB + MET: n = 7) and a total of 13,747 patients. The results showed no significant difference between linagliptin and sitagliptin in terms of key efficacy and safety outcomes such as HbA1c changes from baseline, body weight change from baseline, percentage of patients achieving HbA1c <7, and percentage of patients experiencing hypoglycemic events (p > 0.05). The results showed that the efficacy of the two drug regimens was the same.

Conclusions

Based on the results, there was no significant difference between the two drugs, i.e. linagliptin and sitagliptin, in terms of efficacy; in other words, the efficacy of the two drugs was the same. Therefore, the use of these two drugs depends on their availability and cost.

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract of the network meta-analysis performed to evaluate the alternatives under the study.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40199-017-0189-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Use of Saxagliptin in People with Type 2 Diabetes in France: The Diapazon Epidemiological Study

INTRODUCTION

Saxagliptin is a potent, reversible inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 that is indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The DIAPAZON study was a multicenter observational study intended to document the effectiveness, safety and patterns of saxagliptin use in France, including the saxagliptin retention rate, over 2 years of follow-up.

METHODS

A geographically representative sample of 304 French physicians (general practitioners and specialist endocrinologists or diabetologists) recruited 1131 adults with type 2 diabetes into an ambispective cohort; 1033 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All had started saxagliptin during the previous 6 months or at study inclusion, and follow-up was for 24 ± 3 months after starting saxagliptin.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study population when starting saxagliptin was 61 years, and the mean HbA1c level was 8.0%; 79% had an HbA1c level ≥7%. Prior to starting saxagliptin treatment, most participants (91%) were receiving treatment with oral glucose-lowering drugs alone. The most commonly prescribed regimen at starting saxagliptin (53% of participants) was a combination of saxagliptin and metformin. The overall saxagliptin retention rate at 2 years was 79%, as estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The most common reasons for discontinuation were inadequate glycemic control (52%) and intolerance (22%). During the course of the study, the mean HbA1c level decreased to 7.0%, and the percentage of people with HbA1c <7% increased from 21% to 49%. The mean change in body weight was -1.8 kg. A total of 294 hypoglycemic episodes were reported in 70 participants (6.8%) during the follow-up period. Of these, 143 episodes in 41 participants (4.0%) occurred when saxagliptin was used in combination with agents associated with hypoglycemia, such as insulin, sulfonylureas or glinides.

CONCLUSION

Saxagliptin is efficacious and well tolerated in a real-world practice setting, with almost 80% of participants remaining on treatment after 2 years.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca, France.

Efficacy and safety of adding evogliptin versus sitagliptin for metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: A 24-week randomized, controlled trial with open label extension

AIMS

This trial consisted of a 24-week multicentre, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled study and a 52-week open label extension study to assess the efficacy and safety of evogliptin, a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared to sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control with metformin alone.

METHODS

Adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (N = 222) with HbA1c 6.5% to 11% who were receiving stable doses of metformin (≥1000 mg/d) were randomized 1:1 to add-on evogliptin 5 mg (N = 112) or sitagliptin 100 mg (N = 110) once daily for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy analysis consisted of a comparison of the change from baseline HbA1c at week 24. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the HbA1c difference between treatments was <0.35%.

RESULTS

Mean changes in HbA1c following addition of evogliptin or sitagliptin were -0.59% and -0.65%, respectively. The between-group difference was 0.06% (2-sided 95% confidence interval, -0.10 to 0.22), demonstrating non-inferiority. After the 52-week treatment, evogliptin caused a persistently decreased level of HbA1c (-0.44% ± 0.65%, P  < .0001). In general, both treatments were well tolerated, with incidences and types of adverse events comparable between the two groups. Hypoglycaemic events, mostly mild, were reported in 0.9% of patients treated with evogliptin and in 2.8% of patients treated with sitagliptin for 24 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Evogliptin 5 mg added to metformin therapy effectively improved glycaemic control and was non-inferior to sitagliptin and well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that was inadequately controlled by metformin alone.

