The efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 58 randomized controlled trials

Comparative efficacy and safety of sitagliptin or gliclazide combined with metformin in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: A single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority study with genetic polymorphism analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin versus gliclazide, combined with metformin, in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and glucotoxicity.

METHODS

In this single-center, randomized, controlled noninferiority trial, 129 treatment-naive patients with T2DM with glucotoxicity (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ≥ 200 mg/dL and glycated hemoglobin ≥ 9.0%) were randomized to receive sitagliptin plus metformin (n = 66) or gliclazide plus metformin (n = 63) for 12 weeks. Sitagliptin and gliclazide were given for the first 4 weeks, followed by metformin monotherapy for 8 weeks. Efficacy end points included changes in glycemic control, body weight, and β-cell function at baseline, 4 weeks, and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks, mean glycated hemoglobin reductions were 4.03% in the sitagliptin group and 4.13% in the gliclazide group, with a mean difference of -0.097 (95% confidence interval, -0.648 to 0.453), confirming noninferiority. Both groups showed significant FPG reductions at 4 weeks (P < .05). The sitagliptin group achieved faster glycemic targets, greater FPG and body weight reductions, and higher rates of FPG < 6.1 mmol/L (26.2% vs 5.7%; P = .012). No significant differences were observed in β-cell function or hypoglycemia incidence (P > .05). Genetic analysis showed specific single-nucleotide polymorphisms affected drug efficacy: dipeptidyl peptidase-4 rs2909451 TT and rs4664443 GG genotypes showed lower efficacy with sitagliptin, while GLP1R rs3765467 AG and KCNJ11 rs2285676 CC genotypes responded better to sitagliptin.

CONCLUSION

Sitagliptin combined with metformin is noninferior to gliclazide combined with metformin in treatment-naive patients with T2DM with glucotoxicity. Genetic polymorphisms significantly affect drug efficacy, highlighting the importance of personalized medicine. The sitagliptin group achieved glycemic targets more quickly and had greater weight reductions without increased adverse effects.

Role of anagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in managing type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

No comprehensive meta-analysis has examined and consolidated the effectiveness and safety of anagliptin in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). To bridge this knowledge gap, we undertook this meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials involving patients with T2D receiving anagliptin were sought after through electronic databases. The control arm consisted of either an active comparator (active control group [ACG]) or a placebo (passive control group [PCG]). The primary outcome was glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), with secondary outcomes including fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and lipid profiles and adverse events.

RESULTS

From the 226 articles first examined, 10 randomized controlled trials with 970 participants were analyzed. Reductions in HbA1c (mean difference [MD]: -0.03%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.14 to 0.14, P = .51, I2 = 9%) and FPG (MD: 0.03 mmol/L, 95% CI: -0.30 to 0.35, P = .87, I2 = 42%) were similar in the anagliptin group and ACG. Anagliptin reduced FPG better than placebo (MD: -1.25 mmol/L, 95% CI: -1.87 to -0.64, P < .0001, I2 = 0%). Sufficient data were unavailable to analyze the HbA1c lowering with anagliptin versus placebo. Among the lipid parameters, changes in total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B48, and apolipoprotein B100 were identical between the anagliptin and control groups (PCG and ACG). Anagliptin was better than ACG at lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol but not as good at lowering triglyceride. Adverse events were infrequent and similar in the anagliptin and control groups (PCG and ACG).

CONCLUSION

Anagliptin positively affects glucose control and is safe for managing T2D. Its low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering effect warrants further investigation.

Efficacy and Safety of Omarigliptin, a Novel Once-Weekly Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor, in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGRUOUND

No recent meta-analysis has holistically analyzed and summarized the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We conducted a meta-analysis to address this knowledge gap.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included patients with T2DM who received omarigliptin in the intervention arm. The control arm consisted of either a placebo (passive control group [PCG]) or an active comparator (active control group [ACG]). The primary outcome assessed was changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), while secondary outcomes included variations in glucose levels, achievement of glycemic targets, adverse events (AEs), and hypoglycemic events.

