Higher Risk of Hypoglycemia with Glimepiride Versus Vildagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes is not Driven by High Doses of Glimepiride: Divergent Patient Susceptibilities?

Real-world evidence on health-related quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using sulphonylureas: An analysis of the Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) Register

AIMS

To describe health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and identify associated factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with oral glucose-lowering drugs (OGLDs).

METHODS

This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis included adults with T2DM from 11 Asian countries/regions prospectively enrolled in the Joint Asian Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) Register (2007-2019) with available EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-3L) data.

RESULTS

Of 47,895 included patients, 42,813 were treated with OGLDs + lifestyle modifications (LSM) and 5,082 with LSM only. Among those treated with OGLDs, 60% received sulphonylureas (SUs), of whom 47% received gliclazide. The OGLD + LSM group had a lower mean EQ-5D-3L index score than the LSM-only group (p < 0.001). The most affected EQ-5D-3L dimensions in OGLD + LSM-treated patients were pain/discomfort (26.2%) and anxiety/depression (22.6%). On multivariate analysis, good HRQoL was positively associated with male sex, education level, balanced diet and regular exercise, and negatively with complications/comorbidities, self-reported hypoglycaemia, smoking, HbA1c, age, body mass index and disease duration. Patients receiving gliclazide vs non-gliclazide SUs had lower HbA1c and better HRQoL in all dimensions (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Demographic, physical and psychosocial-behavioural factors were associated with HRQoL in patients with T2DM. Our real-world data add to previous evidence that gliclazide is an effective OGLD, with most treated patients reporting good HRQoL. A plain language summary of this manuscript is available here.

Vildagliptin vs. insulin treatment alone in diabetic acute coronary syndrome patients

BACKGROUND

Vildagliptin, an oral antidiabetic of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor drugs, exhibits an overall low risk of hypoglycemia with less frequent hypoglycemic events in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients than other antidiabetic drugs. We hypothesized that among hospitalized acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, the addition of vildagliptin to subcutaneous insulin therapy would reduce the risk of hypoglycemic events.

METHODS

One hundred ACS T2DM adult patients naive to DPP-4 inhibitors were enrolled during admission to the ICCU. Patients were divided into two randomized controlled groups: a subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin-only therapy group and an oral vildagliptin plus subcutaneous insulin group. The trial was open label with no placebo arm. Mean glucose values, insulin values given for correction per hospitalization, and the number of hypoglycemic events (glucose < 70 mg/dL) were documented.

RESULTS

Eight hypoglycemia events occurred in the insulin-only group and none in the insulin plus DPP-4 inhibitor group (P < 0.001). Patients with acute myocardial infarction experienced a higher number of hypoglycemic events compared with unstable angina diagnosed patients. No significant differences were found regarding glucose level (P = 0.462) and administered insulin units (P = 0.639).

CONCLUSIONS

In T2DM patients, the addition of DPP-4 inhibitors to routine subcutaneous insulin therapy may significantly reduce hypoglycemic events while maintaining acceptable recommended ranges of glucose. Further studies on a larger scale are required to verify these results and to support that DPP-4 inhibitors added to today's standard insulin-only treatment in hospitalized diabetic ACS patients may improve overall glycemic control and provide a potential treatment option in this challenging clinical setting.

Incretin-based medications (GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors) as a means to avoid hypoglycaemic episodes

Hypoglycaemia is common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes and has both acute and long-term consequences. Therefore, a key to proper glucose-lowering therapy in diabetes is to avoid or prevent hypoglycaemia. Incretin therapy (DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists) offers an advantage in this respect, because it reduces glucose with a low risk of hypoglycaemia, both in monotherapy and in combination with other therapies. The reason for this low risk of hypoglycaemia is the glucose dependency of action of incretin therapy and the sustainment of glucose counter-regulatory hormone responses to hypoglycaemia, in particular the glucagon response. Incretin therapy is also associated with a low risk of hypoglycaemia in patient groups which are especially vulnerable and susceptible for hypoglycaemia, e.g., subjects with renal impairment, elderly subjects and subjects with on-going insulin therapy. This review summarizes how incretin therapy may meet the challenges of hypoglycaemia and suggests that incretin therapy is a therapy of choice to avoid hypoglycaemia, both in the general diabetes population and in subjects with increased risk or vulnerability for hypoglycaemia.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Pharmacology of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and its use in the management of metabolic syndrome: a comprehensive review on drug repositioning

OBJECTIVES

Despite advances in our understanding of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and the treatment of each of its components separately, currently there is no single therapy approved to manage it as a single condition. Since multi-drug treatment increases drug interactions, decreases patient compliance and increases health costs, it is important to introduce single therapies that improve all of the MetS components.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science, US FDA, utdo.ir and clinicaltrial.gov search, gathered the most relevant preclinical and clinical studies that have been published since 2010, and discussed the beneficial effects of dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors to prevent and treat different constituent of the MetS as a single therapy. Furthermore, the pharmacology of DPP-4 inhibitors, focusing on pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, drug interactions and their side effects are also reviewed.

RESULTS

DPP-4 inhibitors or gliptins are a new class of oral anti-diabetic drugs that seem safe drugs with no severe side effects, commonly GI disturbance, infection and inflammatory bowel disease. They increase mass and function of pancreatic β-cells, and insulin sensitivity in liver, muscle and adipose tissue. It has been noted that gliptin therapy decreases dyslipidemia. DPP-4 inhibitors increase fatty oxidation, and cholesterol efflux, and decrease hepatic triglyceride synthase and de novo lipogenesis. They delay gastric emptying time and lead to satiety. Besides, gliptin therapy has anti-inflammatory and anti-atherogenic impacts, and improves endothelial function and reduces vascular stiffness.