Comparative Effectiveness of Adding Alogliptin to Metformin Plus Sulfonylurea with Other DPP-4 Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Alogliptin is an oral antihyperglycemic agent that is a selective inhibitor of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). There currently exists no comparative data to support the use of alogliptin in combination with metformin (met) and sulfonylurea (SU). A decision-focused network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare the relative efficacy and safety of alogliptin 25 mg once daily to other DPP-4 inhibitors as part of a triple therapy regimen for patients inadequately controlled on metformin and SU dual therapy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify published papers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared alogliptin with other DPP-4 inhibitors (linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin) at their Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) recommended daily doses, added on to metformin and SU. Comprehensive comparative analysis involving frequentist meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA compared alogliptin to each DPP-4 inhibitor separately and collectively as a group. Quasi-random effect models were introduced when random effect models could not be estimated.

RESULTS

The review identified 2186 articles, and 94 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Eight RCTs contained appropriate data for inclusion in the NMA. All analyses over all trial population sets produced very similar results, and show that alogliptin 25 mg is as least as effective (as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline, but supported by other outcome measures: change in body weight and FPG from baseline) and safe (as measured by incidence of hypoglycemia and adverse events leading to study discontinuation) as all the other DPP-4 inhibitors in triple therapy.

CONCLUSION

This decision-focused systematic review and NMA demonstrated alogliptin 25 mg daily to have similar efficacy and safety compared to other DPP-4 inhibitors, for the treatment of T2DM in adults inadequately controlled on metformin and SU. (Funded by Takeda Development Centre Americas; EXAMINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00968708).

Monitoring safety and use of old and new treatment options for type 2 diabetic patients: a two-year (2013-2016) analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare patients' and physicians' perceptions regarding effectiveness and tolerability of non-insulin hypoglycemic drugs in a cohort of type 2 diabetic patients; to verify whether a possible tridimensional link between effectiveness, tolerability, and adherence affects long-term therapeutic outcomes.

METHODS

A two-year observational study was performed in 1389 Type 2 diabetic patients by involving general practitioner clinics and Diabetes Centers. A decimal scale and the Morisky questionnaire were used, respectively, to assess effectiveness and tolerability perceptions, and medication adherence.

RESULTS

Physicians perceived therapy as more efficacious compared to their patients: perceived effectiveness was steady for physicians during the study whereas patients' perception not significantly decreased (mean score from >8 to 7.84 ± 1.69). Physicians assigned higher tolerability scores compared to patients but only at the beginning of the study; interestingly, physicians' tolerability perception was poorer than patients' perception at last follow-up (mean score = 7.57 ± 1.40 vs. 7.88 ± 1.84). Favorable (score >7) patients' perceptions about treatment effectiveness and tolerability were associated with higher adherence. Patients showed medium adherence across the study.

CONCLUSIONS

A mutual relationship between clinical effectiveness, adverse drug reactions, and adherence has been established, significantly impacting the clinical management of diabetic patients. A careful monitoring of this link by clinicians appears therefore necessary.

Blood Glucagon Levels Predict the Hemoglobin A1c Response to Saxagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with Metformin

BACKGROUND

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are widely used as second-option medications when metformin fails. Variance of the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) response to DPP-4 inhibitions in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been observed, but the characteristics which predict the response to DPP-4 inhibitor therapy are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the characteristics of α- and β-cell functions which might predict the efficacy of saxagliptin and facilitate personalization of treatment.

METHODS

We studied 60 patients with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control [HbA1c7.0-13.0% (53-119 mmol/mol)) with metformin alone. The patients were treated with saxagliptin (5 mg, daily) and metformin (1000-2000 mg as former) for 12 weeks. Oral glucose tolerance tests were carried out at baseline and endpoint to evaluate α- and β-cell functions, and blood C-peptide, insulin, glucagon levels were tested. Blood glucose, HbA1c and weight were also observed.