RESULTS

From 332 initially screened articles, data from 16 RCTs involving 8,804 subjects were analyzed. Omarigliptin demonstrated superiority over placebo in reducing HbA1c levels (mean difference, -0.58%; 95% confidence interval, -0.75 to -0.40; P<0.00001; I2=91%). Additionally, omarigliptin outperformed placebo in lowering fasting plasma glucose, 2-hour postprandial glucose, and in the percentage of participants achieving HbA1c levels below 7.0% and 6.5%. The glycemic efficacy of omarigliptin was similar to that of the ACG across all measures. Although the omarigliptin group experienced a higher incidence of hypoglycemic events compared to the PCG, the overall AEs, serious AEs, hypoglycemia, and severe hypoglycemia were comparable between the omarigliptin and control groups (PCG and ACG).

CONCLUSION

Omarigliptin has a favorable glycemic efficacy and safety profile for managing T2DM.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study to Compare the Effects of Gemigliptin Add-on or Escalation of Metformin Dose on Glycemic Control and Safety in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Treated with Metformin and SGLT-2 Inhibitors (SO GOOD Study)

Background

We aimed to compare efficacy and safety between gemigliptin add-on and escalation of the metformin dose in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) despite treatment with metformin and SGLT2 inhibitors.

Methods

This study was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group comparative study. Patients with T2DM uncontrolled on metformin and SGLT2 inhibitors were randomized to receive gemigliptin 50 mg as an add-on (GEM group, n = 37) or escalation of the metformin dose (500 mg, MET group, n = 38) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24.

Results

At weeks 12 and 24, the reduction in HbA1c levels was significantly greater in the GEM group than in the MET group (GEM vs. MET = -0.64% ± 0.34% vs. -0.36% ± 0.50%, p = 0.009 at week 12; -0.61% ± 0.35% vs. -0.33% ± 0.70%, p = 0.045 at week 24). The proportions of patients who achieved target HbA1c levels of <7.0% at weeks 12 and 24 and <6.5% at week 12 were greater in the GEM group than in the MET group. An index of β-cell function was also significantly improved in the GEM group. The safety profiles were similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

Gemigliptin add-on therapy may be more effective than metformin dose escalation in patients with T2DM insufficiently controlled using metformin and SGLT2 inhibitors, without safety concerns. This trial is registered with CRIS_number: KCT0003520.

Management of hyperglycaemia in people with obesity

Diabetes and obesity are closely interlinked. Obesity is a major risk factor for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus and appears to be an important risk factor for diabetic micro- and macrovascular complications. Management of hyperglycaemia in people with diabetes is important to reduce diabetes-related complications. Previously, there was a significant tension between management of hyperglycaemia and mitigating weight gain. Older drugs, such as sulfonylureas, glitazones, and insulin, although effective antihyperglycaemic agents, tend to induce weight gain. There is now an increasing recognition in people with obesity and diabetes that the focus should be on aiding weight loss, initially with improvements in diet and physical activity, possibly with the use of low-calorie diet programmes. Subsequent addition of metformin and newer agents, such as sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, will aid glucose control and weight reduction, and offer cardiovascular and renal protection. These drugs are now much higher in the therapeutic pathway in many national and international guidelines. Bariatric surgery may also be an effective way to manage hyperglycaemia or induce remission in individuals with both obesity and diabetes.

COVID-19 therapeutics: Clinical application of repurposed drugs and futuristic strategies for target-based drug discovery

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes the complicated disease COVID-19. Clinicians are continuously facing huge problems in the treatment of patients, as COVID-19-specific drugs are not available, hence the principle of drug repurposing serves as a one-and-only hope. Globally, the repurposing of many drugs is underway; few of them are already approved by the regulatory bodies for their clinical use and most of them are in different phases of clinical trials. Here in this review, our main aim is to discuss in detail the up-to-date information on the target-based pharmacological classification of repurposed drugs, the potential mechanism of actions, and the current clinical trial status of various drugs which are under repurposing since early 2020. At last, we briefly proposed the probable pharmacological and therapeutic drug targets that may be preferred as a futuristic drug discovery approach in the development of effective medicines.

