Efficacy and Safety of Vildagliptin as Add-on to Metformin in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Factors contributing to the adverse drug reactions associated with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors: A scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Adverse drug reactions are one of the contributors to increased hospital admission and length of hospital stay. Among the various antidiabetic agents prescribed, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have gained wide recognition and shown more persistence than other novel hypoglycemic agents. We performed a scoping review to identify the risk factors contributing to the adverse drug reactions with DPP-4 inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY

We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) Guidelines for reporting the findings. Data sources such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane were assessed. We included studies that reported the risk factors contributing to the DPP-4 inhibitor-associated adverse drug reactions. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies.

RESULTS

Of the 6406 studies retrieved, 11 studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these 11 studies, seven were post-marketing surveillance studies, one nested case-control study, one comparator cohort study, one food and drug administration (FDA) adverse event reporting system (FAERS)-based observational study, and one questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey study. A total of eight factors were identified that contributed to the DPP-4 inhibitor-associated adverse drug reactions.

CONCLUSION

The included studies suggested age >65 years, females, grade 4 and 5 renal impairment, concomitant drugs, disease and drug therapy duration, liver disease, non-smokers, and non-hypertension as risk factors. Further studies should be conducted to provide insight into these risk factors so that the appropriate use of DPP-4 inhibitors in the diabetic population can be encouraged to improve the health-related quality of life.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42022308764.

Efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors as additional treatment in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients: second or third choice?

Objectives

Due to the increase of type 2 diabetes (T2D), the number of patients in treatment with multiple anti-diabetic agents is increased. According to the recent recommendation of treatment guidelines, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors would be used as additional treatment to the currently administered anti-diabetic drugs for poorly controlled T2D patients. Here, we assessed the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors added to the current treatment with metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, or both in Japanese T2D patients.

Results

Japanese T2D subjects with poor glucose control, who were treated with metformin (n = 10), DPP4 inhibitors (n = 11), or both (n = 28) and who were in need of additional treatment, were recruited. HbA1c levels before and 6 months after addition of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment were used to compare the effectiveness. The HbA1c levels after addition of SGLT2 inhibitors significantly decreased in all groups. The change in HbA1c levels (delta HbA1c) showed no significant difference between the three groups. The present data indicated that addition of SGLT2 inhibitors to metformin and/or DPP4 inhibitors is equally effective in the treatment of Japanese T2D patients.

Efficacy and safety profile of sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and metformin in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic subjects

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic and progressive disease that requires long-term management. Thus, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) need more investigations about their efficacy and safety profile as there is still no evidence of whether DPP-4 inhibitors can be used as a first line option for T2DM drug-naïve patients. In this randomized case-controlled study, 60 drug-naïve T2DM subjects were randomized into three groups, each group comprising 20 subjects. Group 1 was given sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, Group 2 was given vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily, and Group 3 served as the control group and was given metformin 1 g twice daily. Efficacy endpoints included changes in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-hr postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), and the secondary endpoints were related to safety profile were the assessment of liver and kidney function tests and complete blood count (CBC). All treatment regimens had comparable efficacy and safety profiles with the non-significant relative superiority of vildagliptin in lowering HbA1c more than sitagliptin but significant (p = 0.011) regarding FPG reduction, vildagliptin significantly decreased HbA1c by -1.02% (p < 0.001), sitagliptin significantly decreased HbA1c by -0.96% (p < 0.001), and control significantly decreased HbA1c by -0.90% (p < 0.001) compared with baseline. The studied drugs showed moderate efficacy in lowering HbA1c levels with the non-significant relative higher efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors. DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin showed favourable effects on improving metabolic syndrome by decreasing blood pressure, serum triglycerides (TG), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), total cholesterol, and increasing high-density lipoprotein (HDL), plus their positive impacts on weight. As a final conclusion, the three medications are highly comparable.

Comparative Effects of Metformin and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in Japanese Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Claims Database Study

INTRODUCTION

Metformin has demonstrated favorable effects on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), regardless of the body mass index (BMI). On the contrary, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) are reportedly less effective in patients having high BMI values (≥ 25 or ≥ 30). The aim of this study was to compare metformin and DPP-4is as first-line treatment for their effects on glycemic control and improvement of other health outcomes among obese and non-obese Japanese patients with T2D.

