Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin monotherapy during 2-year treatment of drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: comparison with metformin

DPP-4 inhibitors for treating T2DM - hype or hope? an analysis based on the current literature

DPP-4 inhibition is an interesting line of therapy for treating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and is based on promoting the incretin effect. Here, the authors have presented a brief appraisal of DPP-4 inhibitors, their modes of action, and the clinical efficiency of currently available drugs based on DPP-4 inhibitors. The safety profiles as well as future directions including their potential application in improving COVID-19 patient outcomes have also been discussed in detail. This review also highlights the existing queries and evidence gaps in DPP-4 inhibitor research. Authors have concluded that the excitement surrounding DPP-4 inhibitors is justified because in addition to controlling blood glucose level, they are good at managing risk factors associated with diabetes.

Bioequivalence Studies of New Generic Formulations of Vildagliptin and Fixed-Drug Combination of Vildagliptin and Metformin Versus Respective Originator Products in Healthy Volunteers

INTRODUCTION

Vildagliptin and metformin are two well-established oral antidiabetics with a complementary mechanism of action. Two new generic products, vildagliptin and its fixed-drug combination (FDC) with metformin, were tested for bioequivalence versus the approved originator reference products (Galvus® and Eucreas®).

METHODS

Three randomized studies with two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence crossover design were conducted in healthy adults. One study evaluated vildagliptin 50 mg tablets as single dose under fasting conditions. Vildagliptin-metformin FDC tablet strengths of 50/850 mg and 50/1000 mg were evaluated in separate studies as single dose under fed conditions, given 30 min after a standardized high-fat, high-calorie breakfast following 10 h overnight fasting. Blood samples for analysis were collected until 24 h after dosing in each study period. Bioequivalence between test (T) and reference (R) products required 90% confidence interval (CIs) for the geometric least square (LS) mean T/R ratio to be within 80-125% for the pharmacokinetic parameters, maximum plasma concentration (C_max), and area under the curve (AUC_0-t).

RESULTS

The 90% CIs of geometric LS means of T/R ratio for C_max and AUC_0-t with vildagliptin tablets of 50 mg were 92.22-103.94% and 99.00-102.66%, respectively; corresponding results with FDC tablets for 50/850 mg tablets were 94.81-115.41% and 95.28-106.00% for vildagliptin and 90.87-101.18% and 90.56-100.09% for metformin; for 50/1000 mg tablets C_max and AUC_0-t were 105.56-122.30% and 98.30-107.55%, respectively, for vildagliptin and 92.14-103.73% and 94.60-101.81%, respectively, for metformin. Other parameters such as AUC_0-∞, time to maximum concentration (T_max), and terminal half-life (t_1/2) were comparable between test and reference products. Adverse events (AEs), mainly vomiting, were reported without relevant difference between test and reference products in each study. AEs were generally mild and transient. No severe or serious AEs occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The new generic drug products of vildagliptin and the FDCs of vildagliptin and metformin demonstrated bioequivalence to the approved originator products and are therefore expected to provide similar therapeutic effects.

Metformin monotherapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, there is an increasing incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Metformin is still the recommended first-line glucose-lowering drug for people with T2DM. Despite this, the effects of metformin on patient-important outcomes are still not clarified.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin monotherapy in adults with T2DM.

SEARCH METHODS

We based our search on a systematic report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and topped-up the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of included trials and systematic reviews, as well as health technology assessment reports and medical agencies. The date of the last search for all databases was 2 December 2019, except Embase (searched up 28 April 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one year's duration comparing metformin monotherapy with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs in adults with T2DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles/records, assessed risk of bias, and extracted outcome data independently. We resolved discrepancies by involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model with investigation of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 RCTs with multiple study arms (N = 10,680). The percentage of participants finishing the trials was approximately 58% in all groups. Treatment duration ranged from one to 10.7 years. We judged no trials to be at low risk of bias on all 'Risk of bias' domains. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cardiovascular mortality (CVM), non-fatal myocardial infarction (NFMI), non-fatal stroke (NFS), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Two trials compared metformin (N = 370) with insulin (N = 454). Neither trial reported on all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI, NFS or ESRD. One trial provided information on HRQoL but did not show a substantial difference between the interventions. Seven trials compared metformin with sulphonylureas. Four trials reported on all-cause mortality: in three trials no participant died, and in the remaining trial 31/1454 participants (2.1%) in the metformin group died compared with 31/1441 participants (2.2%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on SAE: in two trials no SAE occurred (186 participants); in the other trial 331/1454 participants (22.8%) in the metformin group experienced a SAE compared with 308/1441 participants (21.4%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials reported on CVM: in one trial no CVM was observed and in the other trial 4/1441 participants (0.3%) in the metformin group died of cardiovascular reasons compared with 8/1447 participants (0.6%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). Three trials reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred, and in the other trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 15/1441 participants (1.0%) in the sulphonylurea group (very low-certainty evidence). One trial reported no NFS occurred (very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Seven trials compared metformin with thiazolidinediones (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Five trials reported on all-cause mortality: in two trials no participant died; the overall RR was 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39; P = 0.57; 5 trials; 4402 participants). Four trials reported on SAE, the RR was 0,95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.09; P = 0.49; 3208 participants. Four trials reported on CVM, the RR was 0.71, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.39; P = 0.58; 3211 participants. Three trial reported on NFMI: in two trials no NFMI occurred and in one trial 21/1454 participants (1.4%) in the metformin group experienced a NFMI compared with 25/1456 participants (1.7%) in the thiazolidinedione group. One trial reported no NFS occurred. No trial reported on HRQoL or ESRD. Three trials compared metformin with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (one trial each with saxagliptin, sitagliptin, vildagliptin with altogether 1977 participants). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, SAE, CVM, NFMI and NFS (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). One trial compared metformin with a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue (very low-certainty evidence for all reported outcomes). There was no substantial difference between the interventions for all-cause mortality, CVM, NFMI and NFS. One or more SAEs were reported in 16/268 (6.0%) of the participants allocated to metformin compared with 35/539 (6.5%) of the participants allocated to a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue. HRQoL or ESRD were not reported. One trial compared metformin with meglitinide and two trials compared metformin with no intervention. No deaths or SAEs occurred (very low-certainty evidence) no other patient-important outcomes were reported. No trial compared metformin with placebo or a behaviour changing interventions. Four ongoing trials with 5824 participants are likely to report one or more of our outcomes of interest and are estimated to be completed between 2018 and 2024. Furthermore, 24 trials with 2369 participants are awaiting assessment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence whether metformin monotherapy compared with no intervention, behaviour changing interventions or other glucose-lowering drugs influences patient-important outcomes.

Efficacy of vildagliptin for prevention of postpartum diabetes in women with a recent history of insulin-requiring gestational diabetes: A phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Objective

Women with insulin-requiring gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at high risk of developing diabetes within a few years postpartum. We implemented this phase II study to test the hypothesis that vildagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, is superior to placebo in terms of reducing the risk of postpartum diabetes.