Weight-centric treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background

Chronic non-communicable diseases (CNCD) represent a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the most prevalent CNCD that is associated with a significant medical and economic burden. One of the main modifiable risk factors of T2DM is obesity. Many medications used for T2DM can lead to weight gain, worsening one of the root causes of this disease.

Methods

In this clinical review, we study the effect of medications for T2DM on body weight. We used MEDLINE, Google scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases to search for relevant studies between 1 January 1950 to 20 September 2022 in English language. Here, we review the most prescribed medications for T2DM and summarize their effect on patients' body weight. We will also present an expert opinion on a recommended weight-centric approach to treat T2DM.

Results

Multiple T2DM medications have been associated with weight gain. Insulin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones and meglitinides may increase body weight. However, biguanides (e.g., metformin), glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (e.g., semaglutide, liraglutide, tirzepatide), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and amylin analogs (e.g., pramlintide) are associated with significant weight loss. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are considered weight neutral medications. Experts in the fields of endocrinology and obesity recommend utilizing a weight-centric approach when treating T2DM.

Conclusion

Considering the high prevalence and debilitating complication of T2DM, it is of utmost importance to shift from a weight gain approach (i.e., insulin, sulfonylureas) into a weight loss/neutral one (i.e., GLP-1 agonists, SGLT-2 inhibitors, metformin).

Endogenous GLP-1 levels play an important role in determining the efficacy of DPP-IV Inhibitors in both prediabetes and type 2 diabetes

Background

In contrast to Western population, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) levels are preserved in some East Asian population with type 2 diabetes (T2D), explaining why dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors are more effective in East Asians. We assessed whether differences in endogenous GLP-1 levels resulted in different treatment responses to DPP-IV inhibitors in prediabetes and T2D.

Methods

A prospective 12-week study using linagliptin 5mg once daily in 50 subjects (28 prediabetes and 22 T2D) who were stratified into high versus low fasting GLP-1 groups. A 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed at week 0 and 12. Primary outcomes were changes in HbA1c, fasting and post-OGTT glucose after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included changes in insulin resistance and beta cell function indices.

Results

There was a greater HbA1c reduction in subjects with high GLP-1 compared to low GLP-1 levels in both the prediabetes and T2D populations [least-squares mean (LS-mean) change of -0.33% vs. -0.11% and -1.48% vs. -0.90% respectively)]. Linagliptin significantly reduced glucose excursion by 18% in high GLP-1 compared with 8% in low GLP-1 prediabetes groups. The reduction in glucose excursion was greater in high GLP-1 compared to low GLP-1 T2D by 30% and 21% respectively. There were significant LS-mean between-group differences in fasting glucose (-0.95 mmol/L), 2-hour glucose post-OGTT (-2.4 mmol/L) in the high GLP-1 T2D group. Improvement in insulin resistance indices were seen in the high GLP-1 T2D group while high GLP-1 prediabetes group demonstrated improvement in beta cell function indices. No incidence of hypoglycemia was reported.

Conclusions

Linagliptin resulted in a greater HbA1c reduction in the high GLP-1 prediabetes and T2D compared to low GLP-1 groups. Endogenous GLP-1 level play an important role in determining the efficacy of DPP-IV inhibitors irrespective of the abnormal glucose tolerance states.

The anti-inflammatory feature of glucagon-like peptide-1 and its based diabetes drugs—Therapeutic potential exploration in lung injury

