Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor Use Is Not Associated With Acute Pancreatitis in High-Risk Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP)-a review of the literature and algorithm proposed for the diagnostic work-up of IAP

Background and Objective

This narrative review addresses idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) and its epidemiology, diagnosis, clinical course and treatment during the last decade. As there is no previously validated protocol for finding the aetiology of acute pancreatitis (AP), the primary aim of this study is to find, describe and unify evidence about the diagnostic work-up of AP to diagnose the true IAP. By finding the aetiology with the highest possible yield it may be possible to reduce recurrent AP (RAP) episodes and related morbidity and thereby decrease health care costs and possibly improve patients' quality of life.

Methods

This narrative review includes articles retrieved from PubMed search with publications from 2013-2023. Cross references were used when found relevant.

Key Content and Findings

The rates of aetiologies of AP and the diagnostics performed behind these numbers vary widely between different studies, time periods and different geographical regions, as there is no unified algorithm in diagnostic work-up of IAP. In this study, we describe an up-to-date summary of epidemiology, diagnostic course and treatment of IAP, and propose an algorithm of IAP diagnostics in light of recent scientific studies and their outcomes and address possible treatments of IAP.

Conclusions

Although aetiology is key for AP management, there is still no validated protocol for aetiological diagnosis. IAP is relevant due to its recurrence rate and possible evolution to chronic pancreatitis. We still need more studies addressing this topic and evaluating new diagnostic protocols with advanced tests and treatment strategies in true IAP.

Association of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and recurrent pancreatitis risk among patients with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study

Introduction: Following the introduction of incretin-based drugs to the market, instances of acute pancreatitis have been reported, leading the FDA to mandate a warning label. Incretin-based therapy has been linked to a rare yet significant adverse event known as acute pancreatitis. However, these concerns of use of incretin therapy remained an ongoing debate. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was extracted data from the National Health Insurance (NHI) program in Taiwan focused on those having prior hospitalization history of acute pancreatitis. We identified adult patients with type 2 diabetes, all patients who received new prescriptions one year after the diagnosis of hospitalization for acute pancreatitis for DPP-4 inhibitors (index date). Study participants were divided into two groups: those taking DPP-4 inhibitors (the DPP-4 inhibitors group, n = 331) and those not taking DPP-4 inhibitors (the non- DPP-4 inhibitors group, n = 918). The outcome of interest is the recurrence of hospitalization of acute pancreatitis. Results: The incidence density (per 1000 person-years) of acute pancreatitis was 23.16 for DPP-4 inhibitors group and 19.88 for non-DPP-4 inhibitor group. The relative risk is 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-1.38). Results from the Cox proportional hazard model (HR) analysis, the DPP-4 inhibitor was associated with a neutral risk of acute pancreatitis HR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.42-1.09. Conclusions: In this extensive nationwide cohort study conducted in Taiwan, involving a substantial number of newly diagnosed cases, the utilization of DPP-4 inhibitors appears to show no significant correlation with an elevated risk of acute pancreatitis, even among diabetic patients deemed to be at a high risk. These results extend the safety reassurance of incretin-based therapy to individuals considered high-risk for such complications.

Characteristics of hospital differences in missing of clinical laboratory test results in a multi-hospital observational database contributing to MID-NET® in Japan

Background

In Japan, a multiple-hospital observational database system, the Medical Information Database Network (MID-NET®), was launched for post-marketing drug safety assessments. These assessments will be based on datasets with missing laboratory results. The characteristics of missing data considering hospital differences have not been evaluated. We assessed the missing proportion and the association between missingness and a factor through case studies using a database system, a part of MID-NET®.

Methods

Seven scenarios using laboratory results before the prescription of the assessed drug as baseline covariates and data from 10 hospitals of Tokushukai Medical Group were used. The missing proportion and the association between missingness and patient background were investigated per hospital. The associations were assessed using the log of adjusted odds ratio (log-aOR). Additionally, an ad hoc survey was conducted to explore other factors affecting the missingness.

Results

For some laboratory tests, missing proportions varied among hospitals, such as 7.4–44.4% of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and 8.1–31.2% of triglyceride (TG) among statin users. The association between missingness and affecting factors also differed among hospitals for some factors; example, the log-aOR of hospitalization associated with missingness of TG was − 0.41 (95% CI, − 1.06 to 0.24) in hospital 3 and 1.84 (95% CI, 1.34 to 2.34) in hospital 4. In the ad hoc survey focusing on ALP, hospital-dependent differences in the ordering system settings were observed.