METHODS

A Japanese health insurance claims database that also included annual medical checkup data was used. This database included data on company employees who were members of health insurance societies and their family members. Most patients were aged < 65 years and most were men. Inclusion criteria were: (1) a first T2D diagnosis between May 2010 and June 2017; (2) either metformin or a DPP-4i prescribed as the first-line antidiabetic therapy; and (3) glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and BMI data available for the 3-month period immediately preceding the initiation of antidiabetic treatment (baseline). The reduction rate in excessive HbA1c (> 6.5%; primary outcome) and changes in fasting plasma glucose, BMI, triglyceride, cholesterol, and abdominal circumference (secondary outcomes) at 12 months from baseline were compared between treatments.

RESULTS

When evaluated relative to the baseline BMI, the mean reduction rate in excessive HbA1c tended to be higher in the metformin group than in the DPP-4i group, especially in patients with BMI ≥ 25. Similarly, significant improvement was observed in most outcomes in obese patients prescribed metformin compared to those prescribed a DPP-4i. In contrast, in patients with BMI < 25, HbA1c reduction was greater in patients prescribed DPP-4i and fewer outcomes showed significant improvement in patients prescribed metformin.

CONCLUSION

In obese Japanese patients with T2D, greater improvements in glycemic control and other outcomes were seen with metformin as first-line treatment for T2D compared with DPP-4is, although some limitations regarding the database information should be considered.

Effects of Increasing Metformin Dose vs Adding/Switching to Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors on Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Metformin has dose-dependent hypoglycemic effects on patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). In Japan, metformin has been prescribed at lower doses than in Western countries. We analyzed the effect of increasing the metformin dose on glycemic control and compared it to a combination therapy with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and a replacement therapy with DPP-4i.

METHODS

This is a cohort study using a Japanese claims database. Patients with T2D who had been initially treated with low-dose metformin (≥ 500 mg/day and < 1000 mg/day) and then given a prescription change by increasing metformin to a higher dose (≥ 1000 mg/day) (increased-dose), adding DPP-4i (drug-added), or switching to DPP-4i (drug-switched) were included in this study. The primary outcome was the change in HbA1c levels at 12 months from the baseline period.

RESULTS

Among 2,726,437 patients with T2D, 494 were included. Of these patients, 226, 240, and 28 patients were classified as increased-dose, drug-added, and drug-switched groups, respectively. The HbA1c levels at 12 months from the index significantly decreased compared to that during the baseline period. The change was the highest in the drug-added group (- 1.06%), followed by the increased-dose (- 0.91%) and the drug-switched groups (- 0.37%). Among the subset of patients who did not receive any antidiabetic drugs other than metformin or DPP-4i, the highest change in HbA1c levels was observed in the increased-dose group (- 0.84%), followed by the drug-added (- 0.67%) and the drug-switched (- 0.42%) groups. The order of decrease from baseline remained the same for all the study groups after the propensity score weighting adjustment.

CONCLUSION

The effect on glycemic control when increasing the metformin dose was studied in patients who had been receiving low-dose metformin. Increasing metformin dosage shows effectiveness and could be one of the next treatment options in patients who were prescribed low-dose metformin as the first-line treatment.

Efficacy of Vildagliptin Added to Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to short-term continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with CSII monotherapy in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

A total of 200 hospitalized patients with inadequately controlled T2DM were randomized into groups, with one group receiving CSII monotherapy (CSII group, n =100) and the other group receiving CSII plus vildagliptin as add-on (CSII + Vig group, n = 100). Of these, 191 completed the 7-day trial (CSII group, n = 99; CSII + Vig group, n = 92) and included in the analysis. The glycemic control and variability of the patients were measured using all-day capillary blood glucose (BG) monitoring. Weight and fasting C-peptide levels were evaluated before and after the interventions.

