Management of glycemia in patients with diabetes mellitus and CKD

Insulin use in chronic kidney disease and the risk of hypoglycemic events

BACKGROUND

We examined in persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D) whether the use of insulin and the risk of serious hypoglycemic events with insulin is higher in persons with more advanced CKD.

METHODS

In a national cohort of 855,133 veterans with T2D seen at Veteran Affairs clinics between Jan 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 with at least two serum creatinine measurements, we defined insulin use from pharmacy records and serious hypoglycemic events by ICD-9/10 codes from emergency room visits or hospitalizations that occurred until December 31, 2016.

RESULTS

Mean age was 66 ± 11 years and 97% were men. Mean baseline eGFR was 73 ± 22 ml/min/1.73 m². In a multivariable Cox regression model of those without insulin use at baseline (N = 653,200), compared to eGFR ≥90 group, eGFR < 30 group had higher hazard (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.74 to 1.88) of subsequent insulin use. In a multivariable Cox model with propensity score matching for baseline insulin use (N = 305,570), both insulin use (HR 2.34, 95% CI 2.24 to 2.44) and advanced CKD (HR 2.28, 95% CI 2.07 to 2.51 for comparison of eGFR < 30 to eGFR ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m² groups) were associated with increased risk of subsequent serious hypoglycemic events.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In T2D, more advanced CKD was associated with greater insulin use. Both insulin use and advanced CKD were risk factors for serious hypoglycemic events. The safety of insulin compared to newer glycemic agents in more advanced CKD needs further study.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and Diabetic Kidney Disease: A Narrative Review

Diabetic kidney disease is one of the most frequent complications in patients with diabetes mellitus and affects morbidity and mortality. The recent therapies include oral hypoglycemic drugs that, in addition to optimizing glycemic control and reducing the risk of hypoglycemia, may affect the development and progression of diabetic kidney disease; these novel therapies include inhibitors of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4), a group of oral hypoglycemic therapeutic agents that act at the level of the incretin system. DPP-4 inhibitors show additional pleiotropic effects in in vitro models, reducing inflammation, fibrosis, and oxidative damage, further suggesting potential kidney protective effects. Although existing trials suggest a possible benefit in the progression of diabetic kidney disease, further studies are needed to demonstrate kidney-specific benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors.

Assessment of Second-Generation Diabetes Medication Initiation Among Medicare Enrollees From 2007 to 2015

IMPORTANCE

Little is known about how new and expensive drugs diffuse into practice affects health care costs.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the variation in second-generation diabetes drug use among Medicare enrollees between 2007 and 2015.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This population-based, cross-sectional study included data from 100% of Medicare Parts A, B, and D enrollees who first received diabetes drug therapy from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2015. Patients with type 1 diabetes were excluded. Data were analyzed beginning in the spring of 2018, and revisions were completed in 2019.

EXPOSURES

For each patient, the initial diabetes drug choice was determined; drugs were classified as first generation (ie, approved before 2000) or second generation (ie, approved after 2000, including dipeptidyl peptidase 4 [DPP-4] inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 [GLP-1] receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 [SGLT-2] inhibitors).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the between-practice variation in use of second-generation diabetes drugs between 2007 and 2015. Practices with use rates of second-generation diabetes drugs more than 1 SD above the mean were considered high prescribing, while those with use rates more than 1 SD below the mean were considered low prescribing.

RESULTS

Among 1 182 233 patients who initiated diabetes drug therapy at 42 977 practices between 2007 and 2015, 1 104 718 (93.4%) were prescribed a first-generation drug (mean [SD] age, 75.4 [6.7] years; 627 134 [56.8%] women) and 77 515 (6.6%) were prescribed a second-generation drug (mean [SD] age, 76.5 [7.2] years; 44 697 [57.7%] women). By December 2015, 22 457 practices (52.2%) had used DPP-4 inhibitors once, compared with 3593 practices (8.4%) that had used a GLP-1 receptor agonist once. Furthermore, 17 452 practices (40.6%) were using DPP-4 inhibitors in 10% of eligible patients, while 1286 practices (3.0%) were using GLP-1 receptor agonists in 10% of eligible patients, and SGLT-2 inhibitors, available after March 2013, were used at least once by 1716 practices (4.0%) and used in 10% of eligible patients by 872 practices (2.0%) by December 2015. According to Poisson random-effect regression models, beneficiaries in high-prescribing practices were more than 3-fold more likely to receive DPP-4 inhibitors (relative risk, 3.55 [95% CI, 3.42-3.68]), 24-fold more likely to receive GLP-1 receptor agonists (relative risk, 24.06 [95% CI, 14.14-40.94]) and 60-fold more likely to receive SGLT-2 inhibitors (relative risk, 60.41 [95% CI, 15.99-228.22]) compared with beneficiaries in low-prescribing practices.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that there was substantial between-practice variation in the use of second-generation diabetes drugs between 2007 and 2015, with a concentration of use among a few prescribers and practices responsible for much of the early diffusion.

Dialysis-associated hyperglycemia: manifestations and treatment

PURPOSE

Dialysis-associated hyperglycemia (DAH), is associated with a distinct fluid and electrolyte pathophysiology. The purpose of this report was to review the pathophysiology and provide treatment guidelines for DAH.