Conclusions

Hospital differences in missing data appeared in some laboratory tests in our multi-hospital observational database, which could be attributed to the affecting factors, including the patient background.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-021-01543-5.

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.

Sixty Years of Drug Discovery for Type 2 Diabetes: Where Are We Now?

Today, excluding insulin, there are eight classes of anti-diabetic medicines that have been added to the pharmacy since the introduction of metformin in the mid-1950s; the sulfonylureas, biguanides, thiazolidinediones, α-glucosidase inhibitors, meglitinides, incretins, and sodium glucose transport 2 inhibitors. Does the fact that metformin is still first-line treatment suggest that our drug discovery efforts over the past 60 years have not been good enough? Or does it suggest that diabetes is such a complex disorder that no single treatment, other than gastric bypass surgery, can affect true normalization of not only blood sugar but also the underlying pathologies? Our understanding of the disease has most definitely improved which may bring hope for the future in terms of science, but for it to be beneficial, this science has to be translated into better drug treatments for the disease. In this review, I have examined the eight classes of anti-diabetes drugs from a drug discovery perspective.

Pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patientes treated with Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors: An extensive and updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Observational studies and metanalyses of randomized trials on Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) reported discordant results on the risk of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer with this class of drugs. Aim of the present meta-analysis is the assessment of the effect of DPP4i treatment on the incidence of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, collecting all available evidence from randomized controlled trials. Methods Data Sources: an extensive Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database search for sitagliptin or vildagliptin or omarigliptin or saxagliptin or alogliptin or trelagliptin or anagliptin or linagliptin or gemigliptin or evogliptin or teneligliptin was performed up to up to September 30th, 2019. All trials performed on type 2 diabetes, with duration ≥24 weeks, and comparing of DPP4i with placebo or active drugs were collected. The study has been registered on PROSPERO (#153344). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all outcomes defined above. Results A total of 165 eligible trials were identified. DPP-4 inhibitors were not associated with an increased risk of pancreatitis (MH-OR 1.13 [0.86, 1.47]) or pancreatic cancer (MH-OR 0.86 [0.60, 1.24]) with no significant differences across individual molecules of the class.

CONCLUSIONS

available data do not support the hypothesis of an association of DPP4i treatment with pancreatitis. Present data do not suggest any association of DPP4i with pancreatic cancer, although they are insufficient to draw definitive conclusions.

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.

Pancreatic safety of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A European, noninterventional, postauthorization safety study

This cohort study assessed the pancreatic safety of vildagliptin versus other noninsulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) based on data from five European electronic health care databases. Patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥18 years on NIAD treatment were enrolled. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated separately for acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer for vildagliptin (± other NIADs) compared with other NIADs using negative binomial regression. Approximately 2.8% of the enrolled patients (n = 738 054) used vildagliptin during the study, with an average follow-up time of 1.4 years. For acute pancreatitis, adjusted IRRs ranged between 0.89 andt 2.58 with all corresponding 95% CIs crossing 1. For pancreatic cancer adjusted IRRs ranged from 0.56 to 3.64, with the lower limit of 95% CIs >1 in some analyses. Post hoc sensitivity analyses taking latency time into account markedly lowered the risk estimates with corresponding 95% CIs crossing 1. Overall, the results do not suggest an increased pancreatitis risk with vildagliptin, while the observation for pancreatic cancer have to be interpreted carefully as this study was not designed to assess pancreatic cancer and rather be explained by certain underlying limitations including latency -time, chance findings and/or bias and confounding.

Treatment with incretins does not increase the risk of pancreatic diseases compared to older anti-hyperglycaemic drugs, when added to metformin: real world evidence in people with Type 2 diabetes

AIMS

In people with metformin-treated diabetes, to evaluate the risk of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer and other diseases of the pancreas post second-line anti-hyperglycaemic agent initiation.

METHODS

People with Type 2 diabetes diagnosed after 2004 who received metformin plus a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i, n = 50 095), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA, n = 12 654), sulfonylurea (n = 110 747), thiazolidinedione (n = 17 597) or insulin (n = 34 805) for at least 3 months were identified in the US Centricity Electronic Medical Records. Time to developing acute pancreatitis, other diseases of the pancreas and pancreatic cancer was estimated, balancing and adjusting anti-hyperglycaemic drug groups for appropriate confounders.