RESULTS

Significant reduction of weight, HbA1c and glucagon was observed after 12-week treatment, while C-peptide, insulin and homeostasis model assessment-β increased (P < 0.05). Linear regression and receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that baseline HbA1c and 30 min-glucagon were correlated with the HbA1c response to saxagliptin, while the weight loss was correlated with gender, age and fasting-insulin level. Further analysis showed the 30 min-glucagon of 49.1 pmol/L was the optimal cutoff value to predict the efficacy of saxagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Saxagliptin added to metformin significantly improved glycemic control and α- and β-cell function. Blood glucagon level was a good predicting factor for the HbA1c response to saxagliptin, and it will help appropriate patient selection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Register identifier, ChiCTR-PPR-15007045.

Pharmacology and therapeutic implications of current drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global epidemic that poses a major challenge to health-care systems. Improving metabolic control to approach normal glycaemia (where practical) greatly benefits long-term prognoses and justifies early, effective, sustained and safety-conscious intervention. Improvements in the understanding of the complex pathogenesis of T2DM have underpinned the development of glucose-lowering therapies with complementary mechanisms of action, which have expanded treatment options and facilitated individualized management strategies. Over the past decade, several new classes of glucose-lowering agents have been licensed, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. These agents can be used individually or in combination with well-established treatments such as biguanides, sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones. Although novel agents have potential advantages including low risk of hypoglycaemia and help with weight control, long-term safety has yet to be established. In this Review, we assess the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profiles, including cardiovascular safety, of currently available therapies for management of hyperglycaemia in patients with T2DM within the context of disease pathogenesis and natural history. In addition, we briefly describe treatment algorithms for patients with T2DM and lessons from present therapies to inform the development of future therapies.

Hypoglycaemia when adding sulphonylurea to metformin: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

The risk of hypoglycaemia may differ among sulphonylureas (SUs), but evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse. Performing a network meta-analysis to use indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we compared the relative risk of hypoglycaemia with newer generation SUs when added to metformin.

METHODS

A systematic review identified RCTs lasting 12-52 weeks and evaluating SUs added to inadequate metformin monotherapy (≥1000 mg/day) in type 2 diabetes. Adding RCTs investigating the active comparators from the identified SU trials, we established a coherent network. Hypoglycaemia of any severity was the primary end point.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials of SUs and 14 of oral non-SU antihyperglycaemic agents (16 260 patients) were included. All reported hypoglycaemia only as adverse events. Producing comparable reductions in HbA_1C of -0.66 to -0.84% (-7 to -9 mmol/mol), the risk of hypoglycaemia was lowest with gliclazide compared to glipizide (OR 0.22, CrI: 0.05 to 0.96), glimepiride (OR 0.40, CrI: 0.13 to 1.27), and glibenclamide (OR 0.21, CrI: 0.03 to 1.48). A major limitation is varying definitions of hypoglycaemia across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

When added to metformin, gliclazide was associated with the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia between the newer generation SUs. Clinicians should consider the risk of hypoglycaemia agent-specific when selecting an SU agent.

Positioning SGLT2 Inhibitors/Incretin-Based Therapies in the Treatment Algorithm

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are the most recent addition to the therapeutic options available for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and became available after the introduction of incretin-based therapies, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). These agents have potential advantages with regard to their weight loss-promoting effect, low risk of hypoglycemia, reduction in blood pressure, and reduction in cardiovascular events in high-risk patients (with empagliflozin). Apart from these clinically important outcomes, they may also correct core defects present in type 2 diabetes (i.e., improvement in β-cell function and insulin sensitivity). They do, however, have some adverse effects, notably, nausea with GLP-1 RAs and genital tract infections and potential for volume depletion with SGLT2i. Whether incretin-based therapies are associated with an increased risk of pancreatitis is unclear. Most recently, diabetic ketoacidosis has been reported with SGLT2i. Therefore, a key clinical question in relation to guidelines is whether these clinical advantages, in the context of the adverse effect profile, outweigh the additional cost compared with older, more established therapies. This article reviews the therapeutic rationale for the use of these newer drugs for diabetes treatment, considers their place in current guidelines, and discusses how this may change as new data emerge about their long-term efficacy and safety from ongoing outcome trials.