METHODS

Review of published reports on DAH. Synthesis of guidelines based on these reports.

RESULTS

The following fluid and solute abnormalities have been identified in DAH: (a) hypoglycemia: this is a frequent complication of insulin treatment and its prevention requires special attention. (b) Elevated serum tonicity. The degree of hypertonicity in DAH is lower than in similar levels of hyperglycemia in patients with preserved renal function. Typically, correction of hyperglycemia with insulin corrects the hypertonicity of DAH. (c) Extracellular volume abnormalities ranging from pulmonary edema associated with osmotic fluid shift from the intracellular into the extracellular compartment as a consequence of gain in extracellular solute (glucose) to hypovolemia from osmotic diuresis in patients with residual renal function or from fluid losses through extrarenal routes. Correction of DAH by insulin infusion reverses the osmotic fluid transfer between the intracellular and extracellular compartments and corrects the pulmonary edema, but can worsen the manifestations of hypovolemia, which require saline infusion. (d) A variety of acid-base disorders including ketoacidosis correctable with insulin infusion and no other interventions. (e) Hyperkalemia, which is frequent in DAH and is more severe when ketoacidosis is also present. Insulin infusion corrects the hyperkalemia. Extreme hyperkalemia at presentation or hypokalemia developing during insulin infusion require additional measures.

CONCLUSIONS

In DAH, insulin infusion is the primary management strategy and corrects the fluid and electrolyte abnormalities. Patients treated for DAH should be monitored for the development of hypoglycemia or fluid and electrolyte abnormalities that may require additional treatments.

Efficacy of self-monitoring of blood glucose versus retrospective continuous glucose monitoring in improving glycaemic control in diabetic kidney disease patients

AIMS

Patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) on anti-diabetic agents, are at greater risk of glycemic variations, both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. We aimed to compare glycemic control (using HbA1c) and hypoglycemia incidence in patients with Stage 3 DKD (eGFR 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m² ), receiving retrospective CGM-guided anti-diabetic therapy versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) over 3 months.

METHODS

Thirty patients with HbA1c >8% were randomized to 6-day retrospective CGM or SMBG. In the CGM group, CGM was worn at the beginning and 6 weeks. HbA1c, assessment of hypoglycaemia events (self-reported and BG < 4 mmol/L from CGM/SMBG data) and medication adjustment were performed at baseline and 3 months. All patients received education on hypoglycaemia avoidance.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients were allocated to CGM and 16 to SMBG. Mean (±SD) eGFR was 42.9 ± 10.3 mL/min. Majority (86.7%) of patients had diabetes duration >10 years and on insulin therapy (90%). HbA1c improved significantly from baseline 9.9 ± 1.2 to 9.0 ± 1.5% (P < 0.001) at 3 months, with no difference between CGM (9.8 ± 1.2 to 8.8 ± 1.8%, P = 0.009) or SMBG (9.9 ± 1.3 to 9.1 ± 1.1%, P = 0.007) groups (P = 0.869 between groups). In the CGM group, percentage duration in hyperglycaemia (BG > 10 mmol/L) reduced from baseline 65.4 ± 22.4% to 54.6 ± 23.6% (P = 0.033) at 6 weeks, with a non-significant rise in percentage duration in hypoglycaemia from 1.2 ± 2.2% to 4.0 ± 7.0% (P = 0.176). There was no difference in self-reported and documented hypoglycaemia events.

CONCLUSION

In a pilot study of DKD patients, short-term episodic use of CGM reduced time spent in hyperglycaemia range without significantly increasing time-exposure to hypoglycaemia. However, both CGM and SMBG were equally effective in improving glycaemic control.

Comparative efficacy and safety of gemigliptin versus linagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients with renal impairment: A 40-week extension of the GUARD randomized study

AIMS

The long-term safety and efficacy of gemigliptin was evaluated in the present extension study after a 12-week study during a 40-week follow-up period.

METHODS

The main study was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, phase IIIb study in which 50 mg of gemigliptin (N = 66) or placebo (N = 66) was administered to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and moderate or severe renal impairment over a 12-week period. Patients with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level of 7% to 11% and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73 m² were enrolled in the main study. After 12 weeks, patients in the gemigliptin group continued to receive gemigliptin (N = 50), whereas patients in the placebo group were transitioned from placebo to linagliptin (N = 52). Each group received the indicated treatment over the subsequent 40-week period. A total of 102 patients consented to participate in the extension study, and 79 patients ultimately completed the study.

RESULTS

The HbA1c levels of both groups were significantly reduced at week 52 compared with baseline. Specifically, the adjusted mean change ± standard error in HbA1c level in the gemigliptin and placebo/linagliptin groups was 1.00% ± 0.21% and 0.65% ± 0.22% lower at week 52 than at baseline (P < .001 and P = .003), respectively. No significant difference in the change in HbA1c level was found between the 2 groups (P = .148). Trends in fasting plasma glucose, fructosamine and glycated albumin levels in the 2 groups were similar to trends in HbA1c levels. The eGFR of both groups was also significantly lower at week 52 than at baseline, and no significant difference in change in eGFR was found between the 2 groups. In contrast, both drugs had little effect on urinary albumin excretion, although both drugs significantly reduced the urinary type IV collagen level. The overall rates of adverse events were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemigliptin and linagliptin did not differ with respect to safety and efficacy in patients with T2DM and renal impairment. The 2 drugs had similar glucose-lowering effects, and the changes in eGFR and albuminuria were also similar. Additionally, the risk of side effects, including hypoglycaemia, was similar between the 2 groups.