RESULTS

Mean BG concentrations during the whole treatment period were lower and the time to reach target BG was reduced in the CSII + Vig group compared with the CSII group (9.89 ± 3.37 vs. 9.46 ± 3.23 mmol/L, P < 0.01; 129 ± 4 vs. 94 ± 5 h, P < 0.01, respectively). Similarly, the indicators of glycemic variability, namely the standard deviation of BG and the largest amplitude of glycemic excursion, were significantly decreased in the CSII + Vig group compared with the CSII group (2.68 ± 1.05 vs. 2.39 ± 1.00 mmol/L, P < 0.01; 7.19 ± 2.86 vs. 6.23 ± 2.73 mmol/L, P < 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term CSII with vildagliptin as add-on therapy may be an optimized treatment for hospitalized patients with T2DM compared with short-term CSII monotherapy.

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.

Risk of any hypoglycaemia with newer antihyperglycaemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

For patients with type 2 diabetes, newer antihyperglycaemic agents (AHA), including the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) offer a lower risk of hypoglycaemia relative to sulfonylurea or insulin. However, it is not clear how AHA compare to placebo on risk of any hypoglycaemia. This study evaluates the risk of any and severe hypoglycaemia with AHA and metformin relative to placebo.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized, placebo-controlled trials ≥12 weeks in duration. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to April 16, 2019. Studies allowing use of other diabetes medications were excluded. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals were used to pool estimates based on class of AHA and number of concomitant therapies used.

PATIENTS

Eligible studies enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes ≥18 years of age.

RESULTS

144 studies met our inclusion criteria. Any hypoglycaemia was not increased with AHA when used as monotherapy (DPP4i (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.81-1.56), GLP1RA (1.77; 0.91-3.46), SGLT2i (1.34; 0.83-2.15)), or as add-on to metformin (DPP4i (0.95; 0.67-1.35), GLP1RA (1.24; 0.80-1.91), SGLT2i (1.29; 0.91-1.83)) or as triple therapy (1.13; 0.67-1.91). However, metformin monotherapy (1.73; 1.02-2.94) and dual therapy initiation (3.56; 1.79-7.10) was associated with an increased risk of any hypoglycaemia. Severe hypoglycaemia was rare not increased for any comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin and the simultaneous initiation of dual therapy, but not AHA used alone or as single add-on combination therapy, was associated with an increased risk of any hypoglycaemia relative to placebo.

Safety and efficacy of vildagliptin: 52-week post-marketing surveillance of Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes in combination with other oral antidiabetics and insulin

Background: Vildagliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor that reduces glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). When approved in 2013, data on vildagliptin combined with >750 mg/day metformin in Japanese patients were limited. There is a need to confirm the safety and efficacy of vildagliptin in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).Research design and methods: This 52-week post-marketing surveillance (PMS) observational study in Japanese T2DM patients evaluated the safety and efficacy of vildagliptin in combination with OADs including high-dose metformin or insulin but excluding combination with sulfonylureas alone.Results: During this survey of 3006 Japanese T2DM patients, 13.61% of patients experienced adverse events (AEs) and 2.20% reported a serious AE (SAE). The frequency of AEs/SAEs was similar when in combination with biguanides (12.93%/1.46%), metformin ≥1000 mg/day (12.92%/1.22%), metformin <1000 mg/day (12.62%/1.54%), thiazolidine derivatives (16.71%/2.86%), α-glucosidase inhibitors (13.18%/1.90%), rapid-acting insulin secretagogues  (glinides) (20.41%/5.71%), or insulin (15.87%/2.47%). The mean ± SD changes from baseline at endpoint in glycated hemoglobin and fasting blood glucose were -0.76 ± 1.27% and -23.3 ± 57.3 mg/dL, respectively, and these changes were consistent, regardless of concomitant OAD.Conclusions: Long-term vildagliptin combination therapy is safe and effective in Japanese T2DM patients in real-world settings.