Since 2005, GLP-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists (GLP-1RAs) have been developed as therapeutic agents for type 2 diabetes (T2D). GLP-1R is not only expressed in pancreatic islets but also other organs, especially the lung. However, controversy on extra-pancreatic GLP-1R expression still needs to be further resolved, utilizing different tools including the use of more reliable GLP-1R antibodies in immune-staining and co-immune-staining. Extra-pancreatic expression of GLP-1R has triggered extensive investigations on extra-pancreatic functions of GLP-1RAs, aiming to repurpose them into therapeutic agents for other disorders. Extensive studies have demonstrated promising anti-inflammatory features of GLP-1RAs. Whether those features are directly mediated by GLP-1R expressed in immune cells also remains controversial. Following a brief review on GLP-1 as an incretin hormone and the development of GLP-1RAs as therapeutic agents for T2D, we have summarized our current understanding of the anti-inflammatory features of GLP-1RAs and commented on the controversy on extra-pancreatic GLP-1R expression. The main part of this review is a literature discussion on GLP-1RA utilization in animal models with chronic airway diseases and acute lung injuries, including studies on the combined use of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) based therapy. This is followed by a brief summary.

Effects of incretin-based therapies on β-cell function in type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To assess the effects of incretin-based therapies on β-cell function in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Knowledge databases for eligible randomized clinical trials published up to July 2021. The inclusion criteria were patients with T1DM or latent autoimmune diabetes in adults, patients treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors or glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and outcomes included one of the following: fasting plasma glucose, fasting C-peptide, postprandial C-peptide, C-peptide area under the curve (AUC), homeostasis model assessment for β cell function, and insulin resistance. The effects were analyzed using a random effect model with STATA 11.0.

RESULTS

Eight trials including 427 participants were included in the final analysis. A pooled analysis found no significant difference in fasting plasma glucose, fasting C-peptide, postprandial C-peptide, or C-peptide AUC between patients treated with incretin-based therapies and placebo. The two trials that reported changes in 2-hour postprandial C-peptide and two of the four trials that reported changes in C-peptide AUC reported increases after incretin-based therapies.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that incretin-based therapies did not preserve β-cell function in patients with T1DM.

Effects of Sitagliptin as Monotherapy and Add-On to Metformin on Weight Loss among Overweight and Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Sitagliptin is known as an antidiabetic agent inhibiting the dipeptidyl peptidase-4. Although sitagliptin may influence weight, controversial results have been reported, and there is no general agreement on this issue. Therefore, this study assessed the effect of sitagliptin as monotherapy and add-on therapy to metformin on weight reduction in overweight or obese cases with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We reviewed the following databases to identify all relevant papers published until 1st April 2021: Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The research included all clinical trials investigating the effect of sitagliptin in obese or overweight adult patients with type 2 diabetes without any language restriction.

RESULTS

In total, eighteen randomized controlled trials with 2009 participants were included in our meta-analysis. Results showed supplementation of sitagliptin has led to weight loss for sitagliptin treated (MD  -0.99; 95% CI; (-1.87, -0.12); p=0.026)) and sitagliptin+metformin treated groups (MD  -1.09; 95% CI; (-1.69, -0.49); p<0.001)). Also, the intervention has influenced body mass index in sitagliptin treated (MD  -0.23; 95% CI; (-0.45, 0.02); p=0.033)) and sitagliptin+metformin treated groups (MD -0.52; 95% CI; (-0.96, 0.08); p=0.020)) comparing to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that sitagliptin administration with or without metformin might reduce the body weight and body mass index if these drugs are taken for more than 6 months.

Impact on decision making framework for medicine purchasing in Chinese public hospital decision-making: determining the value of five dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Medicine purchasing in Chinese public hospitals is decided by the hospital Pharmacy Management Committee (PMC), that is complex, subjective and requires efficient approaches to ensure transparency and consistency for the factors being considered. This study aimed to use the Evidence and Value: Impact on Decision Making (EVIDEM) framework to assess medicine in these hospitals. In this study anti-diabetic drugs DPP-4 inhibitors, which work by inhibiting the activation of the Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, were appraised.

METHODS

Following EVIDEM methodology (EVIDEM-10th), we convened an appraisal group and asked each individual to express their perspectives by assigning weights to each criterion. A systematic literature search for information of each criterion of five DPP-4 inhibitors was completed. Then the appraisal group scored for each criterion of the five DPP-4 inhibitors. The estimated value of the five DPP-4 inhibitors was obtained by Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) which combined individual weighting of each criterion with individual scoring for each intervention in each criterion.