Efficacy, safety and albuminuria-reducing effect of gemigliptin in Korean type 2 diabetes patients with moderate to severe renal impairment: A 12-week, double-blind randomized study (the GUARD Study)

AIMS

This multicentre, randomized, double-blind study investigated the efficacy and safety of gemigliptin in Korean type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with moderate to severe renal impairment (RI).

METHODS

The study comprised a 12-week main part and a 40-week extension. We report here the results from the main part. In total, 132 patients were randomized to receive gemigliptin (n = 66) or placebo (n = 66). Changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c; primary endpoint), other glycaemic control parameters (fasting plasma glucose, glycated albumin and fructosamine), lipid profiles, renal function parameters and safety profiles were evaluated.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups (mean HbA1c, 8.4% [68 mmol/mol]; age, 62.0 years; duration of type 2 diabetes, 16.3 years; estimated glomerular filtration rate, 33.3 mL/min/1.73 m² ). At Week 12, the adjusted mean change ± standard error in HbA1c with gemigliptin was -0.82% ± 0.14% (-8.9 ± 1.5 mmol/mol), whereas it was 0.38% ± 0.14% (4.2 ± 1.5 mmol/mol) with placebo (significant between-group difference, P  < .001). Other glycaemic control parameters showed beneficial changes as well. Body weight change (gemigliptin, -0.3 kg; placebo, -0.2 kg) was not significant. In the gemigliptin group, the mean decrease in urinary albumin creatinine ratio (UACR) was significant, both in patients with microalbuminuria (-41.9 mg/g creatinine, P  = .03) and macroalbuminuria (-528.9 mg/g creatinine, P  < .001). Drug-related adverse events were similar with gemigliptin and placebo (15% and 12%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A 12-week treatment with gemigliptin improved glycaemic control and provided UACR reduction in T2DM patients with moderate to severe RI. Gemigliptin was well tolerated, with no additional risk of hypoglycaemia and change in body weight.

Individualized, patient-centered use of lixisenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disease associated with hyperglycemia, which can lead to serious vascular complications. Current treatment guidelines place particular emphasis on personalization of therapy. Within this guidance, the use of various second-line therapies, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), is recommended under certain circumstances. Areas covered: Factors influencing glucose homeostasis, including gastric emptying and the associated cardiovascular (CV) risk when homeostasis is not maintained, are reviewed. Physiology relating to the mechanism of action of GLP-1 RAs is summarized, with a particular focus on lixisenatide. In addition, an overview of efficacy and safety data for lixisenatide is presented and the CV effects of GLP-1 RAs are examined. Finally, the rationale and clinical data supporting the combination of lixisenatide and basal insulin are explored. Expert opinion: GLP-1 analogs meet a need for better glycemic control, with the added benefits of reduced hypoglycemic risk and body weight. The combination of a short-acting GLP-1 RA, such as lixisenatide, with a basal insulin, exploits the complementary effects of both of these therapies and seems well suited for the treatment of T2DM. However, further studies are needed to establish the associated CV risks and/or benefits of GLP-1 RAs.

Short-term and long-term effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with renal impairment: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

To assess the short-term and long-term effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with renal impairment, a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of DPP-4 inhibitor interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with renal impairment was performed. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through the end of March 2015. Randomized clinical trials were selected if (1) DPP-4 inhibitors were compared with a placebo or other active-comparators, (2) the treatment duration was ≥12 weeks and (3) data regarding changes in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ), changes in fasting plasma glucose or hypoglycaemia and other adverse events were reported. Of 790 studies, ten studies on eight randomized clinical trials were included. Compared with the control group, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a greater HbA1c reduction in both the short-term [mean differences (MD) = -0.45, 95% confidence intervals (-0.57, -0.33), p < 0.0001] and long-term [MD = -0.33, 95% confidence intervals (-0.63, -0.03), p = 0.03] treatments. However, the long-term greater reduction in HbA1c with DPP-4 inhibitor treatment was only significant when the control treatment comprised placebo plus stable background treatment, but not glipizide plus stable background treatment. DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a greater fasting plasma glucose reduction [MD = -12.59, 95% confidence intervals (-22.01, -3.17), p = 0.009] over the short-term; however, this effect was not present over the long-term. Regarding the hypoglycaemia adverse events assessment, the long-term treatment data indicated there was no increased risk of hypoglycaemia compared with placebo or active-controlled anti-diabetic drugs. The present meta-analysis confirms that DPP-4 inhibitors are effective and equivalent to other agents in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with renal impairment. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Interactions between kidney disease and diabetes: dangerous liaisons

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) globally affects 18-20 % of adults over the age of 65 years. Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is one of the most frequent and dangerous complications of DM2, affecting about one-third of the patients with DM2. In addition to the pancreas, adipocytes, liver, and intestines, the kidneys also play an important role in glycemic control, particularly due to renal contribution to gluconeogenesis and tubular reabsorption of glucose.

METHODS

In this review article, based on a report of discussions from an interdisciplinary group of experts in the areas of endocrinology, diabetology and nephrology, we detail the relationship between diabetes and kidney disease, addressing the care in the diagnosis, the difficulties in achieving glycemic control and possible treatments that can be applied according to the different degrees of impairment.