Methods

Women with insulin-requiring GDM were randomized to either placebo or 50 mg vildagliptin twice daily for 24 months followed by a 12-month observation period (EudraCT: 2007-000634-39). Both groups received lifestyle counseling. The primary efficacy outcomes were the diagnosis of diabetes (American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria) or impaired fasting glucose (IFG)/impaired glucose tolerance (IGT).

Results

Between 2008 and 2015, 113 patients (58 vildagliptin, 55 placebo) were randomized within 2.2–10.4 (median 8.6) months after delivery. At the interim analysis, nine diabetic events and 28 IFG/IGT events had occurred. Fifty-two women withdrew before completing the treatment phase. Because of the low diabetes rate, the study was terminated. Lifestyle adherence was similar in both groups. At 24 months, the cumulative probability of postpartum diabetes was 3% and 5% (hazard ratio: 1.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.15–7.36) and IFG/IGT was 43% and 22% (hazard ratio: 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.26–1.19) in the placebo and vildagliptin groups, respectively. Vildagliptin was well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events.

Conclusions

The study did not show significant superiority of vildagliptin over placebo in terms of reducing the risk of postpartum diabetes. However, treatment was safe and suggested some improvements in glycemic control, insulin resistance, and β-cell function. The study identified critical issues in performing clinical trials in the early postpartum period in women with GDM hampering efficacy assessments. With this knowledge, we have set a basis for which properly powered trials could be performed in women with recent GDM.

Trial registration number at ClinicalTrials.gov

NCT01018602.

•

Treatment with vildagliptin suggested positive effects on β-cell function and HbA1c.

•

Treatment with vildagliptin was safe.

•

Contraindication of vildagliptin during lactation led to exclusion of women with early postpartum diabetes.

•

Slow enrolment and high drop-out rates are major challenges in studies of women with GDM.

NRF2 activation by antioxidant antidiabetic agents accelerates tumor metastasis

Cancer is a common comorbidity of diabetic patients; however, little is known about the effects that antidiabetic drugs have on tumors. We discovered that common classes of drugs used in type 2 diabetes mellitus, the hypoglycemic dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) saxagliptin and sitagliptin, as well as the antineuropathic α-lipoic acid (ALA), do not increase tumor incidence but increase the risk of metastasis of existing tumors. Specifically, these drugs induce prolonged activation of the nuclear factor E2-related factor 2 (NRF2)-mediated antioxidant response through inhibition of KEAP1-C151-dependent ubiquitination and subsequent degradation of NRF2, resulting in up-regulated expression of metastasis-associated proteins, increased cancer cell migration, and promotion of metastasis in xenograft mouse models. Accordingly, knockdown of NRF2 attenuated naturally occurring and DPP-4i-induced tumor metastasis, whereas NRF2 activation accelerated metastasis. Furthermore, in human liver cancer tissue samples, increased NRF2 expression correlated with metastasis. Our findings suggest that antioxidants that activate NRF2 signaling may need to be administered with caution in cancer patients, such as diabetic patients with cancer. Moreover, NRF2 may be a potential biomarker and therapeutic target for tumor metastasis.

Cardiovascular effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor in diabetic patients with and without established cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We aim to conduct a meta-analysis, by stratifying diabetic patients with or without clinical cardiovascular diseases (CVD), to explore whether there are different cardiovascular effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) on these two different classes of diabetic patients.

METHODS

We searchedMedline,Embase, theCochrane Libraryand ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The included trials are divided into CVD (+) trials (subjects with established CVD), and CVD (-) trials (subjects with no CVD). We use all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as primary endpoints.

RESULTS

(1) Three CVD (+) trials were included and 36,895 subjects were enrolled with a mean follow-up duration of 127.1 weeks. The pooled results showed that DPP-4is treatment, compared with the placebo, did not significantly affect all-cause mortality (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.11), cardiovascular death (1.01, 0.91 to 1.12), myocardial infarction (0.98, 0.88 to 1.08) or stroke (1.02, 0.88 to 1.18) in diabetic patients with coexisting CVD history; however, it significantly increased the risk of heart failure (1.14, 1.01 to 1.27) in this population. 2) Thirty-five CVD (-) trials were included, and 29,600 patients were enrolled with a mean follow-up duration of 77.8 weeks. The analysis comparing DPP-4is with the placebo control showed that DPP-4is treatment did not significantly affect the risk of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients free of CVD history. However, when compared with the active control, the pooling data showed that DPP-4is had a significant reduction on the risk of stroke (0.58, 0.34 to 0.99) but did not significantly affect the risk of all-cause mortality and other cardiovascular outcomes.

CONCLUSION

DPP-4is may have no cardiovascular protective effects in diabetic patients with coexisting CVD, while there is a lack of definitive evidence supporting the cardiovascular benefits of DPP-4is treatment among diabetic patients free of CVD history.

Initial Combination of Empagliflozin and Metformin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy and safety of initial combinations of empagliflozin + metformin with empagliflozin and metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study randomized 1,364 drug-naïve patients (HbA1c >7.5 to ≤12% [>58 to ≤108 mmol/mol]) for 24 weeks to empagliflozin 12.5 mg b.i.d. + metformin 1,000 mg b.i.d., empagliflozin 12.5 mg b.i.d. + metformin 500 mg b.i.d., empagliflozin 5 mg b.i.d + metformin 1,000 mg b.i.d., empagliflozin 5 mg b.i.d. + metformin 500 mg b.i.d., empagliflozin 25 mg q.d., empagliflozin 10 mg q.d., metformin 1,000 mg b.i.d., or metformin 500 mg b.i.d. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24.

RESULTS

At week 24, reductions in HbA1c (mean baseline 8.6-8.9% [70-73 mmol/mol]) were -1.9 to -2.1% with empagliflozin + metformin twice-daily regimens, -1.4% with both empagliflozin once-daily regimens, and -1.2 to -1.8% with metformin twice-daily regimens. Reductions in HbA1c were significantly greater with empagliflozin + metformin twice-daily regimens than with empagliflozin once-daily regimens (P < 0.001) and with metformin twice-daily regimens (P < 0.01). Reductions in weight at week 24 were significantly greater with empagliflozin + metformin twice-daily regimens (range -2.8 to -3.8 kg) than with metformin twice-daily regimens (-0.5 to -1.3 kg) (P < 0.001 for all). Adverse event (AE) rates were similar across groups (56.7-66.3%). No hypoglycemic AEs required assistance.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial combinations of empagliflozin + metformin for 24 weeks significantly reduced HbA1c versus empagliflozin once daily and metformin twice daily, without increased hypoglycemia, reduced weight versus metformin twice daily, and were well tolerated.

Microvascular Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Vildagliptin vs. Sulfonylurea: A Retrospective Study Using German Electronic Medical Records

INTRODUCTION

Preliminary data suggest that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors may reduce microvascular events, but there is a little evidence to support this from adequate real-world studies. This study aimed to compare microvascular outcomes between patients-prescribed vildagliptin and those prescribed sulfonylurea (SU).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted on a large sample from the German electronic medical records database IMS Lifelink Disease Analyzer. We used propensity score-matched samples of patients prescribed either vildagliptin or SU. Exposure was defined as therapy (SU or vildagliptin); primary outcomes were a diagnosis of retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, or diabetic foot ulcer over the observation period in patients with no previous record of these outcomes. Secondary outcome was a composite of any primary outcome occurring in the observation period.