Network meta-analysis of liraglutide versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Japanese patients

AIMS

To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of liraglutide and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as antidiabetics for Japanese patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating outcomes among Japanese adults with uncontrolled T2DM and including liraglutide or DPP-4 inhibitors up to August 2016. We extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, and the following outcomes: HbA1c, weight, patients meeting HbA1c <7%, patients experiencing hypoglycemic events, microalbuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and creatinine. We synthesized data using network meta-analyses (NMA) using a Bayesian framework. Continuous outcomes were modeled using normal likelihoods and an identity link, while dichotomous outcomes were modeled using a binomial likelihood and a logit link.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review yielded 39 publications pertaining to 38 trials. A total of 27 trials (5032 patients) reported change in HbA1c at 12 weeks and at 24 weeks 9 trials (2091 patients). All treatments showed statistically significant reductions in HbA1c relative to placebo at 12 and 24 weeks. Liraglutide 0.9 mg was statistically superior to all DPP-4 interventions (vildagliptin, sitagliptin, linagliptin, alogliptin, teneligliptin, trelagliptin and omarigliptin) at 12 weeks and 24 weeks among those reporting. Treatments were not statistically differentiable with respect to weight change and risk of hypoglycemia. Finally, no comparisons of eGFR and microalbuminuria were conducted, as this data was reported in too few trials to conduct analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Some important outcomes were limited by poor reporting (eGFR and microalbuminuria) or low event rates (hypoglycemia). The follow-up time was relatively short. Clinically, the 24 week time point is more important as it demonstrates more sustained results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research suggests that liraglutide 0.9 mg offers a more efficacious treatment option for T2DM than the DPP-4 inhibitors among adult Japanese patients and that it is a viable option for this population.

Cardiovascular Safety of Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Large randomized trials have shown conflicting evidence regarding the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Systematic reviews have been limited by incomplete data and inclusion of observational studies. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared DPP-4 inhibitors versus placebo and reported cardiovascular outcomes. The main outcome assessed in this analysis was heart failure. Other outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were primarily constructed using Peto's model.

RESULTS

A total of 90 trials with 66,730 patients were included. Compared with placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a non-significant increased risk of heart failure [OR 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.25, P = 0.07] at a mean of 108 weeks. The risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12, P = 0.53), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.14, P = 0.72), myocardial infarction (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.09, P = 0.69), and ischemic stroke (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85-1.15, P = 0.92) was similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with type 2 diabetes, the safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors is similar to placebo. As a class, there is only weak evidence for an increased risk of heart failure.

Effect of race and ethnicity on vildagliptin efficacy: A pooled analysis of phase II and III studies

AIMS

To determine the impact of race and ethnicity on the efficacy, body weight and hypoglycaemia incidence with vildagliptin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using patient-level data from the vildagliptin clinical trial programme.

METHODS

Data from 22 randomized, placebo-controlled global and local (Japan, China) registration studies of vildagliptin (50 mg once-daily or twice-daily) of ≥12-week duration were analysed by race (Caucasian [n = 2764] and Asian [n = 2232]) and by ethnicity (Japanese, Chinese, and Indian). The placebo-subtracted differences in the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight from baseline to week 12 or week 24 were evaluated by race or ethnicity using repeated measure analysis of unstructured covariance. Hypoglycaemia incidences were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The HbA1c reduction from baseline with vildagliptin was similar across the racial/ethnic subgroups (-0.83% ± 0.02% to -1.01% ± 0.05%). Placebo-corrected HbA1c reduction was similar between Caucasian (-0.68% ± 0.03%) and Asian (-0.80% ± 0.03%) patients ( P value for interaction = .56); analysis by race and ethnicity showed better efficacy ( P < .02) in Japanese patients. Japanese patients were drug-naïve and treated with a single oral anti-diabetes drug only; they showed no response to placebo. Weight neutrality of vildagliptin was demonstrated in all groups (0.47 ± 0.11 kg to -0.29 ± 0.08 kg). Hypoglycaemic events (≥1) were infrequent in all ethnic subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The glycaemic efficacy of vildagliptin was similar in Caucasian and Asian patients. The slightly better efficacy observed in Japanese patients was driven by the absence of placebo effect and might be explained by their earlier stage of diabetes compared to other subgroups.