DISCUSSION

Glucose homeostasis is extremely altered in patients with DKD, who are exposed to a high risk of both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Both high and low glycemic levels are associated with increased morbidity and shortened survival in this group of patients. Factors that are associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia in DKD patients include decreased renal gluconeogenesis, deranged metabolic pathways (including altered metabolism of medications) and decreased insulin clearance. On the other hand, decrease glucose filtration and excretion, and inflammation-induce insulin resistance are predisposing factors to hyperglycemic episodes.

CONCLUSION

Appropriate glycaemic monitoring and control tailored for diabetic patients is required to avoid hypoglycaemia and other glycaemic disarrays in patients with DM2 and kidney disease. Understanding the renal physiology and pathophysiology of DKD has become essential to all specialties treating diabetic patients. Disseminating this knowledge and detailing the evidence will be important to initiate breakthrough research and to encourage proper treatment of this group of patients.

Management of diabetes mellitus in individuals with chronic kidney disease: therapeutic perspectives and glycemic control

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic options for diabetes treatment and their potential side effects, in addition to analyzing the risks and benefits of tight glycemic control in patients with diabetic kidney disease. For this review, a search was performed using several pre-defined keyword combinations and their equivalents: "diabetes kidney disease" and "renal failure" in combination with "diabetes treatment" and "oral antidiabetic drugs" or "oral hypoglycemic agents." The search was performed in PubMed, Endocrine Abstracts and the Cochrane Library from January 1980 up to January 2015. Diabetes treatment in patients with diabetic kidney disease is challenging, in part because of progression of renal failure-related changes in insulin signaling, glucose transport and metabolism, favoring both hyperglycemic peaks and hypoglycemia. Additionally, the decline in renal function impairs the clearance and metabolism of antidiabetic agents and insulin, frequently requiring reassessment of prescriptions. The management of hyperglycemia in patients with diabetic kidney disease is even more difficult, requiring adjustment of antidiabetic agents and insulin doses. The health team responsible for the follow-up of these patients should be vigilant and prepared to make such changes; however, unfortunately, there are few guidelines addressing the nuances of the management of this specific population.

Diabetes mellitus and renal failure: Prevention and management

Nowadays, diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension are considered as the most common causes of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In this paper, other than presenting the role of DM in ESRD, glucose metabolism and the management of hyperglycemia in these patients are reviewed. Although in several large studies there was no significant relationship found between tight glycemic control and the survival of ESRD patients, it is recommended that glycemic control be considered as the main therapeutic goal in the treatment of these patients to prevent damage to other organs. Glycemic control is perfect when fasting blood sugar is less than 140 mg/dL, 1-h postprandial blood glucose is less than 200 mg/dL, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is 6-7 in patients with type 1 diabetes and 7-8 in patients with type 2 diabetes. Administration of metformin should be avoided in chronic renal failure (CRF) because of lactic acidosis, the potentially fatal complication of metformin, but glipizide and repaglinide seem to be good choices.

Comparison of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment: a randomised clinical trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

There are limited data comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors directly. We compared the safety and efficacy of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment (RI).

METHODS

This study was a parallel-arm, randomised, multicentre, double-blind, 24 week study conducted in 87 centres across Brazil and the USA. Patients with type 2 diabetes, either drug naive or treated with any glucose-lowering agents, who had inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c 6.5-10.0% [48-86 mmol/mol]) and an estimated GFR <30 ml min(-1) [1.73 m](-2) were randomised (via interactive voice response technology) to vildagliptin 50 mg once daily or sitagliptin 25 mg once daily. These doses are recommended in this patient population and considered maximally effective. Participants, investigators and the sponsor were blinded to group assignment. Efficacy endpoints included change in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at all visits and the primary safety endpoint was assessment of treatment-emergent adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 148 patients were randomised, 83 to vildagliptin and 65 to sitagliptin. All patients were analysed. After 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was -0.54% (5.9 mmol/mol) from a baseline of 7.52% (59 mmol/mol) with vildagliptin and -0.56% (6.1 mmol/mol) from a baseline of 7.80% (62 mmol/mol) with sitagliptin (p = 0.874). FPG decreased by 0.47 ± 0.37 mmol/l with vildagliptin and increased by 0.16 ± 0.43 mmol/l with sitagliptin (p = 0.185). Both treatments were well tolerated with overall similar safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

At their recommended doses for severe RI, vildagliptin (50 mg once daily) compared with sitagliptin (25 mg once daily) demonstrated similar efficacy and both drugs were well tolerated. This study provides further support for the use of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with severe RI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00616811 (completed)

FUNDING

This study was planned and conducted by Novartis.