RESULTS

In total, 16,321 patients prescribed SU and 4481 prescribed vildagliptin met the inclusion criteria. After propensity score matching, each sample comprised 3015 patients. Mean age was 63.7/64.6 years for SU/vildagliptin, respectively, with mean disease duration of 3.2/3.1 years, and mean treatment duration of 2.5/2.3 years. Treatment with vildagliptin was associated with a significant lower incidence of retinopathy [odds ratio (OR) = 0.55, P = 0.0004], neuropathy (OR 0.71, P = 0.0001), and composite outcome (OR 0.70, P < 0.0001). Incidences of nephropathy and diabetic foot ulcer were lower for vildagliptin, but not significantly so (OR 0.90, P = 0.3920; OR 0.76, P = 0.0742, respectively). There were no significant differences in incident rate ratios (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with vildagliptin was associated with a reduced incidence of microvascular complications, especially neuropathy and retinopathy, compared to treatment with SU in this clinical practice setting.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma AG.

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.

A systematic review of the safety of incretin-based therapies in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that incretin-based therapies provide effective glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Long-term safety assessments are ongoing.

METHODS

This systematic review of incretin-based therapy safety is based on 112 randomized clinical trials of duration ≥26 weeks published between January 2000 and February 2015 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

As expected, hypoglycemia rates were lower with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) versus other oral antidiabetic drugs and insulin. The most common adverse events were infection and infestation (DPP-4is) and gastrointestinal (GLP-1 RAs). Pancreatitis cases were rare across all studies and, in the SAVOR-TIMI and EXAMINE trials, pancreatitis rates were similar in DPP-4i- and placebo-treated patients. No thyroid tumors were reported, and increased risk of cardiovascular events was not associated with DPP-4is in SAVOR-TIMI and EXAMINE, albeit over a short follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, incretin-based therapies were well tolerated; however, their long-term safety profile should continue to be periodically assessed.

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 tolerability of vildagliptin as first line treatment in patients with diabetes type 2 in an outpatient setting

Background

Inhibitors of dipeptidyl-peptidase IV are recommended as second-line therapy in type 2 diabetes (DT2), but data, as a first-line treatment in everyday clinical practice are scarce. To address this issue we conducted a 12-month, clinical study in an outpatient setting, using vildagliptin as the first-line treatment.

Methods

Ninety-one drug naïve patients with DT2 started with vildagliptin monotherapy (100 mg daily) for 4 months and were scheduled to regular 4-monthly visits for 1 year. Patients received add-on treatment with metformin or metformin and glimepiride according to their glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at each study-visit.

Results

HbA1c was significantly decreased with vildagliptin monotherapy from 8.16 % ± 1.60 to 7.52 % ± 1.60, p < 0.001. Only 39 % of the patients achieved the target of HbA1c ≤ 7.0 % at the end of the 4th month. Mean change in HbA1c was significantly correlated with baseline HbA1c values (r = −0.51, p < 0.001). At the end of the study only 35 % of the patients remained on vildagliptin monotherapy while the rest required add-on treatment with metformin or metformin and sulfonylurea.

Conclusions

Vildagliptin is well tolerated either as monotherapy or in combination but the majority of patients require add-on therapy shortly after the beginning of treatment.

Comparison of vildagliptin as an add-on therapy and sulfonylurea dose-increasing therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes using metformin and sulfonylurea (VISUAL study): A randomized trial

The aim of present study is to compare the efficacy and safety of adding vildagliptin with sulfonylurea dose-increasing as an active comparator in patients who had inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using metformin plus sulfonylurea in real clinical practice. Patients using metformin plus sulfonylurea were assigned to either vildagliptin add-on (50 mg twice a day, n=172) or sulfonylurea dose-increasing by 50% (n=172) treatment groups. The primary endpoint was a change in HbA(1c) after 24 weeks. The secondary endpoints were patients achieving HbA(1c)≤7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and changes in the fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h postprandial glucose (2pp), lipid profiles, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio. Body weight and hypoglycemia were also investigated. The mean HbA(1c) at baseline was 8.6% (70 mmol/mol) in both groups. At week 24, the adjusted mean HbA(1c) levels decreased by -1.19% (-13.09 mmol/mol) with vildagliptin add-on and -0.46% (-5.06 mmol/mol) with sulfonylurea (P<0.001). Significantly more vildagliptin add-on patients achieved HbA(1c)≤7.0% (53 mmol/mol) than did sulfonylurea patients (40.1% vs. 7.9%; P<0.001). Greater reductions in FPG and 2pp were observed with vildagliptin add-on than with sulfonylurea (P<0.001). The vildagliptin add-on group exhibited no clinically relevant weight gain and had a lower incidence of hypoglycemia compared with the sulfonylurea group. Vildagliptin add-on therapy might be a suitable option for patients with T2DM that is controlled inadequately by metformin and sulfonylurea, based on its greater glucose control and better safety profile (ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01099137).

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and cardiovascular outcomes: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with 55,141 participants

AIMS

The association between glucose lowering in diabetes mellitus and major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes is weak; indeed, some oral hypoglycemic agents are associated with increased CV events. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) are a new class of oral hypoglycemic agent that may have beneficial CV effects. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to appraise the CV safety and efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors.

METHODS

Comprehensive search for prospective trials involving DPP-4 inhibitors. Trials included reported at least one of the outcomes examined, recruited minimum 100 patients and minimum follow-up 24 weeks. The risk ratio (RR) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model for mortality and major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty trials enrolling 55,141 participants were included. Mean follow-up 45.3 weeks. DPP-4 inhibitors compared with all comparators (placebo and active) showed no difference in all-cause mortality (n = 50,982, RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.91-1.13, P = 0.83), CV mortality (n = 48,151, RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.85-1.11, P = 0.70), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n = 53,034 RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.87-1.08, P = 0.59), or stroke (n = 42,737, RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.81-1.18, P = 0.80), and a statistically significant increase in heart failure outcomes (n = 39,953, RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.01-1.33, P = 0.04).

DISCUSSION

Treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with placebo shows no increase in risk with regards to all-cause mortality, CV mortality, ACS, or stroke, but a statistically significant trend toward increased risk of HF outcomes.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest no cardiovascular harm (or benefit) with DPP-4 inhibitors; further large-scale CV outcome studies will resolve the issue of excess HF risk.

Study to determine the durability of glycaemic control with early treatment with a vildagliptin-metformin combination regimen vs. standard-of-care metformin monotherapy-the VERIFY trial: a randomized double-blind trial

AIMS

Durability of good glycaemic control (HbA1c ) is of importance as it can be the foundation for delaying diabetic complications. It has been hypothesized that early initiation of treatment with the combination of oral anti-diabetes agents with complementary mechanisms of action can increase the durability of glycaemic control compared with metformin monotherapy followed by a stepwise addition of oral agents. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are good candidates for early use as they are efficacious in combination with metformin, show weight neutrality and a low risk of hypoglycaemia. We aimed to test the hypothesis that early combined treatment of metformin and vildagliptin slows β-cell deterioration as measured by HbA1c .