Synergistic effects of vancomycin and β-lactams against vancomycin highly resistant Staphylococcus aureus

We previously reported isolating vancomycin (VAN) highly resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) strains from clinical methicillin-resistant S. aureus strains by repeating steps of in vitro mutagenesis and VAN selection. Here we describe that the in vitro susceptibility of these VRSA strains to VAN was markedly increased by combined treatment with β-lactams such as ceftriaxone and oxacillin. Furthermore, in an in vivo silkworm infection model with VRSA, a combination of VAN and ceftriaxone exhibited therapeutic effects, whereas a combination of VAN and oxacillin did not. These findings suggest that combining VAN with an appropriate β-lactam, such as ceftriaxone, is therapeutically effective against infectious diseases caused by VRSA.

Differential HbA1c response in the placebo arm of DPP-4 inhibitor clinical trials conducted in China compared to other countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It has been observed that the efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as compared to the placebo groups in some clinical trials conducted in China is weaker than that in trials conducted outside China, leading to the suspicion that this may be caused by differential Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) response in the placebo arm of DPP-4 inhibitor clinical trials conducted in China compared to other countries.

METHODS

We searched published articles and other documents related to phase III placebo-control trials of DPP-4 inhibitors in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We included studies from different countries and compared those conducted in China to those conducted in other countries. Meta-regression analysis was used to analyze the HbA1c response in the placebo arms.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies met the inclusion criteria and 10 were conducted within China. There were a total of 8303 participants (mean age 56, male 57 %) in placebo groups. The pooled change in HbA1c for the placebo groups of 10 trials conducted in patients with T2DM in China was 0.26 % (95 % CI [-0.36 %, -0.16 %], p-value < 0.001), compared to 0.015 % (95 % CI [-0.05 %, 0.08 %], p-value is 0.637) for 56 trials conducted outside of China. The difference of placebo effect between trials conducted in and outside China is -0.273 % (95 % CI [-0.42 %, -0.13 %], p-value is less than 0.001) while after excluding trials conducted in Japan, the difference is -0.203 % (95 % CI [-0.35 %, -0.06 %], p-value is 0.005). They are both statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis in the article demonstrates that there is statistically significant difference in the HbA1c response in the placebo arm of DPP-4 inhibitor clinical trials conducted in China compared to other countries. This differential HbA1c response in the placebo arm should be taken into consideration by both experimenters and medical decision makers when future DPP-4 studies are conducted in China.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin versus metformin uptitration in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: a randomized, open-label, prospective study (VISION)

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of combination of vildagliptin and metformin therapy with metformin uptitration in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) inadequately controlled with low-dose metformin.

METHODS

In this 24-week prospective, randomized, multicentre, open-label study, patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin ≤1000 mg daily were divided 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 into four prespecified subgroups based on age and body mass index (BMI). Patients in each subgroup were randomized 5 : 1 to receive either vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) plus metformin [500 mg twice daily; vildagliptin and low-dose metformin (VLDM) group] or metformin uptitration [1000 mg twice daily; high-dose metformin (HDM) group]. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline at week 24. The key secondary endpoints included percentage of patients achieving target HbA1c without adverse gastrointestinal (GI) events and mean change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

A total of 3084 patients were randomized. HbA1c reduction of 0.54% at week 24 in the VLDM group was non-inferior and statistically superior compared with 0.40% in the HDM group (P < 0.0001). VLDM's non-inferiority to HDM was confirmed in the four subgroups and its superiority was shown for all subgroups (p < 0.05) except for the subgroup of patients aged <60 years with a BMI of ≥24 kg/m(2) . Compared with HDM, VLDM significantly increased the percentage of patients achieving HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c ≤6.5% without GI events. FPG levels in the VLDM group were lower at week 24 numerically than in the HDM group. The two treatment arms had similar safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