Pharmacokinetics and clinical use of incretin-based therapies in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes

The prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) of stages 3-5 (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] <60 mL/min) is about 25-30 % in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). While most oral antidiabetic agents have limitations in patients with CKD, incretin-based therapies are increasingly used for the management of T2DM. This review analyses (1) the influence of CKD on the pharmacokinetics of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists; and (2) the efficacy/safety profile of these agents in clinical practice when prescribed in patients with both T2DM and CKD. Most DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin) are predominantly excreted by the kidneys. Thereby, pharmacokinetic studies showed that total exposure to the drug is increased in proportion to the decline of GFR, leading to recommendations for appropriate dose reductions according to the severity of CKD. In these conditions, clinical studies reported a good efficacy and safety profile in patients with CKD. In contrast, linagliptin is eliminated by a predominantly hepatobiliary route. As a pharmacokinetic study showed only minimal influence of decreased GFR on total exposure, no dose adjustment of linagliptin is required in the case of CKD. The experience with GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with CKD is more limited. Exenatide is eliminated by renal mechanisms and should not be given in patients with severe CKD. Liraglutide is not eliminated by the kidney, but it should be used with caution because of the limited experience in patients with CKD. Only limited pharmacokinetic data are also available for lixisenatide, exenatide long-acting release (LAR) and other once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists in current development. Several case reports of acute renal failure have been described with GLP-1 receptor agonists, probably triggered by dehydration resulting from gastrointestinal adverse events. However, increasing GLP-1 may also exert favourable renal effects that could contribute to reducing the risk of diabetic nephropathy. In conclusion, the already large reassuring experience with DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with CKD offers new opportunities to the clinician, whereas more caution is required with GLP-1 receptor agonists because of the limited experience in this population.

Diabetes treatment in patients with renal disease: Is the landscape clear enough?

Diabetes is the most important risk factors for chronic kidney disease (CKD). The risk of CKD attributable to diabetes continues to rise worldwide. Diabetic patients with CKD need complicated treatment for their metabolic disorders as well as for related comorbidities. They have to treat, often intensively, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, bone disease, anaemia, and frequently established cardiovascular disease. The treatment of hypoglycaemia in diabetic persons with CKD must tie their individual goals of glycaemia (usually less tight glycaemic control) and knowledge on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs available to a person with kidney disease. The problem is complicated from the fact that in many efficacy studies patients with CKD are excluded so data of safety and efficacy for these patients are missing. This results in fear of use by lack of evidence. Metformin is globally accepted as the first choice in practically all therapeutic algorithms for diabetic subjects. The advantages of metformin are low risk of hypoglycaemia, modest weight loss, effectiveness and low cost. Data of UKPDS indicate that treatment based on metformin results in less total as well cardiovascular mortality. Metformin remains the drug of choice for patients with diabetes and CKD provided that their estimate Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) remains above 30 mL/min per square meter. For diabetic patients with eGFR between 30-60 mL/min per square meter more frequent monitoring of renal function and dose reduction of metformin is needed. The use of sulfonylureas, glinides and insulin carry a higher risk of hypoglycemia in these patients and must be very careful. Lower doses and slower titration of the dose is needed. Is better to avoid sulfonylureas with active hepatic metabolites, which are renally excreted. Very useful drugs for this group of patients emerge dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. These drugs do not cause hypoglycemia and most of them (linagliptin is an exception) require dose reduction in various stages of renal disease.

Pharmacokinetic and toxicological considerations for the treatment of diabetes in patients with liver disease

INTRODUCTION

Patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of chronic liver disease (CLD) such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis and about one-third of cirrhotic patients have diabetes. However, the use of several antidiabetic agents may be a cause for concern in the case of hepatic impairment (HI).

AREAS COVERED

An extensive literature search was performed to analyze the influence of HI on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of glucose-lowering agents and the potential consequences for clinical practice as far as the efficacy/safety balance of their use in diabetic patients with CLD is concerned.

EXPERT OPINION

Almost no PK studies have been published regarding metformin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones and α-glucosidase inhibitors in patients with HI. Only mild changes in PK of glinides, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sodium glucose cotransporters type 2 inhibitors were observed in dedicated PK studies in patients with various degrees of HI, presumably without major clinical relevance although large clinical experience is lacking. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists have a renal excretion rather than liver metabolism. Rare anecdotal case reports of hepatotoxicity have been described with various glucose-lowering agents contrasting with numerous reassuring data. Nevertheless, caution should be recommended, especially in patients with advanced cirrhosis, including with the use of metformin.

Hypoglycemia: minimizing its impact in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To review and discuss the risks and impact of hypoglycemia and provide guidance for the prevention of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

We review and discuss the risks and impact of hypoglycemia, providing specific guidance regarding the prevention of hypoglycemia and judicial selection of glucose-lowering agents in individuals with T2DM.

RESULTS

Hypoglycemia in T2DM is underrecognized and underreported. Emerging evidence from large clinical trials suggest that hypoglycemia may be an important risk factor for morbidity and mortality in T2DM. In addition, hypoglycemia is associated with reduced quality of life, greater healthcare utilization costs, and poor adherence to medical regiments.

CONCLUSION

These findings have led professional organizations to emphasize the prevention of hypoglycemia as an important consideration when initiating or intensifying treatment regimens. In clinical settings, particular attention should be paid to a patient's risk for hypoglycemia when initiating or intensifying the pharmacological treatment regimen. The endocrinologist can play an important role in educating not only the patient, but also other members of the diabetes-management team regarding the need for individualized therapy.