CONCLUSION

The gathered data prove the efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors in managing MetS in some levels beyond anti-diabetic effects. This review could be a lead for designing new DPP-4 inhibitors with greatest effects on MetS in future. Introducing drugs with polypharmacologic effects could increase the patient's compliance and decrease the health cost that there is not in multi-drug therapy. Graphical abstract ᅟ.

Incidence rate and patient characteristics of severe hypoglycemia in treated type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Japan: Retrospective Diagnosis Procedure Combination database analysis

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the incidence rate of and identify factors associated with severe hypoglycemic episodes in patients with treated type 2 diabetes mellitus.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using Diagnosis Procedure Combination hospital-based medical database, we carried out a retrospective cohort study to assess the incidence rate of severe hypoglycemia in treated type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. We evaluated the associations between severe hypoglycemia and age, sex, complications, and current use of insulin or sulfonylurea (SU) in a nested case-control study.

RESULTS

Of 166,806 eligible patients, 1,242 had episodes of severe hypoglycemia during the observational period. The incidence rate of the first hypoglycemic events was 3.70/1,000 patient years. Based on the nested case-control analysis, age was associated with hypoglycemic events with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of 1.64 or 65-74-year-old patients and 3.79 for ≥75-year-old patients in comparison with 20-64-year-old patients. Comorbidities, such as cognitive impairment, cancer, macrovascular disease and diabetic complications (retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy), were associated with severe hypoglycemia, with adjusted ORs ranging from 1.25 to 3.80. Severe hypoglycemic events also increased in patients with current use of both SU and insulin, either SU or insulin, with adjusted ORs of 18.36, 6.31 or 14.07, respectively, compared with patients with other antihyperglycemic agents. In patients with an SU glimepiride, adjusted ORs increased dose-dependently from 3.65 (≤1 mg) to 13.34 (>2 mg).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence rate of severe hypoglycemia in this cohort was 3.70/1,000 patient years. Age, cognitive impairment, cancer, diabetic complications, current use of insulin + SU and SU dosage were identified as risk factors for severe hypoglycemia.

The Vildagliptin Experience - 25 Years Since the Initiation of the Novartis Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Based Therapy Programme and 10 Years Since the First Vildagliptin Registration

The discovery of the incretin hormone glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1), and its usefulness in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) followed by the finding that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition prevents GLP-1 inactivation, led to the discovery of DPP-728. In 1999, studies with DPP-728 established the first proof-of-concept that DPP-4 inhibition improves glycaemic control in patients with T2DM. Further efforts to improve the binding kinetics of DPP-728 resulted in the discovery of vildagliptin (LAF237). In the last 20 years, a plethora of studies conducted by Novartis in collaboration with external investigators has demonstrated the mechanism of action of vildagliptin and its efficacy as monotherapy and as an add-on therapy for patients with T2DM. The studies establish that vildagliptin is a selective DPP-4 inhibitor that blocks GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) inactivation, thereby prolonging their action, resulting in improved glycaemic control. This review aims to discuss the discovery and development of vildagliptin, with an emphasis on mechanism of action and clinical efficacy.

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.

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.

Hypoglycemia hospitalization frequency in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a comparison of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and insulin secretagogues using the French health insurance database

Aim

We aimed to compare the frequency of severe hypoglycemia leading to hospitalization (HH) and emergency visits (EV) for any cause in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus exposed to dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors (DPP4-i) versus those exposed to insulin secretagogues (IS; sulfonylureas or glinides).

Methods

Data were extracted from the EGB (Echantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires) database, comprising a representative sample of ~1% of patients registered in the French National Health Insurance System (~600,000 patients). Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients exposed to regimens containing either a DPP4-i (excluding treatment with IS, insulin, or glucagon-like peptide 1 analog) or IS (excluding treatment with insulin and any incretin therapy) between 2009 and 2012 were selected. HH and EV during the exposure periods were identified in both cohorts. A similar analysis was conducted considering vildagliptin alone versus IS. Comparative analyses adjusting for covariates within the model (subjects matched for key characteristics) and using multinomial regression models were performed.

Results

Overall, 7,152 patients exposed to any DPP4-i and 1,440 patients exposed to vildagliptin were compared to 10,019 patients exposed to IS. Eight patients (0.11%) from the DPP4-i cohort and none from the vildagliptin cohort (0.0%) were hospitalized for hypoglycemia versus 130 patients (1.30%) from the IS cohort (138 hospitalizations) (P=0.02 and P<0.0001, respectively). Crude rates of HH/1,000 patient-years were 1.4 (95% CI: 0.7; 2.4) in the DPP4-i cohort, 0.0 in the vildagliptin cohort (95% CI: 0.0; 4.0), versus 5.6 (95% CI, 4.7; 6.6) in the IS cohort (P<0.0001). After adjustments, rates per 1,000 patient-years of HH were 1.4 (95% CI: 0.7; 2.4) with DPP4-i versus 7.5 (95% CI: 6.0; 9.2) with IS (P<0.0001), and 0.0 (95% CI: 0.0; 4.0) with vildagliptin versus 13.6 (95% CI: 10.4; 17.5) with IS (P<0.0001). Adjusted EV rates were also significantly lower with all DPP4-i or with vildagliptin, as compared to IS (P<0.0001). Consistent results were found when considering only treatment initiations for all compared cohorts.

Conclusion

HH and EV were significantly less frequent in patients exposed to any DPP4-i or to vildagliptin versus IS. These real-life data should be considered in the benefit/risk evaluation of the drugs.