Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and the Risk of Acute Pancreatitis in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Taiwan: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes: An update and future directions

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a widely prevalent disease with substantial economic and social impact for which multiple conventional and novel pharmacotherapies are currently available; however, the landscape of T2D treatment is constantly changing as new therapies emerge and the understanding of currently available agents deepens. This review aims to provide an updated summary of the pharmacotherapeutic approach to T2D. Each class of agents is presented by mechanism of action, details of administration, side effect profile, cost, and use in certain populations including heart failure, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and older individuals. We also review targets of novel therapeutic T2D agent development. Finally, we outline an up-to-date treatment approach that starts with identification of an individualized goal for glycemic control then selection, initiation, and further intensification of a personalized therapeutic plan for T2D.

Pancreatic safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes millitus: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitor (DPP-4i) is a common hypoglycemic medication in treating type 2 diabetes millitus. It has become widely utilized in clinical practice due to its ability to effectively manage blood glucose while posing a low risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. However, there is no consensus on DPP-4i's pancreatic safety due to a paucity of clinical evidence. The safe event appears to be easily overlooked. This review aims to evaluate the pancreatic safety of DPP-4i in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using the standard pairwise and network meta-analysis methods.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be used to search for published literature on the pancreatic safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes millitus, and clinical trial registries will be used to look for unpublished trials. Two independent reviewers will screen literature for eligibility, extract available data, and assess the risk of bias. All divergences will be resolved after rechecking the source papers and further discussion among the reviewers with a complete consensus before inclusion. The risk of bias will be assessed by the Cochrane bias risk tool, and the quality of evidence will be interpreted by the GRADE Working Group approach. We will use STATA16.0 and WinBUGS1.4.3 for paired meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This study will evaluate the pancreatic safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes millitus.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis will evaluate the pancreatic safety of DPP-4i in patients with type 2 diabetes millitus. The findings of this study may supplement the evidence-based information on DPP-4i, improve existing understanding of this issue, and assist patients and clinicians in making better treatment decisions by raising their awareness of the problem.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY202230014.

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) have been available for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus since 2006. Although they are a diverse group, DPP4i are all small, orally available molecules that interact with the catalytic site of DPP4 without disturbing any of its other known functions, including its effects on the immune system. DPP4i have no intrinsic glucose-lowering activity, so their efficacy as anti-diabetic agents is related directly to their ability to inhibit DPP4 activity and is mediated through the effects of the substrates they protect. Of these, the incretin hormone, glucagon-like peptide 1, is probably the most important. As the effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 are glucose-dependent, the risk of hypoglycaemia with DPP4i is low. Class effects, which are directly related to the mechanism of action, are common to all DPP4i; these include their overall good safety profile and tolerability, as well as their efficacy in improving glycaemic control, but also, potentially, a small increased risk of acute pancreatitis. Compound-specific effects are those related to their differing chemistries and/or pharmacokinetic profiles. These compound-specific effects could affect the way in which individual DPP4i are used therapeutically and potentially explain off-target adverse effects, such as hospitalization for heart failure, which is seen only with one DPP4i. Overall, DPP4i have a favourable therapeutic profile and are safe and effective in the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to other oral glucose-lowering medications in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is), which belong to the class of incretin-based medications, are recommended as second or third-line therapies in guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. They have a favorable drug tolerability and safety profile compared to other glucose-lowering agents.

OBJECTIVE

This review discusses data concerning the use of DPP-4is and their cardiovascular profile, and gives an updated comparison with the other oral glucose-lowering medications with regards to safety and efficacy. Currently available original studies, abstracts, reviews articles, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the review.

DISCUSSION

DPP4is are moderately efficient in decreasing the HbA1c by an average of 0.5% as monotherapy, and 1.0% in combination therapy with other drugs. They have a good tolerability and safety profile compared to other glucose-lowering drugs. However, there are possible risks pertaining to acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSION

Cardiovascular outcome trials thus far have proven the cardiovascular safety for ischemic events in patients treated with sitagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, linagliptin and vildagliptin. Data showing increased rate of hospitalisation in the case of saxagliptin did not seem to be a class effect.