Linagliptin added to sulphonylurea in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment

Glucose-lowering treatment options are limited for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with advanced stages of renal impairment (RI). This retrospective analysis evaluated glycaemic efficacy and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin added to sulphonylurea. Three randomized phase 3 studies (n = 619) including T2DM subjects with moderate or severe RI [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²] were analysed; only sulphonylurea-treated subjects who received additional linagliptin (n = 58) or placebo (n = 33) were evaluated. Linagliptin provided meaningful placebo-adjusted HbA1c reductions of -0.68% (95% confidence interval: -1.19, -0.17), -1.08% (-2.02, -0.14) and -0.62% (-1.25, 0.01) after 24, 18 and 12 weeks, respectively. There was a similar incidence of overall adverse events (linagliptin: 79.3%, placebo: 75.8%) and hypoglycaemia (linagliptin: 37.9%, placebo: 39.4%). Severe hypoglycaemia was more common with placebo (linagliptin: 1.7%, placebo: 6.1%). These data suggest that linagliptin is a safe and effective glucose-lowering treatment in T2DM patients with moderate-to-severe RI for whom sulphonylurea treatment is no longer sufficient.

Pharmacokinetic considerations for the treatment of diabetes in patients with chronic kidney disease

INTRODUCTION

People with chronic kidney disease (CKD) of stages 3 - 5 (creatinine clearance < 60 ml/min) represent ≈ 25% of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but the problem is underrecognized or neglected in clinical practice. However, most oral antidiabetic agents have limitations in case of renal impairment (RI), either because they require a dose adjustment or because they are contraindicated for safety reasons.

AREAS COVERED

The author performed an extensive literature search to analyze the influence of RI on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of glucose-lowering agents and the potential consequences for clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

As a result of PK interferences and for safety reasons, the daily dose should be reduced according to glomerular filtration rate (GFR) or even the drug is contraindicated in presence of severe CKD. This is the case for metformin (risk of lactic acidosis) and for many sulfonylureas (risk of hypoglycemia). At present, however, the exact GFR cutoff for metformin use is controversial. New antidiabetic agents are better tolerated in case of CKD, although clinical experience remains quite limited for most of them. The dose of DPP-4 inhibitors should be reduced (except for linagliptin), whereas both the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors are questionable in presence of CKD.

Challenges in achieving optimal glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients with declining renal function: The Southeast Asia perspective

It is well recognised that Asia is at the epicenter of the global type 2 diabetes epidemic. Driven by socioeconomic changes involving industrialization, urbanization and adoption of Western lifestyles, the unprecedented increases in the prevalence of diabetes are particularly evident in Southeast Asia. The impact of diabetes is immense, and despite evidence of the benefit of optimal glucose control in reducing the risk of disease progression and development of macrovascular and microvascular complications, many individuals in this region remain poorly controlled. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an increasingly common diabetes-associated complication in Asian patients. Furthermore, Southeast Asia has one of the highest rates of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the world. Consequently, CKD in diabetes is associated with considerable morbidity and cardiovascular-related mortality, highlighting the need to screen and assess patients early in the course of the disease. The management of type 2 diabetes patients with declining renal function represents a significant challenge. Many of the older antidiabetic agents, such as metformin and sulfonylureas, are limited in their utility in CKD as a result of contraindications or hypoglycemic episodes. In contrast, dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors have provided a welcome addition to the therapeutic armamentarium for achieving glycemic control in these special populations. With comparable efficacy to and more favorable pharmacokinetic and side-effect profiles than traditional therapies, agents in this drug class, such as linagliptin, offer a more tailored approach to disease control in type 2 diabetes patients with declining renal function.

Use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease

Choices of antidiabetic agents for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are limited. Available data suggest that the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors may be safe in patients at various stages of renal insufficiency. However, except for linagliptin, dosage adjustment is necessary. The efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with renal insufficiency is generally similar to that of the general population with T2DM, with reductions in mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) levels of 0.7% to 1.0% compared with baseline, and 0.4% to 0.7% compared with placebo. The frequency of moderate hypoglycemia is 21% to 80% higher with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with placebo, but the frequency of severe hypoglycemia is similar to that with placebo. The use of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with renal insufficiency is associated with a slight weight loss of < 1 kg. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors may be used as monotherapy in patients with CKD and HbA1c levels < 8.5% as an alternative to insulin, glipizide, or pioglitazone. They can also be used as add-on therapy to glipizide and/or pioglitazone in patients with HbA(1c) levels < 9%, but studies are needed to evaluate these combinations in patients with renal insufficiency. Long-term and large-scale clinical trials are underway to better determine the safety and efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with T2DM with and without CKD.

One-year safety, tolerability and efficacy of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate or severe renal impairment

AIM

Assess long-term safety and efficacy of the dipeptidlyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor vildagliptin in 369 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and moderate or severe renal impairment (RI).