METHODS

Approximately 2000 people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus who were drug-naive or who were treated with metformin for less than 1 month, and who have HbA1c of 48-58 mmol/mol (6.5-7.5%), will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio in VERIFY, a 5-year multinational, double-blind, parallel-group study designed to compare early initiation of a vildagliptin-metformin combination with standard-of-care initiation of metformin monotherapy, followed by the stepwise addition of vildagliptin when glycaemia deteriorates. Further deterioration will be treated with insulin. The primary analysis for treatment failure will be from a Cox proportional hazard regression model and the durability of glycaemic control will be evaluated by assessing treatment failure rate and the rate of loss in glycaemic control over time as co-primary endpoints.

SUMMARY

VERIFY is the first study to investigate the long-term clinical benefits of early combination treatment vs. the standard-of-care metformin monotherapy with a second agent added by threshold criteria.

Evidence-based practice use of incretin-based therapy in the natural history of diabetes

The incretin class of anti-hyperglycemic agents, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-inhibitors, is an important addition to the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of appropriate patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as an adjunct to diet and exercise and/or with the agents metformin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, or any combination thereof. More recently, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications for incretins were expanded to include use with basal insulin. This review article takes an evidence-based practice approach in discussing the importance of aggressive treatment for diabetes, the principles of incretin physiology and pathophysiology, use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and patient types and contexts where incretin therapy has been found beneficial, from metabolic syndrome to overt diabetes.

Glycaemic durability with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate glycaemic durability with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term randomised trials of DPP-4 inhibitors on haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was conducted. Electronic searches were carried out on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Knowledge to December 2013. Searches were supplemented by a review of trial registries and references from identified trials. Trials were included if they lasted at least 76 weeks, and had intermediate and final assessments of HbA1c. Citations and full-text articles were screened by two reviewers. A random effect model was used to pool data.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with type 2 diabetes.

INTERVENTIONS

Any DPP-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin and alogliptin).

OUTCOME MEASURES

The difference between final and intermediate HbA1c assessment was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

We screened 461 citations and reviewed 12 articles reporting 12 trials in 14 829 participants. All trials were of 76 weeks duration at least. The difference in HbA1c changes between final and intermediate points averaged 0.22% (95% CI 0.15% to 0.29%), with high heterogeneity (I(2)=91%, p<0.0001). Estimates of differences were not affected by the analysis of six extension trials (0.24%, 0.02 to 0.46), or five trials in which a DPP-4 inhibitor was added to metformin (0.24%, 0.16 to 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that the effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on HbA1c in type 2 diabetes significantly declines during the second year of treatment. Future research should focus on the characteristics of patients that benefit most from DPP-4 inhibitors in terms of glycaemic durability.

Use of Vildagliptin in Management of Type 2 Diabetes: Effectiveness, Treatment Persistence and Safety from the 2-Year Real-Life VILDA Study

INTRODUCTION

There is an increasing interest for real-life data on drug use in many countries. Reimbursement authorities more and more request observational studies to assess the conditions of use of the products but also to improve knowledge about efficacy and safety in the real world and on a longer term than in clinical trials.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness, treatment persistence and tolerability of vildagliptin in clinical practice.

METHODS

This observational, 2-year prospective cohort study was conducted in France on request of the Health Authorities [Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS)]. Type 2 diabetic mellitus (T2DM) patients initiating vildagliptin (including the fixed combination vildagliptin-metformin) or treated for <6 months were recruited through a national representative sample of general practitioners (GPs) (n = 482) and diabetologists (n = 84) between March 2010 and December 2011. At inclusion and each follow-up visit at ~ 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, a questionnaire was completed by the physician collecting information on socio-demographic, clinical and biological data, treatments and adverse events.

RESULTS

1,700 patients were included: 60% were males, aged 63 ± 11 years, with diabetes duration 7 ± 6 years and body mass index (BMI) 30 ± 6 kg/m(2). 45% were obese, 70% treated for hypertension and 66% for dyslipidemia. 64% of the patients received vildagliptin in dual therapy with metformin. 82% of patients completed the 2-year follow-up. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) decreased from a mean baseline of 7.8 ± 1.2% when vildagliptin was started, to 7.0 ± 1.1% at 6 months and remained stable thereafter over 2 years. Mean weight, glomerular filtration rate, liver enzymes, and lipid parameters were unchanged over the study period. Eight patients (0.5%), all concomitantly treated with insulin and/or sulphonylureas, reported one severe hypoglycemia and 47 (2.9%) patients reported 64 non-severe symptomatic hypoglycemia (59% occurred when patients were treated with insulin and/or sulphonylureas). At 6 months, 44.9% of vildagliptin-treated patients reached an HbA1c <7% without hypoglycemia and no weight gain, and this percentage increased to 49.7% at 24 months. Vildagliptin treatment maintenance at 2 years was 88.8% [95% CI (87.2%; 90.4%)], with 4% of patients discontinuing for adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In everyday conditions of care, vildagliptin efficacy was in line with existing data from randomized clinical trials, sustained over 2 years, with low discontinuation rate and low hypoglycemia risk.

Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with dual combination of metformin and sulphonylurea

AIM

The broadly used combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (SU) often fails to bring patients to glycaemic goal. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin plus glimepiride combination in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycaemic control.

METHODS

A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized patients to receive treatment with vildagliptin 50 mg bid (n = 158) or placebo (n = 160) for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

After 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -1.01% with vildagliptin (baseline 8.75%) and -0.25% with placebo (baseline 8.80%), with a between-treatment difference of -0.76% (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients on vildagliptin achieved the HbA1c target <7% (28.3% vs. 5.6%; p < 0.001). The difference in fasting plasma glucose reduction between vildagliptin and placebo was -1.13 mmol/l (p < 0.001). In subgroup of patients with baseline HbA1c ≤8%, vildagliptin reduced HbA1c by 0.74% from baseline 7.82% (between-treatment difference: -0.97%; p < 0.001) with significantly more patients achieving the HbA1c target <7% (38.6% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.014). Vildagliptin was well tolerated with low incidence of hypoglycaemia, slightly higher than with placebo (5.1% vs. 1.9%) and no clinically relevant weight gain.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin significantly improved glycaemic control in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin plus glimepiride combination. The addition of vildagliptin was well tolerated with low risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain. This makes vildagliptin an attractive treatment option for patients failing on metformin plus SU particularly in patients with baseline HbA1c ≤8%.