RESULTS

By assigning weights, the most important criterion was the quality of evidence (4.01±0.52), and that the comparative cost consequences-non-medical cost was the least important criterion (2.87±1.03). Criteria included disease severity, size of the affected population, comparative effectiveness, type of therapeutic/preventive benefit and cost of intervention, all of which were assigned the same weight of 3.58. After MCDA, the overall value orders for each DPP-4 inhibitor included Sitagliptin (0.45), Linagliptin (0.44), Vildagliptin (0.43), Alogliptin (0.42) and Saxagliptin (0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on EVIDEM framework and MCDA, we found that overall value of five DPP-4 inhibitors was similar. It is feasible to use the EVIDEM framework and MCDA in purchasing medicine for Chinese public hospitals.

Cytokine storm modulation in COVID-19: a proposed role for vitamin D and DPP-4 inhibitor combination therapy (VIDPP-4i)

A dysregulated immune response characterized by the hyperproduction of several pro-inflammatory cytokines (a.k.a. 'cytokine storm') plays a central role in the pathophysiology of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). In this Perspective article we discuss the evidence for synergistic anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties exerted by vitamin D and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, the latter being a class of antihyperglycemic agents used for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes, which have also been reported as immunomodulators. Then, we provide the rationale for investigation of vitamin D and DPP-4 inhibitor combination therapy (VIDPP-4i) as an immunomodulation strategy to ratchet down the virulence of SARS-CoV-2, prevent disease progression and modulate the cytokine storm in COVID-19.

Hypoglycemia in Older Adults: Time Trends and Treatment Differences in Patients Aged ≥75 Years With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Hypoglycemia is a potentially life-threatening drug event under antidiabetic treatment. The aim of the study was to examine time trends in severe hypoglycemia in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and antidiabetic treatment.

DESIGN

Multicenter prospective diabetes patient follow-up registry (DPV).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥75 years with T2DM and documented treatment between 2005 and 2019.

METHODS

Outcomes of interest were rates of severe hypoglycemia, diabetes therapy, body mass index, HbA1c, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Time trends of outcomes were analyzed in the whole cohort and compared between age groups (75-<80, 80-<85, ≥85 years).

RESULTS

A total of 136,931 patients from 188 diabetes centers were included. The adjusted HbA1c decreased from 7.3% (95% confidence interval 7.3-7.4) in 2005 to 7.2% (7.2-7.2) in 2019 (P < .001), with no significant difference between age groups (P = .47). Rates of severe hypoglycemia decreased from 6.7 (6.0-7.4) to 4.1 of 100 person-years (3.7-4.5) (P < .001) in the entire population. Patients aged ≥85 years had constantly lower HbA1c levels compared with younger groups (P < .001). Although severe hypoglycemia decreased the most in the ≥85 age group (P < .001), severe hypoglycemia remained consistently higher in this group compared with the 75 to <80 years group (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

During the analyzed time, the risk for severe hypoglycemia decreased. Although drugs with intrinsic risk for hypoglycemia were used less frequently, antidiabetic treatment in older adults should be further improved to continue reducing severe hypoglycemia in this age group, potentially accepting less strict metabolic control and age-specific target ranges.

Data on vildagliptin and vildagliptin plus metformin combination in type-2 diabetes mellitus management

It is of interest to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin as monotherapy and combination therapy of vildagliptin and metformin for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in Indian settings. The study included patients with T2DM (aged >18 years) receiving vildagliptin monotherapy and vildagliptin in combination with metformin therapy of various strengths. Data related to demographics, risk factors, medical history, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, and medical therapies were retrieved from medical records. Out of 9678 patients (median age, 52.0 years), 59.1% were men. A combination of vildagliptin and metformin (50/500 mg) was the most commonly used therapy (54.8%), and the median duration of therapy was 24.0 months. The predominant reason for selecting vildagliptin therapy was to improve HbA1c levels (87.8%). A total of 87.5% of patients required dosage up-titration. Vildagliptin therapy was used in patients with T2DM and associated complications (peripheral neuropathy, CAD, nephropathy, retinopathy, autonomous neuropathy, stroke/TIA, and peripheral artery disease). Among 5175 patients who experienced body weight changes, a majority of patients showed a loss of weight (68.6%). The target glycemic control was achieved in 95.3% of patients. The mean HbA1c levels were significantly decreased post-treatment (mean change: 1.34%; p<0.001). Adverse events were reported in 0.4% of patients. Physicians rated the majority of patients as good to excellent on the global evaluation of efficacy and tolerability scale (98.9%, each). Vildagliptin as monotherapy and combination therapy of vildagliptin and metformin was an effective therapy in reducing HbA1c helps in achieving target glycemic control, and was well tolerated in Indian patients with T2DM continuum.