Combination therapy of SGLT2 inhibitors with incretin-based therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: Effects and mechanisms of action

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a growing health problem worldwide; its pathogenesis is multifactorial and its progressive nature often necessitates a combination therapy with multiple antihyperglycemic agents. Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and the incretin-based therapies - dipeptidyl peptidase 4(DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists - were introduced for the treatment of T2DM within the last decade. Evidence of the beneficial effects of these antihyperglycemic agents on micro- and macrovascular complications have started to emerge, which will become important in individualizing different combinations of antihyperglycemic agents to different patient populations. We review here the mechanisms of action, glycemic and cardiovascular effects of SGLT2 inhibitors and incretin-based therapies and their combination in the treatment of T2DM.

Clinically and pharmacologically relevant interactions of antidiabetic drugs

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus often require multifactorial pharmacological treatment due to different comorbidities. An increasing number of concomitantly taken medications elevate the risk of the patient experiencing adverse drug effects or drug interactions. Drug interactions can be divided into pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions affecting cytochrome (CYP) enzymes, absorption properties, transporter activities and receptor affinities. Furthermore, nutrition, herbal supplements, patient's age and gender are of clinical importance. Relevant drug interactions are predominantly related to sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones and glinides. Although metformin has a very low interaction potential, caution is advised when drugs that impair renal function are used concomitantly. With the exception of saxagliptin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors also show a low interaction potential, but all drugs affecting the drug transporter P-glycoprotein should be used with caution. Incretin mimetics and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors comprise a very low interaction potential and are therefore recommended as an ideal combination partner from the clinical-pharmacologic point of view.

Comparative review of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sulphonylureas

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is a progressive disease, and pharmacotherapy with a single agent does not generally provide durable glycaemic control over the long term. Sulphonylurea (SU) drugs have a history stretching back over 60 years, and have traditionally been the mainstay choice as second-line agents to be added to metformin once glycaemic control with metformin monotherapy deteriorates; however, they are associated with undesirable side effects, including increased hypoglycaemia risk and weight gain. Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors are, by comparison, more recent, with the first compound being launched in 2006, but the class now globally encompasses at least 11 different compounds. DPP-4 inhibitors improve glycaemic control with similar efficacy to SUs, but do not usually provoke hypoglycaemia or weight gain, are relatively free from adverse side effects, and have recently been shown not to increase cardiovascular risk in large prospective safety trials. Because of these factors, DPP-4 inhibitors have become an established therapy for T2DM and are increasingly being positioned earlier in treatment algorithms. The present article reviews these two classes of oral antidiabetic drugs (DPP-4 inhibitors and SUs), highlighting differences and similarities between members of the same class, as well as discussing the potential advantages and disadvantages of the two drug classes. While both classes have their merits, the choice of which to use depends on the characteristics of each individual patient; however, for the majority of patients, DPP-4 inhibitors are now the preferred choice.

A systematic review of the safety of incretin-based therapies in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that incretin-based therapies provide effective glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Long-term safety assessments are ongoing.

METHODS

This systematic review of incretin-based therapy safety is based on 112 randomized clinical trials of duration ≥26 weeks published between January 2000 and February 2015 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

As expected, hypoglycemia rates were lower with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) versus other oral antidiabetic drugs and insulin. The most common adverse events were infection and infestation (DPP-4is) and gastrointestinal (GLP-1 RAs). Pancreatitis cases were rare across all studies and, in the SAVOR-TIMI and EXAMINE trials, pancreatitis rates were similar in DPP-4i- and placebo-treated patients. No thyroid tumors were reported, and increased risk of cardiovascular events was not associated with DPP-4is in SAVOR-TIMI and EXAMINE, albeit over a short follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, incretin-based therapies were well tolerated; however, their long-term safety profile should continue to be periodically assessed.

Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and clinical evaluation of saxagliptin in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptide peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors such as saxagliptin are established and efficacious oral therapies in the management of type 2 diabetes. These agents have the potential to confer significant benefits in glycemic control without the risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia, which may be associated with other medications used to treat type 2 diabetes.