VLDM was non-inferior and statistically superior to HDM in glycaemic control in Chinese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with low-dose metformin.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of vildagliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an update on the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We searched MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE and the drug manufacturer's website for randomised controlled trials of vildagliptin in patients with T2DM. Sixty-nine studies (28,006 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo vildagliptin reduced HbA1c (weighted mean difference WMD -0.69 %; 95 % CI -0.83 to -0.56 %; I (2) = 82 %), and it was as effective as other antidiabetic agents (WMD -0.01 %; 95 % CI -0.16 to 0.14 %; I (2) = 93 %), without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia (OR 0.83; 95 % CI 0.59 to 1.16; I (2) = 0 % vs. placebo, and OR 0.19; 95 % CI 0.15 to 0.24; I (2) = 78 % versus active comparators). However, it was associated with an increase in the incidence of arthralgia compared with other comparators (OR 1.23; 95 % CI 1.02 to 1.48; I (2) = 0 %). On the contrary, vildagliptin did not increase the incidence of pancreatitis (OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.37 to 2.53; I (2) = 0 %), serious adverse events (OR 0.98; 95 % CI 0.88 to 1.09; I (2) = 0 %) or death (OR 1.10, 95 % CI 0.75 to 1.61; I (2) = 0 %). Finally, odds ratio (OR) for heart failure, and overall cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 0.77 (95 % CI 0.46 to 1.30; I (2) = 0 %) and 0.91 (95 % CI 0.73 to 1.14; I (2) = 0 %), respectively. Vildagliptin is an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with T2DM, both as monotherapy and as add-on treatment.

DPP-4 inhibitors and risk of infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the risk of infections in the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients with dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through electronic databases. The inclusion criteria included study duration of no less than 12 weeks developed in type 2 diabetes patients, the use of a randomized control group receiving a DPP-4 inhibitor and the availability of outcome data for infections. Out of 2181 studies, 74 studies were finally included.

RESULTS

The risk of overall infection for DPP-4 inhibitors treatment was comparable to placebo (odds ratio (OR) = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91 to 1.04, p = 0.40), metformin treatment (OR = 1.22, 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.56, p = 0.12), sulphonylurea treatment (OR = 1.09, 0.93 to 1.29, p = 0.29), thiazolidinedione treatment (OR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.14, p = 0.29) and alpha glucosidase inhibitor treatment (OR = 1.03, 95% CI, 0.33 to 3.22, p = 0.96). When compared different DPP-4 inhibitors with placebo treatment, risks of infections were comparable for alogliptin, linagliptin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin and vildagliptin. Compared with placebo or active comparator treatment, risks of infection in different systems for DPP-4 inhibitors were all comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk of infections of DPP-4 inhibitor was not increased compared with control groups.

Cardiovascular and heart failure safety profile of vildagliptin: a meta-analysis of 17 000 patients

AIMS

To report the cardiovascular (CV) safety profile and heart failure (HF) risk of vildagliptin from a large pool of studies, including trials in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), such as those with congestive HF and/or moderate/severe renal impairment.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective meta-analysis of prospectively adjudicated CV events. Patient-level data were pooled from 40 double-blind, randomized controlled phase III and IV vildagliptin studies. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major adverse CV events (MACEs; myocardial infarction, stroke and CV death). Assessments of the individual MACE components and HF events (requiring hospitalization or new onset) were secondary endpoints. The risk ratio (RR) of vildagliptin (50 mg once- and twice-daily combined) versus comparators (placebo and all non-vildagliptin treatments) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) method.

RESULTS

Of the 17 446 patients, 9599 received vildagliptin (9251.4 subject-years of exposure) and 7847 received comparators (7317.0 subject-years of exposure). The mean age of the patients was 57 years, body mass index 30.5 kg/m(2) (nearly 50% obese), glycated haemoglobin concentration 8.1% and T2DM duration 5.5 years. A MACE occurred in 83 (0.86%) vildagliptin-treated patients and 85 (1.20%) comparator-treated patients, with an M-H RR of 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-1.11]. Similar RRs were observed for the individual events. Confirmed HF events were reported in 41 (0.43%) vildagliptin-treated patients and 32 (0.45%) comparator-treated patients, with an M-H RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.68-1.70).

CONCLUSIONS

This large meta-analysis indicates that vildagliptin is not associated with an increased risk of adjudicated MACEs relative to comparators. Moreover, this analysis did not find a significant increased risk of HF in vildagliptin-treated patients.