Baseline glycemic parameters predict the hemoglobin A1c response to DPP-4 inhibitors : meta-regression analysis of 78 randomized controlled trials with 20,053 patients

Ability to predict which patients might benefit more of therapy might facilitate personalization of treatment. The aim of this study was to obtain information about clinical characteristics which might predict the HbA1c response to DPP-4 inhibitors. We conducted an electronic search without restriction for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving DPP-4 inhibitors (vildagliptin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, and alogliptin). RCTs were included if they lasted at least 12 weeks, reported the effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on HbA1c level, and the number of patients in any arm was >30. We did a meta-regression analysis. Seventy-eight articles were eligible, with 79 arms and 20,503 patients. For all arms, the decrease of HbA1c was -0.74 % (95 % CI -0.80 to -0.67 %), with considerable heterogeneity (I (2) = 97 %, P < 0.0001): the greatest HbA1c decrease was seen at 52 weeks (8 arms, 3,338 patients, -0.88 %, 95 % CI -1.10 to -0.66 %). In univariate meta-regression analysis, baseline HbA1c explained 22 % of variance of the HbA1c response to treatment, while fasting glucose and type of DPP-4 inhibitor explained an additional 19 and 12 %, respectively; age, duration of treatment, previous therapy, and type of statistical analysis of RCTs were without influence. In the multivariate meta-regression model, baseline HbA1c, fasting glucose, and type of DPP-4 inhibitor explained 61 % of total variance. The HbA1c response to DPP-4 inhibitors can be modulated mainly by baseline HbA1c and fasting glucose levels: a greater absolute reduction of baseline HbA1c is seen in patients with higher baseline HbA1c and lower fasting glucose level.

Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in new-onset diabetes after kidney transplantation--a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

New-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) is a serious complication after kidney transplantation, but therapeutic strategies remain underexplored. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors selectively foster insulin secretion without inducing hypoglycemia, which might be advantageous in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with NODAT. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial to assess safety and efficacy of the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin. Intraindividual differences in oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)-derived 2-h plasma glucose (2HPG) from baseline to 3 months after treatment served as primary endpoint. Among secondary outcomes, we evaluated HbA1c, metabolic and safety parameters, as well as OGTTs at 1 month after drug discontinuation. Of 509 stable KTRs who were screened in our outpatient clinic, 63 (12.4%) had 2HPG ≥ 200 mg/dL, 33 of them were randomized and 32 completed the study. In the vildagliptin group 2HPG and HbA1c were profoundly reduced in comparison to placebo (vildagliptin: 2HPG = 182.7 mg/dL, HbA1c = 6.1%; placebo: 2HPG = 231.2 mg/dL, HbA1c = 6.5%; both p ≤ 0.05), and statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (vildagliptin: 2HPG-difference -73.7 ± 51.3 mg/dL; placebo: -5.7 ± 41.4 mg/dL; p < 0.01). Adverse events were generally mild and occurred at similar rates in both groups. In conclusion, DPP-4 inhibition in KTRs with overt NODAT was safe and efficient, providing a novel treatment alternative for this specific form of diabetes.

Metformin therapy and risk of cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes: systematic review

Aims/Hypothesis

Diabetes treatments were related with either an increased or reduced risk of cancer. There is ongoing debate about a potential protective action of metformin. To summarize evidence on the association between metformin and risk of cancer and cancer mortality in patients with diabetes.

Methods

Data source: MEDLINE and EMBASE (January 1966-April 2012). We selected randomized studies comparing metformin and other hypoglycaemic agents and observational studies exploring the association between exposure to metformin and cancer. Outcomes were cancer mortality, all malignancies and site-specific cancers.

Results

Of 25307 citations identified, 12 randomized controlled trials (21,595 patients) and 41 observational studies (1,029,389 patients) met the inclusion criteria. In observational studies there was a significant association of exposure to metformin with the risk of cancer death [6 studies, 24,410 patients, OR:0.65, 95%CI: 0.53-0.80], all malignancies [18 studies, 561,836 patients, OR:0.73, 95%CI: 0.61-0.88], liver [8 studies, 312,742 patients, OR:0.34; 95%CI: 0.19-0.60] colorectal [12 studies, 871,365 patients, OR:0.83, 95%CI: 0.74–0.92], pancreas [9 studies, 847,248 patients, OR:0.56, 95%CI: 0.36–0.86], stomach [2 studies, 100701 patients, OR:0.83, 95%CI: 0.76–0.91], and esophagus cancer [2 studies, 100694 patients, OR:0.90, 95%CI: 0.83–0.98]. No significant difference of risk was observed in randomized trials. Metformin was not associated with the risk of: breast cancer, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, uterus cancer, prostate cancer, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, and melanoma.

Conclusions/Interpretation

Results suggest that Metformin might be associated with a significant reduction in the risk of cancer and cancer-related mortality. Randomized trials specifically designed to evaluate the efficacy of metformin as an anticancer agent are warranted.

Extra-pancreatic effects of incretin-based therapies: potential benefit for cardiovascular-risk management in type 2 diabetes

Development of cardiovascular disease is one of the major complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The chronic hyperglycaemic state is often accompanied by dyslipidaemia, hypertension, low-grade systemic inflammation and oxidative stress which collectively result in a high risk of micro- and macrovascular complications. Current glucose-lowering agents do not sufficiently address fore-mentioned macrovascular-risk factors. Recently, new therapeutic agents were introduced, based on the incretin hormone glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), that is, the GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Beside its effect on pancreatic insulin secretion, GLP-1 exerts several extra-pancreatic effects such as slowing down gastric emptying, promoting satiety and reducing food intake and weight loss. Also, GLP-1 and GLP-1RA were shown to improve cardiovascular-risk profiles, by reducing body fat content, blood pressure, circulating lipids and inflammatory markers in patients with T2DM. This review summarizes the presently known evidence with regard to extra-pancreatic effects of the incretin-based agents, focusing on the actions that improve the cardiovascular-risk profile. We present available data from clinical trials of at least 24 week duration, but also findings from small-sized clinical 'proof of principle' studies. We conclude that GLP-1 RA and to a lesser extent DPP-4 inhibitors are promising agents with regard to their effects on body weight, blood pressure and lipids, which collectively ameliorate the cardiovascular-risk profile and as such may have added value in the treatment of T2DM. However, large-sized long-term outcome studies are warranted to show the true added value of these agents in the treatment of patients with T2DM.

Long-term effects of alogliptin benzoate in hemodialysis patients with diabetes: a 2-year study

AIM

To evaluate the long-term efficacy of monotherapy with the dipeptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin benzoate in hemodialysis (HD) patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Sixteen diabetic HD patients with inadequate glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level >6.5% and glycated albumin (GA) level >20%) on diet and exercise participated in the study. No patients were taking other oral antidiabetic drugs or receiving insulin therapy. Alogliptin 6.25 mg was administered to patients once daily. HbA1c, GA levels were obtained before and after 2 years of treatment. Body weight and active glucagon-like peptide-1, blood glucose, insulin, C-peptide immunoreactivity, glucagon, albumin, hemoglobin, and total cholesterol levels were also examined before and after treatment.

RESULTS

Both HbA1c and GA levels decreased after starting alogliptin administration. As compared to the pretreatment levels, HbA1c and GA levels significantly decreased at 3 and 18 months, respectively, after starting alogliptin administration. HbA1c and GA levels decreased from 7.1 ± 0.2 to 5.8 ± 1.6% and from 22.5 ± 0.7 to 19.6 ± 0.6%, respectively, 24 months after beginning treatment. Glucagon-like peptide-1 levels (8.9 ± 5.7 pmol/l before treatment) doubled after treatment. Body weight and blood glucose, insulin, C-peptide immunoreactivity, glucagon, albumin, hemoglobin, and total cholesterol levels did not change with treatment. Only one significant adverse effect, a drug-related rash, was seen in 1 patient.