AREAS COVERED

This review examines the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and tolerability of saxagliptin for the management of type 2 diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

Saxagliptin is routinely used in the management of type 2 diabetes as monotherapy, and in combination with other oral agents and insulin. Robust clinical trials have shown consistent improvements in glycated hemoglobin, fasting and postprandial glucose levels, with few adverse effects. The agent is well tolerated with low rates of hypoglycemia in the absence of insulin or sulphonylurea therapy.

Efficacy and tolerability of saxagliptin compared with glimepiride in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled study (GENERATION)

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of adjunctive saxagliptin vs glimepiride in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and inadequate glycaemic control.

METHODS

In this multinational, randomized, double-blind, phase IIIb/IV study (GENERATION; NCT01006603), patients aged ≥65 years were randomized (1 : 1) to receive saxagliptin 5 mg/day or glimepiride ≤6 mg/day, added to metformin, during a 52-week treatment period. The primary endpoint was achievement of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% at week 52 without confirmed/severe hypoglycaemia. The key secondary endpoint was incidence of confirmed/severe hypoglycaemia. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 720 patients randomized (360 in each treatment group; mean age 72.6 years; mean T2D duration 7.6 years), 574 (79.8%) completed the study (saxagliptin 80.3%; glimepiride 79.2%). Similar proportions of patients achieved the primary endpoint with saxagliptin and glimepiride (37.9 vs 38.2%; odds ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.73, 1.34; p = 0.9415); however, a significant treatment-by-age interaction effect was detected (p = 0.0389): saxagliptin was numerically (but not significantly) superior to glimepiride for patients aged <75 years (39.2 vs 33.3%) and numerically inferior for patients aged ≥75 years (35.9 vs 45.5%). The incidence of confirmed/severe hypoglycaemia was lower with saxagliptin vs glimepiride (1.1 vs 15.3%; nominal p < 0.0001). Saxagliptin was generally well tolerated, with similar incidences of adverse events compared with glimepiride.

CONCLUSION

As avoiding hypoglycaemia is a key clinical objective in elderly patients, saxagliptin is a suitable alternative to glimepiride in patients with T2D aged ≥65 years.

Clinical trial simulation methods for estimating the impact of DPP-4 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease

Introduction

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of oral antidiabetic agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, which lower blood glucose without causing severe hypoglycemia. However, the first cardiovascular (CV) safety trials have only recently reported their results, and our understanding of these therapies remains incomplete. Using clinical trial simulations, we estimated the effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in a population like that enrolled in the SAVOR-TIMI (the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus – Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) 53 trial.

Methods

We used the Archimedes Model to simulate a clinical trial of individuals (N=11,000) with diagnosed type 2 diabetes and elevated CV risk, based on established disease or multiple risk factors. The DPP-4 class was modeled with a meta-analysis of HbA_1c and weight change, pooling results from published trials of alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin. The study treatments were added-on to standard care, and outcomes were tracked for 20 years.

Results

The DPP-4 class was associated with an HbA_1c drop of 0.66% (0.71%, 0.62%) and a weight drop of 0.14 (−0.07, 0.36) kg. These biomarker improvements produced a relative risk (RR) for MACE at 5 years of 0.977 (0.968, 0.986). The number needed to treat to prevent one occurrence of MACE at 5 years was 327 (233, 550) in the elevated CV risk population.

Conclusion

Consistent with recent trial publications, our analysis indicates that DPP-4 inhibitors do not increase the risk of MACE relative to the standard of care. This study provides insights about the long-term benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors and supports the interpretation of the published CV safety trial results.

The Place of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes Therapeutics: A "Me Too" or "the Special One" Antidiabetic Class?

Incretin-based therapies, the most recent therapeutic options for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management, can modify various elements of the disease, including hypersecretion of glucagon, abnormal gastric emptying, postprandial hyperglycaemia, and, possibly, pancreatic β cell dysfunction. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (gliptins) increase glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) availability and correct the "incretin defect" seen in T2DM patients. Clinical studies have shown good glycaemic control with minimal risk of hypoglycaemia or any other adverse effects, despite the reports of pancreatitis, whose association remains to be proved. Recent studies have been focusing on the putative ability of DPP-4 inhibitors to preserve pancreas function, in particular due to the inhibition of apoptotic pathways and stimulation of β cell proliferation. In addition, other cytoprotective effects on other organs/tissues that are involved in serious T2DM complications, including the heart, kidney, and retina, have been increasingly reported. This review outlines the therapeutic potential of DPP-4 inhibitors for the treatment of T2DM, focusing on their main features, clinical applications, and risks, and discusses the major challenges for the future, in particular the possibility of becoming the preferred therapy for T2DM due to their ability to modify the natural history of the disease and ameliorate nephropathy, retinopathy, and cardiovascular complications.