Vildagliptin Has a Neutral Association With Dementia Risk in Type 2 Diabetes Patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Animal studies suggested that vildagliptin might exert a beneficial effect on cognitive function. The present study evaluated whether the use of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus might affect dementia risk.

METHODS

The database of Taiwan's National Health Insurance was used to enroll an unmatched cohort and a propensity score-matched-pair cohort of ever and never users of vildagliptin from patients with newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus during 2002-2014. The patients should be alive on January 1, 2015 and were followed up for dementia diagnosis until December 31, 2016. Unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated for vildagliptin ever versus never users, for cumulative duration and cumulative dose of vildagliptin therapy categorized into tertiles versus never users, and for cumulative duration and cumulative dose treated as continuous variables.

RESULTS

There were 355610 never users and 43196 ever users in the unmatched cohort and 40489 never users and 40489 ever users in the matched cohort. In the unmatched cohort, unadjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.929 (0.683-1.264) and the multivariate-adjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.922 (0.620-1.372). In the matched cohort, the unadjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.930 (0.616-1.402) and the multivariate-adjusted HR (95% CI) was 0.825 (0.498-1.367). None of the analyses conducted for cumulative duration and cumulative dose was significant, either being treated as tertile cutoffs or as continuous variables, in either the unmatched cohort or the matched cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed a neutral effect of vildagliptin on dementia risk.

Impact of Comorbidities and Glycemia at Admission and Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes With COVID-19: A Case Series From an Academic Hospital in Lombardy, Italy

OBJECTIVE

Diabetes may unfavorably influence the outcome of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), but the determinants of this effect are still poorly understood. In this monocentric study, we aimed at evaluating the impact of type 2 diabetes, comorbidities, plasma glucose levels, and antidiabetes medications on the survival of COVID-19 patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a case series involving 387 COVID-19 patients admitted to a single center in the region of Lombardy, the epicenter of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic in Italy, between 20 February and 9 April 2020. Medical history, pharmacological treatments, laboratory findings, and clinical outcomes of patients without diabetes and patients with type 2 diabetes were compared. Cox proportional hazards analysis was applied to investigate risk factors associated with mortality.

RESULTS

Our samples included 90 patients (23.3%) with type 2 diabetes, who displayed double the mortality rate of subjects without diabetes (42.3% vs. 21.7%, P < 0.001). In spite of this, after correction for age and sex, risk of mortality was significantly associated with a history of hypertension (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.84, 95% CI 1.15-2.95; P = 0.011), coronary artery disease (aHR 1.56, 95% CI 1.04-2.35; P = 0.031), chronic kidney disease (aHR 2.07, 95% CI 1.27-3.38; P = 0.003), stroke (aHR 2.09, 95% CI 1.23-3.55; P = 0.006), and cancer (aHR 1.57, 95% CI 1.08-2.42; P = 0.04) but not with type 2 diabetes (P = 0.170). In patients with diabetes, elevated plasma glucose (aHR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04-1.44, per mmol/L; P = 0.015) and IL-6 levels at admission (aHR 2.47, 95% CI 1.28-4.78, per 1-SD increase; P = 0.007) as well as treatment with insulin (aHR 3.05, 95% CI 1.57-5.95; P = 0.001) and β-blockers (aHR 3.20, 95% CI 1.50-6.60; P = 0.001) were independently associated with increased mortality, whereas the use of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors was significantly and independently associated with a lower risk of mortality (aHR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.92; P = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

Plasma glucose levels at admission and antidiabetes drugs may influence the survival of COVID-19 patients affected by type 2 diabetes.

