Clinical utility of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: a descriptive summary of current efficacy trials

DPP-4 inhibitors for treating T2DM - hype or hope? an analysis based on the current literature

DPP-4 inhibition is an interesting line of therapy for treating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and is based on promoting the incretin effect. Here, the authors have presented a brief appraisal of DPP-4 inhibitors, their modes of action, and the clinical efficiency of currently available drugs based on DPP-4 inhibitors. The safety profiles as well as future directions including their potential application in improving COVID-19 patient outcomes have also been discussed in detail. This review also highlights the existing queries and evidence gaps in DPP-4 inhibitor research. Authors have concluded that the excitement surrounding DPP-4 inhibitors is justified because in addition to controlling blood glucose level, they are good at managing risk factors associated with diabetes.

Yogliptin monotherapy in type 2 diabetes: A 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study

BACKGROUND

The new xanthine dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor yogliptin has exhibited excellent hypoglycemic activity in experimental disease models. The present work aimed to assess the efficacy of yogliptin as a monotherapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study was performed. T2DM patients (new diagnosis or inadequately controlled) were randomly divided into groups (1:1:1:1) and administered either a placebo or weekly doses of 200, 300, or 400 mg yogliptin, respectively. The primary efficacy end point in this analysis was hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change at 12 weeks relative to baseline. Relevant secondary outcomes were also examined, including fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2 h-postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), body weight, and the rate of individuals who achieved the treatment goal of HbA1c ≤ 7% at 12 weeks from baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 81 cases who received either the placebo (20 cases) or 200 (20 cases), 300 (20 cases), or 400 (21 cases) mg yogliptin were examined in the full analysis set. At 12 weeks, changes in HbA1c levels from baseline were 0.17 (-0.22, 0.57) in the placebo group, and -0.75 (-1.15, -0.35), -0.52 (-0.93, -0.11) and -1.02 (-1.41, -0.64) (mean % [95% confidence interval], p < .001 vs. placebo) in the 200, 300, and 400 mg yogliptin groups, respectively. From week four, significant improvements in secondary efficacy outcomes among patients administered the yogliptin monotherapy were observed. FPG showed markedly more pronounced reduction after treatment with yogliptin at 200, 300, and 400 mg in comparison with placebo patients at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, goal attainment (HbA1c ≤ 7%) was reached in 0%, 20.00%, 15.80%, and 33.33% of the placebo and three Yogliptin dosage groups, respectively. Adverse events were comparable in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that yogliptin controlled glycemia in Chinese T2DM cases, with a great safety profile. The current findings supported that any of the three doses of yogliptin, administered once a week, could be used for phase III clinical studies.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors Use and Relative Risk of Ischemic Cerebrovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetic Patients in a Case-Control Study

Background and Objectives: Limited research focuses on the risk of ischemic cerebrovascular disease associated with use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Taiwan. This study aimed to investigate the association between DPP-4 inhibitors use and the first episode of ischemic cerebrovascular disease. Methods: We designed a case-control study using the database of the Taiwan National Health Insurance Program. There were 1999 type 2 diabetic subjects aged 20-84 years with the first episode of ischemic cerebrovascular disease from 2000 to 2013 as the cases, and 7996 sex- and age-matched, randomly selected type 2 diabetic subjects aged 20-84 years without any type of cerebrovascular diseases as the matched controls. We estimated the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of ischemic cerebrovascular disease associated with cumulative duration of DPP-4 inhibitors use by the multivariable logistic regression model. Results: After adjustment for confounding variables, the adjusted OR of ischemic cerebrovascular disease was 0.96 (95% CI 0.95, 0.97) in subjects with ever use of DPP-4 inhibitors as increase in use duration for every 1 month, compared with never use. The sub-analysis disclosed that the adjusted ORs of ischemic cerebrovascular disease were 1.57 (95% CI 1.36, 1.80) for subjects with cumulative duration of DPP-4 inhibitors use <1 year, and 0.70 (95% CI 0.57, 0.87) for subjects with cumulative duration of DPP-4 inhibitors use ≥1 year, compared with never use. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that DPP-4 inhibitors use correlates with relative risk reduction of the first episode of ischemic cerebrovascular disease in type 2 diabetic patients in a duration-dependent response. The beneficial effect will be marked when DPP-4 inhibitors use is ≥1 year.

Should Side Effects Influence the Selection of Antidiabetic Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are currently over 40 different drugs in 12 distinct classes approved in the USA to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This review summarizes our current knowledge about potential side effects of antidiabetic therapy and attempts to apply it to a clinical practice setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Given the heterogeneity of both the patients and the disease, it is mathematically impossible to test every available drug combination in long-term outcome, prospective, randomized blinded fashion before a clinician decides which agent(s) to prescribe to a specific patient in a given situation. To complicate the clinician's dilemma, there is lack of available tests to predict an individual's response or propensity to side effects. Further, the data available are derived from small, short-term registration trials and typically focus on relative rather than absolute risks of any given drug and do not address the potential adverse outcomes if a patient's diabetes remains untreated. Clinicians have to personalize their choice of antidiabetic therapy based both on the specific characteristics of the patient in front of them (stage of diabetes and its complications, overall health status, socioeconomic situation, other medications present, desire to improve control of diabetes, etc.) and the current knowledge about the relative and absolute balance of benefits and risks of any individual medication in that specific patient. It has to be recognized that this requires constant re-evaluation as database of our experience with antidiabetic therapy expands.