Efficacy and safety of a single-pill combination of vildagliptin and metformin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in combination with metformin is increasing in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but no single-pill combination (SPC) is currently available in Japan. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin/metformin SPC in Japanese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with vildagliptin monotherapy.

METHODS

This was a 14-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. 171 patients with T2DM inadequately controlled [HbA1c (glycosylated hemoglobin) 7.0-10.0%] with vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily (bid) were randomized (2:1) to receive either a vildagliptin/metformin SPC (n = 115) or matching vildagliptin/placebo SPC (n = 56).

RESULTS

Baseline demographics and background characteristics were generally comparable between the treatment groups. The change in HbA1c [mean ± standard error (SE)] was -0.8 ± 0.1% in the vildagliptin/metformin SPC (baseline HbA1c, 7.9 ± 0.1%) group and 0.1 ± 0.1% in the vildagliptin/placebo SPC (baseline HbA1c, 8.0 ± 0.1%) group, with a between-treatment difference of -1.0 ± 0.1% (P <0.001) in favor of the vildagliptin/metformin SPC group. The proportion of patients achieving target HbA1c <7.0% was significantly higher with vildagliptin/metformin SPC compared with vildagliptin/placebo SPC (45.8% vs. 13.5%, P <0.001). The overall incidences of adverse events (AEs) were 43.5% in the vildagliptin/metformin SPC and 67.9% in the vildagliptin/placebo SPC group. The incidences of serious AEs were low in both the treatment groups (0.9% vs. 3.6%, respectively). Body weight remained constant throughout the study in both the treatment groups. There were no deaths or hypoglycemic events during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching Japanese patients with T2DM requiring treatment intensification, from vildagliptin monotherapy to a vildagliptin/metformin SPC (50/250 or 50/500 mg) was efficacious and safe, eliciting significant reduction in HbA1c without increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin, sitagliptin, and linagliptin as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with dual combination of insulin and traditional oral hypoglycemic agent

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the three dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (vildagliptin, sitagliptin, and linagliptin) as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)inadequately controlled on dual combination of insulin and metformin or acarbose.

METHODS

A total of 535 T2DM patients who failed to achieve glycemic control with insulin and a traditional oral hypoglycemic agent were randomized to receive vildagliptin, sitagliptin, or linagliptin. Body mass index, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting and postprandial plasma glucose (FPG and PPG), insulin dose, and adverse events were evaluated during the study.

RESULTS

The baseline HbA1c was 9.59 ± 1.84 % (vildagliptin group), 9.22 ± 1.60 % (sitagliptin group), and 9.58 ± 1.80 % (linagliptin group). At week 12 it was 8.16 ± 1.29 % (vildagliptin), 8.56 ± 1.96 % (linagliptin), and 8.26 ± 1.10 % (sitagliptin). The changes in HbA1c from baseline were -1.33 ± 0.11 % (vildagliptin), -0.84 ± 0.08 % (sitagliptin) and -0.81 ± 0.08 % (linagliptin), the vildagliptin group had the greatest reduction in HbA1c (P < 0.05). The proportions of patients that reached target HbA1c were 66.27 % (vildagliptin), 52.73 % (sitagliptin), and 55.49 % (linagliptin), the vildagliptin group had the highest one (P < 0.05). The baseline FPG and PPG values in the three groups were at the same level. At week 12, mean FPG levels in the vildagliptin (7.31 ± 1.50 mmol/L) and linagliptin (6.90 ± 1.55 mmol/L) groups were significantly lower than in the sitagliptin group (8.02 ± 4.48 mmol/L; P < 0.05); the linagliptin group had the lowest mean PPG followed by the vildagliptin group which was also significant lower (P = 0.000) than the sitagliptin group. Additionally, the required insulin dosage in the vildagliptin group was the lowest among the groups at weeks 6 and 12. Only mild AEs were reported during the study.

CONCLUSION

The three DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be effective and safe as add-on therapy for T2DM patients on dual combination of insulin and a traditional OHA. Vildagliptin was more effective in decreasing insulin requirement and achieving glycemic control when compared to the other two.