Management of type 2 diabetes for prevention of cardiovascular disease. An expert opinion of the Italian Diabetes Society

AIMS

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is characterized by an increased risk of developing long-term cardiovascular complications. Several underlying mechanisms have been proposed for the diabetes-related increase in cardiovascular risk, i.e. chronic hyperglycemia, duration of the disease, drug-induced hypoglycemia, coexistence of multiple cardiovascular risk factors, etc. In the last few years, new pharmacological approaches capable of treating chronic hyperglycemia without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia have emerged for the treatment of diabetes.

DATA SYNTHESIS

With data mainly obtained from randomized controlled trials recruiting patients with type 2 diabetes in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, some of these newer antihyperglycemic drugs have shown to significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. In addition, the combined control of traditional cardiovascular risk factors, e.g. dyslipidemia, hypertension, etc., has demonstrated to be effective in reducing the burden of cardiovascular diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this document written by some experts of the Italian diabetes society (SID), we will focus our attention on oral antihyperglycemic agents for people with type 2 diabetes in primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, excluding for brevity the injection therapies for diabetes, such as insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin vs monotherapy as added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aim at evaluating the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin vs monotherapy as added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHOD

PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, CNKI and Wanfang databases were searched up to 31 December 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) applicable in dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin vs monotherapy as added to metformin in the treatment of T2DM were included. The outcomes included changes in HbA1c, FPG, body weight, SBP, DBP and adverse reactions. Fixed or random effects model were used to assess these outcomes.

RESULTS

In this study, 8 RCTs involved 7346 patients were included. Compared with dapagliflozin plus metformin(DM) group, patients treated with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin add on to metformin(DSM) could significantly increase the adjusted mean change levels of HbA1c, FPG, SBP and DBP(P < .00001, SMD = -4.88, 95%CI = -6.93∼-2.83; P < .00001, SMD = -6.50, 95%CI = -8.55∼-4.45; P < .00001, SMD = -0.97, 95%CI = -1.15∼-0.78; P < .00001, SMD = -2.00, 95%CI = -2.20∼-1.80), but no major difference in body weight loss showed(P = .12, SMD = 0.92, 95%CI = -0.22∼2.06). Furthermore, DSM therapy displayed better effects than saxagliptin plus metformin(SM) in the adjusted mean change levels of HbA1c, FPG, body weight and SBP(P < .00001, SMD = -7.75, 95%CI = -8.84∼-6.66; P < .00001, SMD = -7.75, 95%CI = -8.84∼-6.66; P = .04, SMD = -3.40, 95%CI = -6.64∼-0.17; P = .04, SMD = -7.75, 95%CI = -8.84∼-6.66), whereas no obvious difference in lowering DBP(P = .18, SMD = -16.35, 95%CI = -40.12∼7.41). Additionally, compared with DM and SM groups, there were no remarkable difference in the incidence of nausea, influenza, headache, diarrhea, urinary tract infection and renal failure for patients taking DSM, but the incidence of genital infection and hypoglycemia were higher in DSM group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients taking the DSM therapy had better effects in reducing the level of HbA1c, FPG, body weight, SBP and DBP than the DM and SM therapy. However, patients treated with DSM therapy are more likely to have hypoglycemia and genital infection. Dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin may be a suitable therapy strategy for patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin, and this will provide a clinical reference for the treatment of T2DM.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibition in COVID-19

AIMS

SARS-CoV-2 causes severe respiratory syndrome (COVID-19) with high mortality due to a direct cytotoxic viral effect and a severe systemic inflammation. We are herein discussing a possible novel therapeutic tool for COVID-19.

METHODS

Virus binds to the cell surface receptor ACE2; indeed, recent evidences suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may be using as co-receptor, when entering the cells, the same one used by MERS-Co-V, namely the DPP4/CD26 receptor. The aforementioned observation underlined that mechanism of cell entry is supposedly similar among different coronavirus, that the co-expression of ACE2 and DPP4/CD26 could identify those cells targeted by different human coronaviruses and that clinical complications may be similar.