Acute pancreatitis risk in type 2 diabetes patients treated with canagliflozin versus other antihyperglycemic agents: an observational claims database study

Objective: Observational evidence suggests that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at increased risk for acute pancreatitis (AP) versus those without T2DM. A small number of AP events were reported in clinical trials of the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin, though no imbalances were observed between treatment groups. This observational study evaluated risk of AP among new users of canagliflozin compared with new users of six classes of other antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs).Methods: Three US claims databases were analyzed based on a prespecified protocol approved by the European Medicines Agency. Propensity score adjustment controlled for imbalances in baseline covariates. Cox regression models estimated the hazard ratio of AP with canagliflozin compared with other AHAs using on-treatment (primary) and intent-to-treat approaches. Sensitivity analyses assessed robustness of findings.Results: Across the three databases, there were between 12,023-80,986 new users of canagliflozin; the unadjusted incidence rates of AP (per 1000 person-years) were between 1.5-2.2 for canagliflozin and 1.1-6.6 for other AHAs. The risk of AP was generally similar for new users of canagliflozin compared with new users of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, insulin, and other AHAs, with no consistent between-treatment differences observed across databases. Intent-to-treat and sensitivity analysis findings were qualitatively consistent with on-treatment findings.Conclusions: In this large observational study, incidence rates of AP in patients with T2DM treated with canagliflozin or other AHAs were generally similar, with no evidence suggesting that canagliflozin is associated with increased risk of AP compared with other AHAs.

Nationwide Trends in Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer Risk Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are useful incretin-based antidiabetes drugs. However, there is a concern that DPP-4i may adversely impact the exocrine pancreas, owing to their pleiotropic effects. In this study, we investigated whether DPP-4i are associated with pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer using a nationwide population-based cohort study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We included patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes who were treated with antidiabetes drugs (n = 33,208) from 2007 to 2013. The data were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-Health Screening Cohort database (n = 514,866). Risk was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with time-dependent covariates. A 6-month lag time was used to account for a possible latency time. The risk across various time segments since the first prescription of DPP-4i was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 33,208 subjects, 10,218 were new users of DPP-4i and 22,990 were new users of other antidiabetes drugs. DPP-4i significantly increased the risks of pancreatitis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.24, 95% CI 1.01-1.52; P = 0.037) and pancreatic cancer (aHR 1.81, 95% CI 1.16-2.82; P = 0.009) with a 6-month drug use lag period. The risk of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer was generally consistent in the first 12 months and 1 year after the initial prescription without showing an increasing trend according to exposure duration.

CONCLUSIONS

DPP-4i use is associated with increased risks of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. However, the absence of increasing trend according to exposure duration suggests the chances of reverse causality, and long-term pancreatic safety of DPP-4i has to be further investigated.

Pancreatitis Incidence in the Exenatide BID, Exenatide QW, and Exenatide QW Suspension Development Programs: Pooled Analysis of 35 Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are widely used for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus; however, there have been concerns that GLP-1RA treatment may be associated with an increased incidence of pancreatitis. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of pancreatitis in a pooled population of type 2 diabetes trials from the clinical development program of the GLP-1RA exenatide as well as to describe patient-level data for all reported cases.

METHODS

The primary analysis examined pooled data among patients with type 2 diabetes from the controlled arms of 35 trials (ranging from 4 to 234 weeks' duration) in the integrated clinical databases for exenatide twice daily, once weekly, and once-weekly suspension, excluding comparator arms with other incretin-based therapies. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate (EAIR) of pancreatitis was calculated for exenatide and non-exenatide (non-incretin-based therapy or placebo) treatment groups. Patient-level data were described for all pancreatitis incidences.

RESULTS

The primary analysis included 5596 patients who received exenatide and 4462 in the non-exenatide group. The mean duration of study medication exposure for the exenatide and non-exenatide treatment groups was 57.0 and 47.9 weeks, respectively. Pancreatitis was diagnosed in 14 patients (exenatide, n = 8; non-exenatide, n = 6), of whom 13 recovered with or without sequelae. The pancreatitis EAIR was 0.1195 events per 100 patient-years [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.0516-0.2154] in the exenatide group versus 0.1276 events per 100 patient-years (95% CI 0.0468-0.2482) in the non-exenatide treatment group. The EAIR ratio for the exenatide versus non-exenatide treatment group was 0.761 (95% CI 0.231-2.510).

CONCLUSION

In this pooled analysis of 10,058 patients among studies comparing exenatide with other glucose-lowering medications or placebo, pancreatitis was rare. The EAIRs of pancreatitis were low and similar between exenatide and non-exenatide treatment groups. No evidence of an association between exenatide and pancreatitis was observed.

FUNDING

Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca. Plain language summary available for this article.

The Effect of Linagliptin versus Metformin Treatment-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

There have been no studies directly comparing the effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors with that of metformin on treatment-related quality of life (QOL) when used as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This study is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter, parallel-group, comparative study. Forty-four participants who failed to achieve target glycemic control with diet and exercise therapy were randomly allocated to receive linagliptin or metformin therapy. We compared treatment-related QOL among the two groups using the Oral Hypoglycemic Agent Questionnaire, version 2 (OHA-Q version 2) and the self-administered Diabetes Therapy-Related QOL (DTR-QOL) questionnaire.

RESULTS

After randomization, 21 patients in the linagliptin group and 22 patients in the metformin treatment group were included in the full analysis set. Biochemical parameters, incidence of adverse effects, and rate of adherence to medication were comparable between the two groups. Over the 24-week treatment period, no significant differences in overall OHA-Q scores between the groups were observed, although the subscale 1 (treatment convenience) score was significantly higher in the linagliptin group than in the metformin group. The overall DTR-QOL score did not differ between the two groups; however, the DTR-QOL scores significantly improved after 24 weeks of linagliptin treatment, but not after metformin treatment.

CONCLUSION

We did not find significantly better treatment-related QOL with linagliptin among Japanese patients with T2DM. In terms of treatment convenience, our data showed that linagliptin was superior to metformin.

FUNDING

This study was financially supported by Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co., Ltd. and Eli Lilly and Company. The journal's article processing fees were covered by a research fund from Juntendo University.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000022953.

Linagliptin-related pancreatitis in a diabetic patient with biliary calculus: A case report

RATIONALE

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are commonly used drugs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. While acute pancreatitis cases induced by saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin (all of which are members of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 group) have been reported, there is no clear evidence suggesting that linagliptin may cause pancreatitis, and information in this regard is limited to a few studies. Moreover, no pancreatitis cases have been reported that were directly associated with linagliptin.

PATIENT CONCERNS

We present a case of linagliptin-related pancreatitis in a 79-year-old male diabetic patient with biliary calculi. The patient, who was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis 4 months after initiating linagliptin 5 mg/d treatment, was admitted to our hospital.

DIAGNOSES

The patient's pancreatic enzymes were high. Ultrasonography showed multiple biliary calculi, and abdominal computed tomography showed edematous pancreatitis.

INTERVENTIONS

Linagliptin was discontinued and clinical improvement was achieved with standard acute pancreatitis treatment.

OUTCOMES

This is the 1st case report suggesting that linagliptin might be associated with the risk of pancreatitis and could be an etiologic cause of pancreatitis, similar to the other members of its group.

LESSONS

While the results of previous studies stated that there was no data to prove a causal relationship between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and pancreatitis, concerns regarding this subject have continued to arise. Therefore, new and comprehensive studies are needed to determine the long-term effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on type 2 diabetes mellitus patients and to shed light on the side effects of these medications.

The safety of gliptins : updated data in 2018

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) are generally considered as glucose-lowering agents with a safe profile in type 2 diabetes.

AREAS COVERED

An updated review of recent safety data from randomised controlled trials, observational studies, meta-analyses, pharmacovigilance reports regarding alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin, with a special focus on risks of hypoglycemia, pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, major cardiovascular events, hospitalisation for heart failure and other new safety issues, such as bone fractures and arthralgia. The safety of DPP-4i use in special populations, elderly patients, patients with renal impairment, liver disease or heart failure, will also be discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The good tolerance/safety profile of DPP-4is has been largely confirmed, including in more fragile populations, with no gastrointestinal adverse effects and a minimal risk of hypoglycemia. DPP-4is appear to be associated with a small increased incidence of acute pancreatitis in placebo-controlled trials, although most observational studies are reassuring. Most recent studies with DPP-4is do not confirm the increased risk of hospitalisation for heart failure reported with saxagliptin in SAVOR-TIMI 53, but further post-marketing surveillance is still recommended. New adverse events have been reported such as arthralgia, yet a causal relationship remains unclear.

