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

Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

As a popular antidiabetic drug, teneligliptin has been used for over 10 years, but its efficacy and safety have rarely been systematically evaluated. Therefore, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing teneligliptin with placebo or active comparators in T2DM patients for at least 12 weeks were included in the study. Data analysis was performed using R 4.2.3 and Stata 17.0 software. Each outcome was presented as a mean difference (MD) or an odds ratio (OR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value (SUCRA).

Results

A total of 18 RCTs with 3,290 participants with T2DM were included in this study. Generally, compared to placebo, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, and bromocriptine, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.78 [-0.86 to -0.70], -0.08 [-0.36 to 0.19], -0.04 [-0.72 to 0.60], -0.12 [-0.65 to 0.42], and -0.50 [-0.74 to -0.26], respectively) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (MD [95% CI], -18.02 [-20.64 to -15.13], 1.17 [-9.39 to 11.70], -8.06 [-30.95 to 14.35], -2.75 [-18.89 to 13.01], and -34.23 [-45.93 to -22.96], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin also showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.84 [-1.03 to -0.65], -0.15 [-0.49 to 0.19], -0.10 [-0.81 to 0.57], -0.18 [-0.76 to 0.39], and -0.56 [-0.88 to -0.26], respectively) and FPG (MD [95% CI], -20.40 [-26.07 to -14.57], -1.20 [-13.21 to 10.38], -10.43 [-34.16 to 12.65], -5.13 [-22.21 to 11.66], and -36.61 [-49.33 to -24.01], respectively). Compared to placebo, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidences of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal adverse events (OR [95% CI], 1.30 [0.70 to 2.19] and 1.48 [0.78 to 2.98], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia (OR [95% CI], 2.63 [0.46 to 8.10]). Generally, antidiabetic effect and hypoglycemia risk of teneligliptin gradually increased as its dose increased from 5 mg to 40 mg. Compared to 20 mg of teneligliptin, 40 mg of teneligliptin showed superior efficacy and no-inferior safety, which was considered as the best option in reducing HbA1c, FPG, and 2h PPG and increasing proportion of the patients achieving HbA1c < 7% (SUCRA, 85.51%, 84.24%, 79.06%, and 85.81%, respectively) among all the included interventions.

Conclusion

Compared to sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, bromocriptine, and placebo, teneligliptin displayed favorable efficacy and acceptable safety in treating T2DM. Twenty milligrams or 40 mg per day was the optimal dosage regimen of teneligliptin. The results of this study will provide important evidence-based basis for rational use of teneligliptin and clinical decision-making of T2DM medication.

Switching from Insulin Degludec plus Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor to Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide Improves Glycemic Variability in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Preliminary Prospective Observation Study

Incretins reduce glycemic variability (GV) in patients with type 2 diabetes, but it is unknown whether switching from a combination of basal insulin and a DPP-4 inhibitor to insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) improves GV. We performed an exploratory prospective observational study to compare the effect of IDegLira and the combination on GV. We recruited hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes who had stable glycemic control with insulin degludec (≤16 units/day) and taking a DPP-4 inhibitor. GV was analyzed using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) before and after switching the medication to IDegLira. The principal endpoint was the change in mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE). Other indices of GV and CGM parameters were analyzed as the secondary endpoints. Fifteen participants were enrolled and 12 completed the study. In these participants, the DPP-4 inhibitor and insulin degludec were discontinued, and the equivalent dose of IDegLira was commenced. Switching to IDegLira significantly improved MAGE from 74.9 (60.3, 97.7) mg/dL to 64.8 (52.0, 78.2) mg/dL (P < 0.05), as well as other indices of GV and 24-hour mean blood glucose concentration. Analysis of the ambulatory glucose profile showed marked reductions in postprandial glucose concentration. Nocturnal glucose concentration was similar under the two treatment regimens. IDegLira improved GV as well as the mean and the postprandial glucose concentration by switching from insulin degludec plus DPP-4 inhibitor combination. IDegLira might be beneficial for patients being treated with low-dose basal insulin.

Side Effects Associated with Liraglutide Treatment for Obesity as Well as Diabetes

Liraglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used as a treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus, which has been expanded for use at a higher dose in weight control. Therefore, it is necessary to consider adverse reactions of the drug at high doses as well as at lower doses after the indication has been expanded. Body mass index criteria for patients prescribed the drug in the real world tend to be applied less rigorously, which may increase the number of adverse reactions due to over-prescription. Liraglutide treatment was found effective and safe in some studies, while others have warned about its risks. Therefore, this review summarizes the current data available on side effects associated with liraglutide.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Alogliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) alogliptin is an oral, antidiabetic treatment that is approved in many countries to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), including the USA, Europe, and Japan. Alogliptin is efficacious both as monotherapy and as add-on/combination therapy with other commonly prescribed T2DM treatments, such as metformin and pioglitazone. Overall, alogliptin is well-tolerated in patients with T2DM, including older patients, those with renal and/or hepatic impairment, and those at high risk of cardiovascular events. There is a low risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, acute pancreatitis, and gastrointestinal adverse events with alogliptin treatment, as demonstrated in long-term trials (lasting up to 4.5 years) and in a real-world setting. Additionally, alogliptin has a generally favorable or similar safety profile in comparison to other antidiabetic agents (metformin, thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, and insulin). However, further evaluation would be required to determine the mechanism and effect of alogliptin on heart failure, bullous pemphigoid, and inflammatory bowel disease. Of note, due to the ethnic diversity in the epidemiology of T2DM, alogliptin has been shown to be more efficacious in Asian patients than in non-Asian patients with T2DM, but with a similar tolerability profile. These data indicate that DPP-4is, including alogliptin, are important treatment options, especially for Asian patients with T2DM, for whom they have potential as a first-line therapy. This benefit-risk assessment aims to place alogliptin within the current armamentarium of T2DM and aid physicians when choosing optimal diabetes treatment for their patients.

DPP-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a methodology overview of systematic reviews

AIMS

To evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs), and summarize evidence of important outcomes from dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-I) in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We included SRs of DPP4-I for the treatment of T2DM until January, 2018 by searching the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and three Chinese databases. We evaluated the methodological qualities with the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool and the GRADE (The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

Sixty-three SRs (a total of 2,603,140 participants) receiving DPP4-I for the treatment of T2DM were included. The results of AMSTAR showed that the lowest quality was "a list of studies (included and excluded) item" with only one (1.6%) study provided, followed by the "providing a priori design" item with only four (6.3%) studies conforming to this item, the next were "the status of publication (gray literature) used as an inclusion criterion item", with only 18 (28.9%) studies conforming to these items. Only seven (11.1%) studies scored more than nine points in AMSTAR, indicating high methodological quality. For GRADE, of the 128 outcomes, high quality evidence was provided in only 28 (21.9%), moderate in 70 (54.7%), low in 27 (21.1%), and very low in three (2.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality of SRs of DPP4-I for type 2 diabetes mellitus is not high and there are common areas for improvement. Furthermore, the quality of evidence level is moderate and more high quality evidence is needed.