Racial/ethnic disparities in prevalence and care of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

As of 2012, nearly 10% of Americans had diabetes mellitus. People with diabetes are at approximately double the risk of premature death compared with those in the same age groups without the condition. While the prevalence of diabetes has risen across all racial/ethnic groups over the past 30 years, rates are higher in minority populations. The objective of this review article is to evaluate the prevalence of diabetes and disease-related comorbidities as well as the primary endpoints of clinical studies assessing glucose-lowering treatments in African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians.

METHODS

As part of our examination of this topic, we reviewed epidemiologic and outcome publications. Additionally, we performed a comprehensive literature search of clinical trials that evaluated glucose-lowering drugs in racial minority populations. For race/ethnicity, we used the terms African American, African, Hispanic, and Asian. We searched PubMed for clinical trial results from 1996 to 2015 using these terms by drug class and specific drug. Search results were filtered qualitatively.

RESULTS

Overall, the majority of publications that fit our search criteria pertained to native Asian patient populations (i.e., Asian patients in Asian countries). Sulfonylureas; the α-glucosidase inhibitor, miglitol; the biguanide, metformin; and the thiazolidinedione, rosiglitazone have been evaluated in African American and Hispanic populations, as well as in Asians. The literature on other glucose-lowering drugs in non-white races/ethnicities is more limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical data are needed for guiding diabetes treatment among racial minority populations. A multi-faceted approach, including vigilant screening in at-risk populations, aggressive treatment, and culturally sensitive patient education, could help reduce the burden of diabetes on minority populations. To ensure optimal outcomes, educational programs that integrate culturally relevant approaches should highlight the importance of risk-factor control in minority patients.

Implications of incretin-based therapies on cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Incretin-based therapies offer another treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes. Agents that provide glycaemic control in addition to attenuating cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors are important for diabetes management. This review will focus on the off-target effects of incretin-based therapies on CVD risk factors [body weight, blood pressure (BP), lipid profile and albuminuria], major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), heart failure (HF) and beta-cell preservation.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify English-language publications for incretin-based therapies evaluating the following off-target end-points: body weight, BP, lipid profile, albuminuria, MACE, HF and beta-cell function. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were prioritised as the primary source of information.

RESULTS

Overall, incretin-based therapies have shown beneficial effects on CVD risk factors, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists appear to have a more pronounced effect compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. RCTs are being conducted to determine if these positive effects on CVD risk factors translate to a reduction in MACE. To date, these studies have not shown an increase in MACE. A signal of increased hospitalisations for HF was observed with saxagliptin, warranting continued evaluation and vigilance in high-risk patients. In addition, incretin-based therapies have shown positive effects on measures of beta-cell function supporting their durability in the management of diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Incretin-based therapies are an important treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes, offering beneficial effects on CVD risk factors without increasing MACE.

Comparative efficacy and safety of antidiabetic drug regimens added to metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis

Introduction

When first line therapy with metformin is insufficient for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the optimal adjunctive therapy is unclear. We assessed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive antidiabetic agents in patients with inadequately controlled T2D on metformin alone.

Materials and Methods

A search of MEDLINE and CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, regulatory websites was performed. We included randomized controlled trials of 3–12 months duration, evaluating Food and Drug Administration or European Union approved agents (noninsulin and long acting, once daily basal insulins) in patients experiencing inadequate glycemic control with metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg daily or maximally tolerated dose for ≥4 weeks). Random-effects network meta-analyses were used to compare the weighted mean difference for changes from baseline in HbA1c, body weight (BW) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), and the risk of developing hypoglycemia, urinary (UTI) and genital tract infection (GTI).

