Finding the most cost-effective option from commonly used Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in India: a systematic study

Bone effects of metformin monotherapy and its combination with teneligliptin: A 12-week follow-up study in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

The skeletal effects of metformin monotherapy and in combination with teneligliptin are not well illustrated in patients with T2DM. To address this, we conducted an observational study to evaluate the effect of these oral hypoglycemic agents on bone turnover markers.

METHODS

We recruited patients with T2DM and first-ever prescribed metformin monotherapy or metformin combined with teneligliptin from a tertiary care teaching hospital in New Delhi, North India. Both bone formation and resorption markers, IL-6 and PTD, were estimated along with glycated hemoglobin at baseline and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

In both groups, hbA1c levels decreased significantly from baseline to 12 weeks. In the metformin-treated group, β-CTX, sRANKL, IL-6, and PTD decreased significantly, and no significant changes were observed in P1NP, OC, BAP, or OPG at 12 weeks from baseline. In the metformin + teneligliptin group, BAP, β-CTX, sRANKL, IL-6, and PTD decreased significantly, and no significant changes were observed in P1NP, OC, or OPG after 12 weeks from baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

The positive bone outcome of metformin or teneligliptin was linked to bone resorption rather than bone formation and was independent of changes in HbA1c or PTD. However, these results must be confirmed with well-designed RCTs with more extended follow-up periods.

Teneligliptin mitigates diabetic cardiomyopathy by inhibiting activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome

BACKGROUND

Diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM), which is a complication of diabetes, poses a great threat to public health. Recent studies have confirmed the role of NLRP3 (NOD-like receptor protein 3) activation in DCM development through the inflammatory response. Teneligliptin is an oral hypoglycemic dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitor used to treat diabetes. Teneligliptin has recently been reported to have anti-inflammatory and protective effects on myocardial cells.

AIM

To examine the therapeutic effects of teneligliptin on DCM in diabetic mice.

METHODS

Streptozotocin was administered to induce diabetes in mice, followed by treatment with 30 mg/kg teneligliptin.

RESULTS

Marked increases in cardiomyocyte area and cardiac hypertrophy indicator heart weight/tibia length reductions in fractional shortening, ejection fraction, and heart rate; increases in creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB), aspartate transaminase (AST), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels; and upregulated NADPH oxidase 4 were observed in diabetic mice, all of which were significantly reversed by teneligliptin. Moreover, NLRP3 inflammasome activation and increased release of interleukin-1β in diabetic mice were inhibited by teneligliptin. Primary mouse cardiomyocytes were treated with high glucose (30 mmol/L) with or without teneligliptin (2.5 or 5 µM) for 24 h. NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Increases in CK-MB, AST, and LDH levels in glucose-stimulated cardiomyocytes were markedly inhibited by teneligliptin, and AMP (p-adenosine 5'-monophosphate)-p-AMPK (activated protein kinase) levels were increased. Furthermore, the beneficial effects of teneligliptin on hyperglycaemia-induced cardiomyocytes were abolished by the AMPK signaling inhibitor compound C.

CONCLUSION

Overall, teneligliptin mitigated DCM by mitigating activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome.

Comparison of teneligliptin and other gliptin-based regimens in addressing insulin resistance and glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of teneligliptin-based regimens and other gliptin-based regimens with respect to insulin resistance and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We enrolled T2DM subjects, inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride and taking one of the gliptins, and divided them into two groups, i.e. group 1 (teneligliptin-based regimens) and group 2 (other gliptin-based regimens). Fasting plasma insulin, adiponectin levels, homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and fasting blood glucose (FBG) were measured and compared. Costs of different gliptins were noted, and mean cost of per day therapy was compared.

RESULTS

Eighty-six subjects participated in this study (43 each in group 1 and group 2). No significant differences were observed in FBG, HbA1c, insulin levels, and HOMA-IR, but the trend was in favor of teneligliptin-based regimens. A significantly higher number of subjects achieved HbA1c target in group 1 (P < 0.001). Teneligliptin had significantly lower cost of per day therapy as compared to other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Teneligliptin seems to be cost-effective and safer option in T2DM subjects who were not adequately controlled with metformin and sulfonylureas. However, further prospective studies are needed.