CONCLUSION

Long-term (2-year) effects of alogliptin benzoate monotherapy suggest its efficacy as a new treatment strategy in diabetic HD patients.

Profile of vildagliptin in type 2 diabetes: efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability

Vildagliptin is a selective and potent dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor that improves glycemic control by inhibiting the degradation of both endogenous glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide. This article is a comprehensive review of the safety and efficacy of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Clinical evidence has proven that it effectively decreases hemoglobin A_1c with a low risk of hypoglycemia and is weight neutral. The addition of vildagliptin to metformin improves glucose control and significantly reduces gastrointestinal adverse events, particularly in patients inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy. Its long-term advantages include preservation of β-cell function, reduction in total cholesterol, decrease in fasting lipolysis in adipose tissue, and triglyceride storage in non-fat tissues. Vildagliptin is well tolerated with a low incidence of AEs, and it does not increase the risk of cardiovascular/cerebrovascular (CCV) events. It can be taken before or after meals, and has little drug interaction, thus it will be well accepted.

Efficacy of vildagliptin in combination with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of vildagliptin 50 mg once daily in patients with severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m²) and longstanding type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled with insulin therapy, which is a difficult-to-treat population, with limited therapeutic options and a high susceptibility to hypoglycemia.

Methods

This was a post hoc subanalysis of data obtained during a previously described randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week study comparing the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin 50 mg once daily versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate or severe renal impairment. The present data derive from 178 patients with severe renal impairment (baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate approximately 21 mL/min/1.73 m², 100 randomized to vildagliptin, 78 randomized to placebo), all of whom were receiving insulin therapy (alone or in combination with an oral antidiabetic agent) for longstanding type 2 diabetes (mean approximately 19 years).

Results

With vildagliptin in combination with insulin, the adjusted mean change (AMΔ) in HbA_1c from baseline (7.7% ± 0.1%) was −0.9% ± 0.4% and the between-treatment difference (vildagliptin – placebo) was −0.6% ± 0.2% (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients achieving endpoint HbA_1c < 7.0% was significantly higher with vildagliptin than placebo (45.2% versus 22.8%, P = 0.008). When added to insulin, vildagliptin and placebo had comparable hypoglycemic profiles and did not cause weight gain. Both treatments were similarly well tolerated, with comparable incidences of adverse events, serious adverse events, and deaths.

Conclusion

When added to insulin therapy in patients with severe renal impairment and longstanding type 2 diabetes, vildagliptin 50 mg once daily was efficacious, eliciting HbA_1c reductions consistent with those previously reported for a patient population with much more recent onset of type 2 diabetes and normal renal function, and had a hypoglycemic profile comparable with placebo. Accordingly, vildagliptin is a suitable treatment option for patients with advanced type 2 diabetes and impaired renal function who require insulin therapy and present a serious therapeutic challenge in clinical practice.

Longer term safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are oral antidiabetic agents that hold the potential of slowing the progress of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Their long-term safety is still a subject of debate. A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials was undertaken to comprehensively profile the safety of chronic treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus with DPP-4 inhibitors. We searched data sources including MEDLINE, CENTRAL, publishers' and manufacturers' databases. Eligible trials were double-blind, randomized, placebo or active-controlled trials with ≥18 weeks duration in patients with type 2 diabetes reporting safety outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed separately for trials in which the control group received placebo (44 studies), another gliptin (3 studies) and any other antidiabetic drug (20 studies). Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were computed using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model for general safety outcomes, hypoglycaemia and adverse events by system organ class. Of 307 publications retrieved, 67 randomized, controlled trials met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review (4 alogliptin, 8 linagliptin, 8 saxagliptin, 20 sitagliptin, and 27 vildagliptin trials). Adverse events with gliptin treatment were at placebo level (relative risk (RR) 1.02 [0.99, 1.04]). No increased risk of infections was detectable (RR 0.98 [0.93, 1.05] compared to placebo and 1.02 [0.97, 1.07] compared to other antidiabetic drugs). Asthenia (RR 1.57 [1.09, 2.27]) as well as cardiac (RR 1.37 [1.00, 1.89]) and vascular disorders (RR 1.74 [1.05, 2.86] for linagliptin) emerged as adverse events associated with DPP-4 inhibitor treatment. The risk of hypoglycaemia was low with DPP-4 inhibitor treatment (RR 0.92 [0.74, 1.15] compared to placebo, RR 0.20 [0.17, 0.24] compared to sulphonylureas) in the absence of sulphonylurea or insulin co-therapy, but significantly elevated for combination therapy of sulphonylurea or insulin with sitagliptin or linagliptin (RR 1.86 [1.46, 2.37] compared to placebo). A large body of data supports the long-term safety of gliptin treatment and refutes an increased risk of infections. Further research is needed to clarify a possible link to asthenia, cardiac and vascular events. For combination therapy with insulin or insulin secretagogues, a careful choice of the agent used may limit the risk of hypoglycaemia.

Evidence to support the use of vildagliptin monotherapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

The efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, as monotherapy have been widely confirmed in a large body of clinical studies of up to 2 years’ duration in various populations with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This paper reviews the data supporting the use of vildagliptin in monotherapy. Consideration based on baseline glycated hemoglobin levels and age is given to patient segments where metformin is not appropriate. In addition, although prediabetes is not an indication, this manuscript briefly reviews some of the existing data showing that the mechanisms at work in diabetic populations are active in patients currently classified as prediabetic, with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose. Finally, the rationale for vildagliptin dosing frequency in monotherapy is discussed. In summary, this review aims to define where in community practice the use of vildagliptin as monotherapy is most desirable, focusing on segments of the population with type 2 diabetes mellitus that might receive the greatest benefit from vildagliptin in the management of their disease.

The design of the liraglutide clinical trial programme

Liraglutide is a once-daily human glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). It has been prospectively investigated in a series of multinational, randomised, controlled phase 3 trials (the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes programme), as well as in an additional direct head-to-head study with sitagliptin. These trials were designed to clarify the use and safety of liraglutide in clinical practice across the treatment continuum of T2D, and consequently involved a large number and diverse range of patients. These studies also included active comparisons against antidiabetic agents including metformin, rosiglitazone, glimepiride, insulin glargine, exenatide and sitagliptin, and therefore have helped to examine clinical differences and similarities between liraglutide and these commonly used agents.

Alogliptin benzoate for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Alogliptin is a highly selective inhibitor of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4). It is one of several agents of this class now available for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

AREAS COVERED

This review is based upon a PubMed search and personal experience with alogliptin. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of alogliptin are reviewed. The glucose-lowering effect of this agent is discussed as monotherapy and in combination with metformin, sulfonylurea, piogilitazone and insulin. The potential adverse effects of alogliptin are summarized. Alogliptin is compared with the other available DPP-4 inhibitors.