RESULTS

In the DPP-4i group, the adjusted mean time to acute pancreatitis was 2.63 [95% confidence intervals (CI) 2.38, 2.88] years; time to pancreatic cancer was 2.70 (2.19, 3.21) years; and time to other diseases of the pancreas was 2.73 (2.33, 3.12) years. Compared with DPP-4i, the insulin group developed acute pancreatitis 0.48 years (P < 0.01) earlier and the GLP-1RA group developed pancreatic cancer 3 years later (P < 0.01). However, with the constraint of no event within 6 months of insulin initiation, the risk of acute pancreatitis in the insulin group was insignificant. No other significant differences were observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in the risk of developing pancreatic diseases in those treated with various anti-hyperglycaemic drug classes were found.

Comparison of biochemical parameters among DPP4 inhibitor users and other oral hypoglycaemic drug users: a cross-sectional study from Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka

BACKGROUND

Higher efficacy of incretin-based therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus has been reported from Asia. Pancreatitis and hepatitis have also been suspected to occur due to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4I) treatment. The present study aims at comparing selected biochemical parameters among DPP4 inhibitor users and other oral hypoglycaemic drug users.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from the State Pharmaceutical Corporation, Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka, for a comparative cross-sectional study. Two groups were involved: "DPP4I" user group (n = 63) and "other oral hypoglycaemic" user group (n = 126). Mann-Whitney U test was performed to find a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the distributions of HbA_1C, pancreatic amylase, serum lipase, AST and ALT levels between the two groups.

RESULTS

Contradicting to previous Asian studies, distribution of HbA_1C (p = 0.569) between anti-diabetic regimes with and without DPP4 inhibitors showed no significant difference. Also, amylase (p = 0.171), AST (p = 0.238) and ALT (p = 0.347) failed to show significance. However, lipase was significantly (p = 0.012) high in the DPP4I group.

CONCLUSION

The study showed a significantly higher lipase level among the DPP4I users in comparison to other oral hypoglycaemic drug users, and possible reasons were discussed.

The Risk of Acute Pancreatitis After Initiation of Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors: Testing a Hypothesis of Subgroup Differences in Older U.S. Adults

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4I) increase acute pancreatitis risk in older patients and whether the association varies by age, sex, and history of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of DPP-4I initiators versus thiazolidinedione (TZD) or sulfonylurea initiators using U.S. Medicare beneficiaries, 2007-2014. Eligible initiators were aged 66 years or older without history of pancreatic disease or alcohol-related diseases. Patients were followed up for hospitalization due to acute pancreatitis and censored at 90 days after treatment changes. Weighted Cox models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for acute pancreatitis. Analyses were performed overall as well as within subgroups defined by age, sex, and CVD history.

RESULTS

We found no increased risk of acute pancreatitis comparing 49,374 DPP-4I initiators to 132,223 sulfonylurea initiators (weighted HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.83-1.24) and comparing 57,301 DPP-4I initiators to 32,612 TZD initiators (weighted HR 1.11; 95% CI 0.76-1.62). Age and sex did not modify the association. Among patients with CVD, acute pancreatitis incidence was elevated in initiators of DPP-4I and sulfonylurea (2.3 and 2.4 per 1,000 person-years, respectively) but not in TZD initiators (1.5). Among patients with CVD, higher risk of acute pancreatitis was observed with DPP-4I compared with TZD (weighted HR 1.84; 95% CI 1.02-3.35) but not compared with sulfonylurea.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides evidence that DPP-4I is not associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis in older adults overall. The positive association observed in patients with CVD could be due to chance or bias but merits further investigation.

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.

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.

Association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor drugs and risk of acute pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported conflicting results for the relationship between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor drugs and acute pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between DPP-4 inhibitors and an increased risk of acute pancreatitis using meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception to March 4, 2017. Original articles with data on DPP-4 inhibitors and acute pancreatitis were included. We used random-effects models or fixed-effects models to combine the relative risks (RRs), odds ratio (OR), and hazard ratio (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in randomized controlled studies, case-control study and cohort study, respectively.

RESULTS

Five case-control studies, 5 randomized controlled studies, and 3 cohort studies were selected of the 451 retrieved abstracts. A higher risk of acute pancreatitis was observed with the following RR/OR and 95%CI: RR 1.67 (1.08-2.59) in randomized controlled studies and OR 1.45 (1.30-1.61) in case-control studies. However, the pooled HR of the 3 cohort studies failed to confirm this association.

CONCLUSION

There is a marginally higher risk of acute pancreatitis with DPP-4 inhibitors. However, this risk was not observed in cohort studies. Thus, further clinical trials are required to confirm this finding.