RESULTS

The DPP4 family/system was implicated in various physiological processes and diseases of the immune system, and DPP4/CD26 is variously expressed on epithelia and endothelia of the systemic vasculature, lung, kidney, small intestine and heart. In particular, DPP4 distribution in the human respiratory tract may facilitate the entrance of the virus into the airway tract itself and could contribute to the development of cytokine storm and immunopathology in causing fatal COVID-19 pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DPP4 inhibitors, such as gliptins, in patients with COVID-19 with, or even without, type 2 diabetes, may offer a simple way to reduce the virus entry and replication into the airways and to hamper the sustained cytokine storm and inflammation within the lung in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 infection.

Pathological and cognitive changes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and comorbid MCI and protective hypoglycemic therapies: a narrative review

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is becoming a significant health issue worldwide. Many studies support the hypothesis that patients with T2DM have a higher-than-expected incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) than individuals without diabetes. Based on the results from recent studies, MCI might be associated with the effects of T2DM on glucose metabolism and brain atrophy. As a narrative review, we will illuminate pathological and cognitive changes in patients with T2DM and comorbid MCI and protective hypoglycemic therapies. The early abnormal signs of cognition must be elucidated, and extensive investigations are needed to develop improved therapies for use in the clinic.

Ten years of experience with DPP-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Achieving and maintaining recommended glycemic targets without causing adverse e ffects, including hypoglycemia, is challenging, especially in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The introduction of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, more than 10 years ago, has provided an alternative to conventional medications for the intensification of glucose-lowering treatment after failure of metformin monotherapy, and therefore, marked an important advance in the management of T2DM. By prolonging the activity of incretin hormones, DPP-4 inhibitors induce insulin release and decrease glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner. This results in a more physiologic glycemic control as compared to that ensured by insulin secretagogues (sulfonylureas and glinides). Overall, DPP-4 inhibitors have a favorable safety profile and can be used without dose adjustments in older adults and in patients with mild renal impairment; they have a neutral effect on body weight and do not cause hypoglycemia by themselves. Safety issues, reported mainly in post-marketing surveillance programs and including cardiovascular outcomes and the risk of acute pancreatitis, are being extensively investigated. The aim of this review is to discuss the impact of DPP-4 inhibitors on the treatment of T2DM, after 10 years of experience, with an emphasis on diabetes care in Italy. We will first describe T2DM treatment in Italy and then provide an overview of the main findings from randomized controlled trials, real-world studies and post-marketing surveillance programs with DPP-4 inhibitors.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors as add-on therapy to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Addition of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may achieve better glycemic control. However, results of pilot randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are inconsistent. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of RCTs to evaluate efficacy and safety of DPP4 inhibitors compared with placebo/no treatment as add-on therapy to insulin in T2DM patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant studies were identified via a search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. A fixed or random effect model was applied according to the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Overall, 22 RCTs with 6,957 T2DM patients were included. Addition of DPP4 inhibitors to insulin was associated with significantly reduced HbA1c as compared with controls (weighed mean difference [WMD]: -0.54%, p<0.001). The benefits of DPP4 inhibitors as add-on therapy on HbA1c were independent of study design, follow-up duration, categories of DPP4 inhibitors used, and using of fixed/adjustable insulin doses as indicated by predefined subgroup analyses. Moreover, addition of DPP4 inhibitors to insulin was associated with significantly reduced fasting blood glucose (WMD: -0.47mmol/L, p<0.001), postprandial glucose at 2 hrs (WMD: -2.03 mmol/L, p<0.001), and daily dose of insulin (WMD: -2.73U/d, p<0.001), while body weight (WMD: 0.02 g, p=0.81) or risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia (risk ratio: 0.92, p=0.37) were not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of DPP4 inhibitors to insulin significantly improved the glycemic control in T2DM patients without further increasing the risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia.