Effects of the Once-Weekly DPP4 Inhibitor Omarigliptin on Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus on Maintenance Hemodialysis: A 24-Week Open-Label, Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study

The medical cost and outcome of desensitization protocol in kidney transplantation recipients with high immunological risks

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation is a well-established alternative in renal replacement therapy. Compared with hemodialysis, low-immunological-risk kidney transplantation can reduce the medical treatment costs associated with end-stage renal disease. However, there are few reports on whether high-immunological-risk kidney transplantation reduces the financial burden on governments. We investigated the medical costs of high-immunological-risk kidney transplantation in comparison with the cost of hemodialysis in Japan.

METHODS

We compared the medical costs of high-immunological-risk kidney transplantation with those of hemodialysis. 15 patients who underwent crossmatch-positive and/or donor-specific antibody-positive kidney transplantations between 2020 and 2021 were enrolled in this study. The patients received intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis, and rituximab as desensitizing therapy.

RESULTS

Acute antibody-mediated rejection was detected in nine (60%) recipients, while there were no indications of graft function deterioration during the follow-up. For each patient, the transplant hospitalization cost was 38 428 ± 8789 USD. However, the cumulative costs were 59 758 ± 10 006 USD and 79 781 ± 16 366 USD, at 12 and 24 months, respectively. Compared with hemodialysis (34 286 USD per year), high-immunological-risk kidney transplantation tends to be expensive in the first year, but the cost is likely to be lower than that of hemodialysis after 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Although kidney transplantation is initially expensive compared with hemodialysis, the medical cost becomes advantageous after 3 years even in kidney transplant recipients with high immunological risk.

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.