Results

Sixty-two trials evaluating 25 agents were included. All agents significantly reduced HbA1c vs. placebo; albeit not to the same extent (range, 0.43% for miglitol to 1.29% for glibenclamide). Glargine, sulfonylureas (SUs) and nateglinide were associated with increased hypoglycemia risk vs. placebo (range, 4.00–11.67). Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs, miglitol and empagliflozin/linagliptin significantly reduced BW (range, 1.15–2.26kg) whereas SUs, thiazolindinediones, glargine and alogliptin/pioglitazone caused weight gain (range, 1.19–2.44kg). SGLT2 inhibitors, empagliflozin/linagliptin, liraglutide and sitagliptin decreased SBP (range, 1.88–5.43mmHg). No therapy increased UTI risk vs. placebo; however, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of GTI (range, 2.16–8.03).

Conclusions

Adding different AHAs to metformin was associated with varying effects on HbA1c, BW, SBP, hypoglycemia, UTI and GTI which should impact clinician choice when selecting adjunctive therapy.

Cardiometabolic Effects of a New Class of Antidiabetic Agents

PURPOSE

Within the past decade, many new classes of drugs have received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, including glucagon-like peptide-1agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and the sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Many trials have been performed, and several more are currently ongoing to evaluate these drugs. This review addresses the broad therapeutic and pleiotropic effects of these drugs. The review also discusses the role of these drugs in the treatment paradigm for type 2 diabetes and identifies patients who would be suitable candidates for treatment with these drugs.

METHODS

In this comprehensive evidence-based review, the following databases were searched from 1990 to the present: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal, and the American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes abstract databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were only included for the main therapeutic and cardiovascular (CV) effects of these drug classes. For pleiotropic effects, RCTs were included unless no RCTs exist, in which case other studies as specified in the detailed Methods section were included.

FINDINGS

All 3 drug classes are effective in lowering hemoglobin A1c between 0.4% and 1.4%, depending on the drug class and population selected. These drug classes have beneficial effects on CV risk factors, such as weight, lipids, and blood pressure, in addition to lowering blood glucose levels. The CV tolerability of some drugs has been evaluated and found to be neutral; however, most trials are currently ongoing to assess CV tolerability. There are no concrete guidelines to determine where these drugs fit in the diabetes management paradigm, and there are ongoing trials to determine the best combination drug with metformin.

IMPLICATIONS

These 3 drug classes will potentially increase the armamentarium against hyperglycemia. However, the specific combinations with other antidiabetic drugs and populations that will best benefit from these drugs are still being tested. Future research is also being conducted on the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients with type 1 diabetes.

Pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes: oral medications

OBJECTIVE

To review the oral and injectable pharmacologic treatment options for type 2 diabetes.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted using PubMed electronic database for studies published in English between 1993 and September 2014. Search terms included diabetes mellitus, type 2 diabetes, and the individual name for each antidiabetic medication reviewed. In addition, manual searches were performed for cross-references from publications. Package inserts, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Web site, Institute for Safe Medication Practices Web site, American Diabetes Association Web site and scientific session poster presentations, and individual drug company Web pages were also reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

This review focused on information elucidated over the past 10 years to assist prescribers in choosing optimal therapy based on individual patient characteristics. Studies leading to the approval of or raising safety concerns for the antidiabetic medications reviewed in this article were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In the past 10 years, there have been 4 novel oral antidiabetic medication classes and 9 new injectable agents and insulin products approved by the FDA for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as well as new information regarding the safety and use of several older antidiabetic medication classes. The distinctions were reviewed for each individual agent, and a comparison was completed if there was more than one agent in a particular therapeutic class. Using current information available, select investigational agents in phase III trials or those with a pending new drug application were highlighted.

CONCLUSION

There are now 9 distinct oral pharmacologic classes and a variety of insulin and noninsulin injectable medications available for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Metformin remains the first-line treatment option for most patients. When considering options for alternative or additional treatment, prescribers must weigh the benefits and risks using individual patient characteristics.