Diabetes Mellitus is Associated With Mortality in Acute Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Predicting severe pancreatitis is important for early aggressive management of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). Despite the established role of diabetes mellitus (DM) in the risk of AP, the impact of DM on the clinical outcome in AP has not been fully elucidated. The objective of this study was to assess the risk of mortality and severity in AP among patients with type-2 DM.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with first attacks of AP were enrolled from January 2013 to June 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients (63.2% male, mean age, 59.4 y) with AP were included. Etiologies included gallstones (51.2%), alcohol (37.3%), hypertriglyceridemia (2%), and idiopathic causes (9.5%). There were 54 AP patients (26.9%) with type-2 DM. Severity indices in AP, such as Atlanta Classification (severe), Ranson score, and Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis, were higher in subjects with DM than those without DM. Prevalence of intensive care unit admission and mortality were higher in AP patients with DM compared with those without DM. The association between DM and increased risk of mortality in AP remained statistically significant even after adjustments for confounding factors and Atlanta Classification (odds ratio, 7.76, 95% confidence interval, 1.26-47.63, P=0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Type-2 DM was associated with severity and increased mortality in patients with AP. Our findings provide evidence of the potential role of DM in the pathogenesis and management of severe AP.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and the Risk of Pancreatitis in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Information on the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients receiving dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP-4i) is limited and controversial. One study suggested that the differences in findings between these meta-analyses were attributed to whether they included large randomized control trials with cardiovascular outcomes or not. The aim of our study was to determine whether the use of DPP-4i increases the risk of acute pancreatitis compared with sulfonylurea (SU) and whether the risk is higher in patients with underlying cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

A population-based cohort study was performed using Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort data. We included 33,395 new users of SU and DPP-4i from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2015. SU-treated patients and DPP-4i-treated patients were matched by 1 : 1 propensity score matching. We used Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to calculate the risk of acute pancreatitis.

RESULTS

The hazard ratio (HR) of hospitalization for acute pancreatitis was 0.642 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.535-0.771) in DPP-4i-treated patients compared with SU-treated patients. The HR of DPP-4i use was also lower than that of SU use in patients without underlying CVD (HR: 0.591; 95% CI: 0.476-0.735) but not in patients with underlying CVD (HR: 0.727; 95% CI: 0.527-1.003).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that DPP-4i is less likely to cause drug-induced pancreatitis than SU. This finding was not evident in patients with CVD, but DPP-4i was not more likely to induce pancreatitis in these patients than SU was.

Obesity and pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The obesity pandemic poses a unique set of problems for acute pancreatitis - both by increasing acute pancreatitis incidence, and worsening acute pancreatitis severity. This review explores these associations, underlying mechanisms, and potential therapies.

RECENT FINDINGS

We review how the obesity associated increase in gallstones, surgical, and endoscopic interventions for obesity management, diabetes, and related medications such as incretin-based therapies and hypertriglyceridemia may increase the incidence of acute pancreatitis. The mechanism of how obesity may increase acute pancreatitis severity are discussed with a focus on cytokines, adipokines, damage-associated molecular patterns and unsaturated fatty acid-mediated lipotoxicity. The role of obesity in exacerbating pancreatic necrosis is discussed; focusing on obesity-associated pancreatic steatosis. We also discuss how peripancreatic fat necrosis worsens organ failure independent of pancreatic necrosis. Last, we discuss emerging therapies including choice of intravenous fluids and the use of lipase inhibitors which have shown promise during severe acute pancreatitis.

SUMMARY

We discuss how obesity may contribute to increasing acute pancreatitis incidence, the role of lipolytic unsaturated fatty acid release in worsening acute pancreatitis, and potential approaches, including appropriate fluid management and lipase inhibition in improving acute pancreatitis outcomes.

Linagliptin as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: Two 24-week randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trials

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin vs placebo as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with inadequate glycaemic control despite stable-dose metformin received open-label empagliflozin 10 mg (study 1) or 25 mg (study 2) as add-on therapy for 16 weeks. Subsequently, those with HbA1c ≥7.0 and ≤10.5% (>53 and ≤91 mmol/mol) (N = 482) were randomized to 24 weeks' double-blind, double-dummy treatment with linagliptin 5 mg or placebo in study 1, or to linagliptin 5 mg or placebo in study 2; all patients continued treatment with metformin and empagliflozin 10 mg (study 1) or metformin and empagliflozin 25 mg (study 2). The primary endpoint was change from baseline (defined as the last value before first intake of randomized, double-blind treatment) in HbA1c at week 24.