EXPERT OPINION

Alogliptin is an additional choice in the group of DPP-4 inhibitors. As a group, these agents have a relatively modest glucose-lowering effect, inferior to that of metformin, sulfonylureas, and insulin. They do not have the benefit of weight loss offered by the glucagon-like polypeptide (GLP)-1 agonists. The primary use of DPP-4 inhibitors is in combination with other hypoglycemic agents, mainly metformin. Their principal advantage is a low incidence of hypoglycemia, making these agents desirable in patients such as the elderly and those with cardiac disease. A greater use of alogliptin and other DPP-4 inhibitors will occur if long-term studies show reduced cardiac events or long-term retention of insulin secretory capacity. The Examine Trial, a large study of alogliptin in coronary disease patients, is now underway and could provide important supportive data.

The efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a relatively new class of drugs for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Vildagliptin is an oral DPP-4 inhibitor approved in more than 70 countries. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to provide an update on the clinical efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

A literature search identified 30 randomized controlled trials comparing vildagliptin with comparators (placebo or other hypoglycaemic agents). Meta-analyses were conducted for HbA1c, weight, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), hypoglycaemia and other adverse events. The outcomes of HbA1c, weight and FPG were analysed as weighted mean differences (WMD), and the number of ADRs events as relative risks (RR).

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, vildagliptin lowered HbA1c {WMD, -0·77% [95% confidence interval (CI), -0·96% to -0·58%] for 100 mg/day of vildagliptin and -0·58% [95% CI, -0·72% to -0·44%] for 50 mg/day of vildagliptin}. The effect was non-inferior to thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas and α-glycosidase inhibitors, but inferior to metformin. Compared with placebo, treatment with 50 mg/day of vildagliptin caused neutral weight changes, while 100 mg/day of vildagliptin resulted in slight weight gain [0·95 kg (95% CI, 0·73-1·17 kg)]. In addition, compared to comparators, vildagliptin was not associated with an increase in overall risk for any adverse events [RR, 0·97 (95% CI, 0·94-0·99)]. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was low with vildagliptin, and the risk with vildagliptin was not significantly different from the comparators [0·85 (95% CI, 0·49-1·47)]. The use of vildagliptin did not display any increased risks of infection [1·03 (95% CI, 0·94-1·13) for nasopharyngitis and 1·07 (95% CI, 0·90-1·27) for upper respiratory tract infection].

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Vildagliptin is effective in glycaemic control with a low risk of hypoglycaemia and other adverse reactions. This may have an important impact on patient adherence to this medication.

DPP-4 inhibitors in the management of type 2 diabetes: a critical review of head-to-head trials

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors offer new options for the management of type 2 diabetes. Direct comparisons with active glucose-lowering comparators in drug-naive patients have demonstrated that DPP-4 inhibitors exert slightly less pronounced HbA(1c) reduction than metformin (with the advantage of better gastrointestinal tolerability) and similar glucose-lowering effects as with a thiazolidinedione (TZD; with the advantage of no weight gain). In metformin-treated patients, gliptins were associated with similar HbA(1c) reductions compared with a sulphonylurea (SU; with the advantage of no weight gain, considerably fewer hypoglycaemic episodes and no need for titration) and a TZD (with the advantage of no weight gain and better overall tolerability). DPP-4 inhibitors also exert clinically relevant glucose-lowering effects compared with a placebo in patients treated with SU or TZD (of potential interest when metformin is either not tolerated or contraindicated), and as oral triple therapy with a good tolerability profile when added to a metformin-SU or pioglitazone-SU combination. Several clinical trials also showed a consistent reduction in HbA(1c) when DPP-4 inhibitors were added to basal insulin therapy, with no increased risk of hypoglycaemia. Because of the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes and the complementary actions of glucose-lowering agents, initial combination of a DPP-4 inhibitor with either metformin or a glitazone may be applied in drug-naive patients, resulting in greater efficacy and similar safety compared with either drug as monotherapy. However, DPP-4 inhibitors were less effective than GLP-1 receptor agonists for reducing HbA(1c) and body weight, but offer the advantage of being easier to use (oral instead of injected administration) and lower in cost. Only one head-to-head trial demonstrated the non-inferiority of saxagliptin vs sitagliptin. Clearly, more trials of direct comparisons between different incretin-based therapies are needed. Because of their pharmacokinetic characteristics, pharmacodynamic properties (glucose-dependent glucose-lowering effect) and good overall tolerability profile, DPP-4 inhibitors may have a key role to play in patients with renal impairment and in the elderly. The role of DPP-4 inhibitors in the therapeutic armamentarium of type 2 diabetes is rapidly evolving as their potential strengths and weaknesses become better defined mainly through controlled clinical trials.

Tolerability of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: a review

BACKGROUND

Oral glucose-lowering agents are used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Most patients require multiple agents to maintain glycemic targets. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are administered as monotherapy and in combination therapy for the treatment of T2DM.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article was to provide a thorough review of published tolerability data on 5 DPP-4 inhibitors.

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science were searched for English-language clinical trials published from January 2000 to June 2001, using the following key words: dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, alogliptin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, safety, tolerability, efficacy, effect, AE, and adverse effect. Studies were considered for inclusion if they were randomized, double-blind trials performed in patients ≥18 years of age with T2DM and with a hemoglobin A(1c) of ≥6.5%; included ≥1 arm that received monotherapy with DPP-4; and reported adverse events (AEs). Studies in patients with a history of type 1 or secondary forms of diabetes, significant diabetic complications or cardiovascular disease within the 6 months before the start of the study, hepatic disease or abnormalities, and/or renal abnormalities were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 45 clinical trials, 5 pharmacokinetic studies, and 28 meta-analyses or reviews were included. The duration of studies ranged from 7 days to 104 weeks. The most commonly reported AEs were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory infections, all-cause infections, headache, gastrointestinal symptoms, and musculoskeletal pain. Based on the findings from the studies, the DPP-4 inhibitors had minimal impact on weight and were not associated with an increased risk for hypoglycemia relative to placebo. Rates of nasopharyngitis were higher with the DDP-4 inhibitors than with placebo. Pancreatitis was reported at lower rates with the DPP-4 inhibitors compared with other oral antihyperglycemic agents. Cardiovascular events were limited, and postmarketing studies are ongoing.

CONCLUSIONS

The tolerability of DPP-4 inhibitors is supported by published clinical trials. The rates of weight gain, gastrointestinal AEs, and hypoglycemia were minimal with the DPP-4 inhibitors studied.

Choosing a gliptin

The treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has included the use of metformin and sulfonylurea (SU) as first-line anti-diabetic therapies world over since years. This remains, despite the knowledge that the combination results in a progressive decline in [beta]-cell function and by 3 years up to 50% of diabetic patients can require an additional pharmacological agent to maintain the glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% (UKPDS). Gliptins represent a novel class of agents that improve beta cell health and suppress glucagon, resulting in improved post-prandial and fasting hyperglycemia. They function by augmenting the incretin system (GLP-1 and GIP) preventing their metabolism by dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4). Not only are they efficacious but also safe (weight neutral) and do not cause significant hypoglycemia, making it a unique class of drugs. This review focuses on gliptins (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, and alogliptin) discussing pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety.

Minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia with vildagliptin: Clinical experience, mechanistic basis, and importance in type 2 diabetes management

Even if the true incidence of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains difficult to estimate, with highly variable rates reported in the literature, it is likely more common than previously thought. While most hypoglycemic episodes in T2DM are considered "mild," they still have a substantial clinical impact. Severe hypoglycemia also exists in T2DM, with recent landmark studies prompting much debate about the potential role of severe hypoglycemia in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, even though there is currently no definitive evidence for causality. The challenge in the treatment of T2DM remains the achievement of optimal glycemic control to lower the risk for long-term complications while avoiding hypoglycemia. Successful treatment strategies should therefore include careful selection of therapies to prevent hypoglycemia, starting early in the disease management process, in order to best preserve counterregulation. The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, is a good treatment option to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia over time, while maintaining good glucose control. Extensive clinical experience is available for vildagliptin, with data published for all stages of the condition and with the low hypoglycemic potential stemming from a solid mechanistic basis.

Vildagliptin: a review of its use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Vildagliptin (Galvus®, Jalra®, Xiliarx®) is an orally administered dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily is indicated for use in combination with metformin or a thiazolidinedione, and vildagliptin 50 mg once daily is indicated for use in combination with a sulfonylurea. A fixed-dose combination of vildagliptin/metformin (Eucreas®, Icandra®, Zomarist®) is also available. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as summarizing its pharmacological properties. The efficacy of monotherapy or combination therapy with oral vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes has been examined in randomized, double-blind, multicentre trials. Monotherapy with vildagliptin 50 mg once or twice daily reduced glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline to a significantly greater extent than placebo, according to the results of 12- to 52-week trials in patients with type 2 diabetes. In terms of the reduction from baseline in HbA(1c) seen in active comparator trials of 12-104 weeks' duration, the noninferiority of vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily was established versus acarbose or rosiglitazone, the noninferiority of vildagliptin 100 mg once daily (an off-label dosage) versus metformin was established in elderly patients and vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily was more effective than voglibose; however, the noninferiority of vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily versus metformin or gliclazide was not established in two other trials. Combination therapy with vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily plus metformin improved HbA(1c) to a significantly greater extent than monotherapy with metformin and/or vildagliptin alone in patients with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy or who were treatment naive, according to the results of 12- or 24-week trials. In addition, vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily plus metformin demonstrated noninferiority to pioglitazone plus metformin, glimepiride plus metformin or gliclazide plus metformin in terms of the change from baseline in HbA(1c) after 24 or 52 weeks' therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. The addition of vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily to pioglitazone or vildagliptin 50 mg once daily to glimepiride improved HbA(1c) to a significantly greater extent than a thiazolidinedione or glimepiride alone in patients with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled, according to the results of 24-week trials. Oral vildagliptin 50 mg once or twice daily was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes. In particular, vildagliptin was associated with a low risk of hypoglycaemia and was weight neutral. Increases in transaminase levels were sometimes observed with a vildagliptin dosage of 100 mg once daily in clinical trials, and liver function should be monitored in patients receiving vildagliptin. However, meta-analyses of clinical trial data suggested that vildagliptin 50 mg once or twice daily was not associated with an increased risk of hepatic adverse events, transaminase elevations ≥3 × the upper limit of normal, pancreatitis, cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, infections or skin-related toxicity. In conclusion, vildagliptin is an important option for use in combination with metformin, a sulfonylurea or a thiazolidinedione in patients with type 2 diabetes who require combination therapy.

Safety and efficacy of saxagliptin in combination with submaximal sulphonylurea versus up-titrated sulphonylurea over 76 weeks

To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on sulphonylurea monotherapy, 768 patients were randomised to saxagliptin 2.5 or 5 mg in combination with glyburide 7.5 mg versus placebo added to up-titrated glyburide over 76 weeks (24 weeks plus 52-week extension) in this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial; 557 patients completed the study, 142 without being rescued. At 76 weeks, adjusted mean changes from baseline HbA(1C) (repeated measures model) (95% confidence interval) for saxagliptin 2.5 mg, saxagliptin 5 mg, and up-titrated glyburide were 0.11% (-0.05, 0.27), 0.03% (-0.14, 0.19), and 0.69% (0.47, 0.92), respectively (post hoc and nominal p < 0.0001 for saxagliptin 2.5 and 5 mg vs. up-titrated glyburide). Adverse event frequency was similar in all treatment groups; reported hypoglycaemia event rates were 24.2%, 22.9%, and 20.6% with saxagliptin 2.5 mg, saxagliptin 5 mg, and up-titrated glyburide, respectively. Saxagliptin plus glyburide provided sustained incremental efficacy compared with up-titrated glyburide over 76 weeks, and was generally well tolerated.

Assessing the general safety and tolerability of vildagliptin: value of pooled analyses from a large safety database versus evaluation of individual studies

Aim:

Analyzing safety aspects of a drug from individual studies can lead to difficult-to-interpret results. The aim of this paper is therefore to assess the general safety and tolerability, including incidences of the most common adverse events (AEs), of vildagliptin based on a large pooled database of Phase II and III clinical trials.

Methods:

Safety data were pooled from 38 studies of ≥12 to ≥104 weeks’ duration. AE profiles of vildagliptin (50 mg bid; N = 6116) were evaluated relative to a pool of comparators (placebo and active comparators; N = 6210). Absolute incidence rates were calculated for all AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuations due to AEs, and deaths.

Results:

Overall AEs, SAEs, discontinuations due to AEs, and deaths were all reported with a similar frequency in patients receiving vildagliptin (69.1%, 8.9%, 5.7%, and 0.4%, respectively) and patients receiving comparators (69.0%, 9.0%, 6.4%, and 0.4%, respectively), whereas drug-related AEs were seen with a lower frequency in vildagliptin-treated patients (15.7% vs 21.7% with comparators). The incidences of the most commonly reported specific AEs were also similar between vildagliptin and comparators, except for increased incidences of hypoglycemia, tremor, and hyperhidrosis in the comparator group related to the use of sulfonylureas.

Conclusions:

The present pooled analysis shows that vildagliptin was overall well tolerated in clinical trials of up to >2 years in duration. The data further emphasize the value of a pooled analysis from a large safety database versus assessing safety and tolerability from individual studies.

Pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes: the potential of incretin-based therapies

Management guidelines recommend metformin as the first-line therapy for most patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled by diet and exercise. Efficacy with metformin therapy is usually of limited duration, which necessitates the early introduction of one or two additional oral agents or the initiation of injections, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists or insulin. Although safe and effective, metformin monotherapy has been associated with gastrointestinal side effects (≈20% of treated patients in randomized studies) and is contraindicated in patients with renal insufficiency or severe liver disease. Patients treated with a sulphonylurea are at increased risk for hypoglycaemia and moderate weight gain, whereas those receiving a thiazolidinedione are subject to an increased risk of weight gain, oedema, heart failure or fracture. Weight gain and hypoglycaemia are associated with insulin use. Thus, there is an unmet need for a safe and efficacious add-on agent after initial-therapy failure. Evidence suggests that incretin-based agents, such as GLP-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, can successfully achieve glycaemic targets and potentially provide cardiovascular and β-cell-function benefits. This review will examine current approaches for treating type 2 diabetes and discuss the place of incretin therapies, mainly GLP-1 agonists, in the type 2 diabetes treatment spectrum.