METHODS

Double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, 52-week clinical trial comparing safety and efficacy of vildagliptin (50 mg qd, n = 216) and placebo (n = 153) added to ongoing stable antihyperglycaemic treatment, in patients with T2DM and moderate or severe (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] ≥ 30 to <50 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and < 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2) ) RI.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 122 and 89 patients with moderate RI and 94 and 64 patients with severe RI randomized to vildagliptin and placebo, respectively, with the majority of patients receiving background insulin therapy (72% and 82% for moderate and severe RI, respectively). After 1 year, the between-treatment difference in adjusted mean change in A1C was -0.4 ± 0.2% (p = 0.005) in moderate RI (baseline = 7.8%) and -0.7 ± 0.2% (p < 0.0001) in severe RI (baseline = 7.6%). In patients with moderate RI, similar proportions of patients experienced any adverse event (AE) (84 vs. 85%), any serious adverse event (SAE) (21 vs. 19%), any AE leading to discontinuation (5% vs. 6%) and death (1% vs. 0%) with vildagliptin and placebo, respectively. This was also true for patients with severe RI: AEs (85% vs. 88%), SAEs (25% vs. 25%), AEs leading to discontinuation (10% vs. 6%) and death (3% vs. 2%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2DM and moderate or severe RI, vildagliptin added to ongoing antidiabetic therapy had a safety profile similar to placebo during 1-year observation. Furthermore, relative to placebo, a clinically significant decrease in A1C was maintained throughout 1-year treatment with vildagliptin.

Safety and efficacy of vildagliptin versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate or severe renal impairment: a prospective 24-week randomized placebo-controlled trial

AIM

Assess safety/tolerability and efficacy of the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin in 515 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and moderate or severe renal impairment (RI).

METHODS

Double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, 24-week clinical trial assessing safety and efficacy of vildagliptin (50 mg qd) added to current antidiabetic therapy, in patients with T2DM and moderate or severe RI (GFR ≥ 30 to <50 or <30 ml/min/1.73 m(2) ).

RESULTS

The study population comprised of 165 and 129 patients with moderate RI and 124 and 97 patients with severe RI randomized to vildagliptin and placebo, respectively, with most patients receiving background insulin therapy (68 and 81% for moderate and severe RI, respectively). After 24 weeks, the between-treatment difference in the adjusted mean change in A1C was -0.5 ± 0.1% (p < 0.0001) in moderate RI (baseline A1C = 7.9%) and -0.6 ± 0.1% (p < 0.0001) in severe RI (baseline A1C = 7.7%). In patients with moderate RI, similar proportions of those receiving vildagliptin or placebo experienced any AE (68 vs. 73%), any SAE (9 vs. 9%), any AE leading to discontinuation (3 vs. 5%) or death (1 vs. 1%). This was also true for patients with severe RI: AEs (73 vs. 74%), SAEs (19 vs. 21%), AEs leading to discontinuation (9 vs. 6%) and death (2 vs. 4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this 24-week study of 515 patients with T2DM and moderate or severe RI, vildagliptin added to ongoing antidiabetic therapy had a safety profile similar to placebo. Further, relative to placebo, vildagliptin elicited a statistically and clinically significant decrease in A1C in patients with moderate or severe RI.

The diabetic CKD patient--a major cardiovascular challenge

The diabetic patient with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is at very high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Primary and secondary CVD prevention is of major importance and should be targeted at both traditional cardiovascular risk factors and risk factors specific for patients with CKD, such as albuminuria, anaemia and CKD--mineral and bone disorder. However, treatment goals have largely been derived from clinical trials including patients with no or only mild CKD and may not be generalizable to patients with advanced renal disease. Moreover, in patients on renal replacement therapy, the association between traditional CVD risk factors and the incidence of CVD may be reversed, and pharmaceutical interventions that are beneficial in the general population may be ineffective or even harmful in this high-risk population. Those involved in the delivery of care to patients with diabetes and CKD need to be aware of these issues and should adopt an individualised approach to treatment.

Pharmacotherapy of end-stage renal disease

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

The incidence and prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) continues to grow worldwide. ESRD causes significant morbidity and mortality and has enormous financial and personal costs.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

Major electronic databases (including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched from 1989 to September 2009 to summarize current pharmacotherapy of ESRD-associated complications in adults receiving maintenance dialysis (hemodialysis or continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis). Current guidelines for the treatment of ESRD (e.g., NKF-K/DOQI, KDIGO, and the ERA-EDTA's European Renal Best Practice Guidelines) were included.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Commonly used pharmacological treatment strategies for chronic arterial hypertension, anemia, iron management, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, and for disturbances of bone and mineral metabolism, including hyperphosphatemia and secondary hyperparathyroidism in ESRD, are presented. In addition, the reader will learn that nonadherence to oral medication in ESRD can contribute significantly to excess morbidity and mortality of the dialysis population.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Improvements in pharmacotherapy of ESRD may be at least in part counteracted by continuously increasing age and comorbid disease of the dialysis population. Individualized and tailor-made pharmacological management of the ESRD patient remains a challenge for the future.

Characteristics of elderly patients with diabetes and end-stage renal disease

Because of a combination of demographic and social factors, such as the aging of the population in general, increased incidence of diabetes, and more liberal criteria for renal replacement therapy initiation, the proportion of the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients with diabetes who are considered elderly is currently the fastest growing segment of incident ESRD population. Despite the fast growth of this group, it is poorly characterized in current literature. In this review, we attempt to summarize the data available to date regarding demographic composition, outcomes, choice of renal replacement therapy, and other management issues including renal transplantation. There is significant evidence that the elderly diabetic patients might differ from the general dialysis population regarding renal replacement modality, vascular access for dialysis, and that guidelines addressing chronic kidney disease (CKD) issues such as nutrition and blood pressure may need modification in this ESRD subgroup. At the same time, other areas such as anemia and bone mineral metabolism have not been adequately studied. Lastly, despite lower rates of kidney transplantation in this population, it confers significant survival advantages, similar to that seen in younger populations. As the fastest growing group in the incident ESRD population, these patients have issues related to clinical management, which represent very important areas for future research.