RESULTS

At week 24, HbA1c (mean baseline 7.82-8.04 [62-64 mmol/mol]) was significantly reduced with linagliptin vs placebo; adjusted mean (SE) differences in change from baseline in HbA1c with linagliptin vs placebo were -.32% (.10) (-3.59 [1.08] mmol/mol) ( P = .001) for patients on empagliflozin 10 mg and metformin, and -0.47% (0.10) (-5.15 [1.04] mmol/mol) ( P < 0.001) for patients on empagliflozin 25 mg and metformin. Adverse events were reported in more patients receiving placebo than in those receiving linagliptin: 55.5% vs 48.4% in study 1 and 58.9% vs 52.7% in study 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin for 24 weeks improved glycaemic control vs placebo, and was well tolerated.

Gene expression signature: a powerful approach for drug discovery in diabetes

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasing in prevalence at an alarming rate around the world. Much effort has gone into the discovery and design of antidiabetic drugs; however, those already available are unable to combat the underlying causes of the disease and instead only moderate the symptoms. The reason for this is that T2D is a complex disease, and attempts to target one biological pathway are insufficient to combat the full extent of the disease. Additionally, the underlying pathophysiology of this disease is yet to be fully elucidated making it difficult to design drugs that target the mechanisms involved. Therefore, the approach of designing new drugs aimed at a specific molecular target is not optimal and a more expansive, unbiased approach is required. In this review, we will look at the current state of diabetes treatments and how these target the disease symptoms but are unable to combat the underlying causes. We will also review how the technique of gene expression signatures (GESs) has been used successfully for other complex diseases and how this may be applied as a powerful tool for the discovery of new drugs for T2D.

Incretin-based drugs for type 2 diabetes: Focus on East Asian perspectives

Type 2 diabetes in East Asians is characterized primarily by β‐cell dysfunction, and with less adiposity and less insulin resistance compared with that in Caucasians. Such pathophysiological differences can determine the appropriate therapeutics for the disease. Incretins, glucose‐dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon‐like peptide‐1, are secreted in response to meal ingestion, and enhance insulin secretion glucose‐dependently. Incretin‐based drugs, dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitors (DPP‐4i) and glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists, that ameliorate β‐cell dysfunction with limited hypoglycemia risk are now widely used in type 2 diabetes management. Recent meta‐analyses of clinical trials on DPP‐4i and glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists found that the drugs were more effective in Asians, most likely because of amelioration of β‐cell dysfunction. In addition, we found increased glycated hemoglobin‐lowering effects of DPP‐4i to be associated with intake of fish in type 2 diabetes, which suggests that dietary customs of East Asians might also underlie the greater efficacy of DPP‐4i. Despite the limited risk, cases of severe hypoglycemia were reported for DPP‐4i/sulfonylureas combinations. Importantly, hypoglycemia was more frequent in patients also receiving glibenclamide or glimepiride, which activate exchange protein directly activated by cyclic adenosine monophosphate 2, a critical mediator of incretin signaling, and was less frequent in patients receiving gliclazide, which does not activate exchange protein directly activated by cyclic adenosine monophosphate 2. Prevention of insulin‐associated hypoglycemia by DPP‐4i has gained attention with regard to the enhancement of hypoglycemia‐induced glucagon secretion by insulinotropic polypeptide, but remains to be investigated in East Asians. Despite the safety issues, which are paramount and must be carefully monitored, the incretin‐based drugs could have potential as a first choice therapy in East Asian type 2 diabetes patients.

Acute pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors

Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors are approved for use in monotherapy or in combination therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus for <1 decade. However, numerous reports of DPP-4 inhibitors induced acute pancreatitis were made through the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System, and this led to a revision in the prescribing information for these drugs. Therefore, this study is designed to evaluate DPP-4 inhibitors induced acute pancreatitis via the spontaneous adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reporting system in a medical center. In four of 2305 ADR cases, it is suspected that DPP-4 inhibitors induced moderate to serious acute pancreatitis. Beyond drugs, other factors also contribute to acute pancreatitis and affect the possibility of ADRs assessed using the Naranjo algorithm. Finally, our results indicate that the incidence of DPP-4 inhibitors induced acute pancreatitis is low.