Selection and dosing of medications for management of diabetes in patients with advanced kidney disease

Diabetes mellitus is a leading cause of kidney disease worldwide. A large and expanding array of treatments for diabetes is available to improve glycemic control, including newer classes of drugs, such as thiazolidinediones and incretin-based therapies. The presence of impaired kidney function with reduced glomerular filtration rate should influence choices, dosing, and monitoring of hypoglycemic agents, as some agents require a dosing adjustment in patients with kidney disease and some are entirely contraindicated. This article reviews the clinical use of insulin and other antidiabetic therapies, focusing on pharmacokinetic properties and dosing in patients with advanced kidney disease.

Management of diabetes in dialysis patients

Diabetes mellitus is the most common cause of kidney disease worldwide, and of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States and elsewhere. Mortality rates of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) on chronic dialysis exceed those of non-DM patients. ESRD and dialysis add to the complexity of glycemic management in this population. Abnormal glucoregulation includes reduced insulin sensitivity and renal clearance of the hormone. Implementation of dialysis affects glucose and insulin levels, while increasing insulin sensitivity. Tight glycemic control carries an increased risk of hypoglycemia in ESRD. Monitoring glycemic control with hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) levels may be suboptimal because of analytical and clinical variability of the test. Recent studies on HbA(1c) and clinical outcomes in this population present complementary results on the role of glycemic control in patients with DM with ESRD.

Frequency of hypoglycemia and its significance in chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study set out to determine the incidence of hypoglycemia in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), with and without diabetes, and the association of hypoglycemia with mortality.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of 243,222 patients who had 2,040,206 glucose measurements and were cared for at the Veterans Health Administration. CKD was defined as an estimated GFR of <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). Hypoglycemia was set at <70 mg/dl. Mortality was measured 1 day after glucose measurement.

RESULTS

The incidence of hypoglycemia was higher in patients with CKD versus without CKD. Among patients with diabetes, the rate was 10.72 versus 5.33 per 100 patient-months and among patients without diabetes was 3.46 versus 2.23 per 100 patient-months, for CKD versus no CKD, respectively. The odds of 1-d mortality were increased at all levels of hypoglycemia but attenuated in CKD versus no CKD. Adjusted odds ratios for 1-d mortality that were associated with glucose values of <50, 50 to 59, and 60 to 69 mg/dl, respectively, versus glucose of >or=70 mg/dl were 6.09, 4.10, and 1.85 for inpatient records from patients with CKD; 9.95, 3.79, and 2.54 for inpatients records from patients without CKD; 6.84, 3.28, and 3.98 for outpatient records from patients with CKD; and 13.28, 7.36, and 4.34 for outpatient records from patients without CKD.

CONCLUSIONS

CKD is a risk for hypoglycemia, with or without diabetes. The excessive mortality associated with hypoglycemia makes this complication a significant threat to patient safety in CKD.

Safety and efficacy of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic renal insufficiency

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate [creatinine clearance (CrCl) > or =30 to <50 ml/min] or severe renal insufficiency [CrCl <30 ml/min including patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on dialysis]. The efficacy of sitagliptin in this patient population was also assessed.

METHODS

In a 54-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, patients with baseline glycosylated haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) values of 6.5-10% were allocated (2:1) to sitagliptin (for 54 weeks) or the sequence of placebo (for 12 weeks) followed by active treatment with glipizide (for 42 weeks). To achieve plasma concentrations similar to those observed in patients with normal renal function treated with 100 mg sitagliptin once daily, patients with moderate renal insufficiency were allocated to receive sitagliptin 50 mg once daily and patients with severe renal insufficiency to receive 25 mg once daily. Glipizide treatment was initiated at 2.5 or 5 mg/day and uptitrated to a maximum of 20 mg/day.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 91) with a mean baseline HbA(1c) value of 7.7% (range: 6.2-10.3%) were randomized to sitagliptin (n = 65) or placebo (n = 26). After 12 weeks, the mean change [95% confidence interval (CI)] from baseline in HbA(1c) was -0.6% (-0.8, -0.4) in the sitagliptin group compared with -0.2% (-0.4, 0.1) in the placebo group [between-group difference (95% CI) = -0.4% (-0.7, -0.1)]. At 54 weeks, patients continuously treated with sitagliptin had a mean change (95% CI) from baseline in HbA(1c) of -0.7% (-0.9, -0.4). The overall incidence of adverse experiences was generally similar between groups. Between-group differences in incidences of specific clinical adverse experiences were generally small; however, the proportion of patients for whom hypoglycaemia was reported was lower in the sitagliptin group (4.6%) compared with the placebo/glipizide group (23.1%). Consistent with the high mortality risk in this patient population, there were six deaths during this 54-week study [5 of 65 patients (7.7%) in the sitagliptin group and 1 of 26 patients (3.8%) in the placebo/glipizide group]; no death was considered by the investigator to be drug related. The overall incidences of drug-related and serious adverse experiences and discontinuations because of adverse experiences were generally similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, sitagliptin was generally well tolerated and provided effective glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate to severe renal insufficiency, including patients with ESRD on dialysis.