Efficacy and safety of linagliptin in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by metformin: A multinational 24-week, randomized clinical trial

Retagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of retagliptin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with metformin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicentre, phase 3 trial consisted of a 16-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled period, where patients with HbA1c levels between 7.5% and 11.0% were randomized to receive either once-daily (QD) retagliptin 100 mg (n = 87) or placebo (n = 87), both as an add-on to metformin. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 16.

RESULTS

At week 16, the least squares mean change in HbA1c from baseline, compared with placebo, was -0.82% (95% CI, -1.05% to -0.58%) for the retagliptin 100 mg QD group (P < .0001) per treatment policy estimand. Significantly higher proportions of patients in the retagliptin 100 mg QD group achieved HbA1c levels of less than 6.5% (11.5%) and less than 7.0% (26.4%) compared with those receiving placebo (0% and 4.6%; P = .0016 and P < .0001, respectively) at week 16. Retagliptin 100 mg QD also lowered fasting plasma glucose and 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose levels. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) during the treatment period was similar between the two groups. However, slightly higher proportions of increased lipase and increased amylase in the retagliptin 100 mg QD group were observed. No patients discontinued treatment permanently because of AEs, and no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Retagliptin 100 mg QD as an add-on therapy to metformin offers a new therapeutic option for treating Chinese patients with T2D inadequately controlled by metformin alone, and is generally well tolerated.

Safety of Linagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Linagliptin is an oral dipeptidyl peptidase DPP-4 inhibitor, which is indicated for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as monotherapy or add-on to therapy with other hypoglycemic drugs.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the safety of linagliptin focusing on cardiovascular risks among subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search across the following databases: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of linagliptin compared to placebo in patients with Type 2 diabetes were included. The primary safety points were cardiovascular (CV) adverse events including non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), CV death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina. While, secondary safety points included 17 reported adverse events such as infections, hypoglycemia and abdominal pain. Three reviewers independently screened and reviewed each study to extract relevant information. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. We conducted a meta-analysis using the random effects model. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) of targeted adverse events with linagliptin compared to placebo were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel test.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies with 19,981 adult patients were included. There was no difference in the incidence of all CV adverse events or individual CV adverse events between linagliptin and the placebo arms. The pooled estimate of the risk of upper respiratory tract infection was reported in twelve trials with a 38% risk reduction among patients treated with the linagliptin group compared to the placebo group (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.45-0.85, and I2 = 0%), while no difference was found in other infections. For gastrointestinal disorders, the risk of abdominal pain showed a 65% risk reduction among patients treated with the linagliptin group compared to the placebo group (RR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.77, and I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed an overall acceptable safety profile of linagliptin in patients with T2DM. Moreover, our study showed a risk reduction of upper respiratory tract infection and abdominal pain when using linagliptin compared to placebo.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and gallbladder or biliary disease in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and gallbladder or biliary diseases.

DESIGN

Systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL from inception until 31 July 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adult patients with type 2 diabetes who received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors compared with placebo or other antidiabetes drugs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases, cholecystitis, cholelithiasis, and biliary diseases.

DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework (GRADE) approach. The meta-analysis used pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 82 randomised controlled trials with 104 833 participants were included in the pairwise meta-analysis. Compared with placebo or non-incretin drugs, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were significantly associated with an increased risk of the composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases (odds ratio 1.22 (95%confidence interval 1.04 to 1.43); risk difference 11 (2 to 21) more events per 10 000 person years) and cholecystitis (odds ratio 1.43 (1.14 to 1.79); risk difference 15 (5 to 27) more events per 10 000 person years) but not with the risk of cholelithiasis and biliary diseases. The associations tended to be observed in patients with a longer duration of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor treatment. In the network meta-analysis of 184 trials, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors increased the risk of the composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases and cholecystitis compared with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors but not compared with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

CONCLUSIONS

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors increased the risk of cholecystitis in randomised controlled trials, especially with a longer treatment duration, which requires more attention from physicians in clinical practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021271647.

Safety and tolerability of linagliptin in Asians with type 2 diabetes: a pooled analysis of 4457 patients from 21 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Safety and tolerability of glucose-lowering drugs is a key consideration for use in type 2 diabetes (T2D). We evaluated the safety and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in Asian patients with T2D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a post-hoc, descriptive pooled analysis of 21 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of linagliptin in T2D patients lasting ≤52 weeks. We evaluated adverse events (AEs) and laboratory parameters in Asian participants living in Asia, both overall and in the East Asian subgroup.

RESULTS

This analysis included 4457 Asian patients overall (2712 receiving linagliptin; 1745 receiving placebo) and 3057 (68.6%) East Asians. AEs were reported in 1510 (55.7%) Asian patients receiving linagliptin and 1032 (59.1%) receiving placebo but were considered drug-related in only 13.0% of each group. Serious AEs occurred in 109 (4.0%) linagliptin patients and 90 (5.2%) placebo patients. The most common AEs were nasopharyngitis (6.4% linagliptin, 7.3% placebo), upper respiratory tract infection (5.7% linagliptin, 6.5% placebo), and hypoglycemia (7.3% linagliptin, 6.3% placebo). One linagliptin patient had pancreatitis; none had bullous pemphigoid. No clinically relevant mean changes in laboratory parameters occurred. These findings were consistent in East Asians.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin is well tolerated in Asian T2D patients, including East Asians, with low risk for AEs.

Comparative Efficacy of Dual and Single Initiation of Add-On Oral Antihyperglycemic Agents in Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin Alone: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend adding an oral antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on metformin. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that adding dual AHAs instead of a single AHA provided more effective glycemic control. However, the comparative efficacy of approved single and dual initiation strategies is unknown. Therefore, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of dual and single add-on oral AHAs in patients uncontrolled on metformin.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of RCTs was conducted following Cochrane and ISPOR guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to November 19, 2019. Approved oral doses of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in single or dual initiation therapies were indirectly compared. Outcomes focused on efficacy and included mean change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure, and achieving HbA1c target < 7% at 24-26 weeks. Fixed and random effects models with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations were used.

RESULTS

Of 1955 unique records screened, 25 RCTs (14,264 participants) were included. In patients uncontrolled on metformin, dual AHA added to metformin had statistically significant or a trend of greater reduction in HbA1c compared to single AHAs, with ertugliflozin + sitagliptin showing the greatest improvement. Statistically significant reductions in weight and SBP were observed with ertugliflozin + sitagliptin, ertugliflozin, or canagliflozin compared to single initiation DPP-4 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

For reduction of HbA1c, weight, and SBP in patients uncontrolled on metformin, add-on dual AHAs showed greater improvement compared to single AHAs. These findings can further inform the treatment of T2DM patients uncontrolled on metformin.

Age, sex, disease severity, and disease duration difference in placebo response: implications from a meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The placebo response in patients with diabetes mellitus is very common. A systematic evaluation needs to be updated with the current evidence about the placebo response in diabetes mellitus and the associated factors in clinical trials of anti-diabetic medicine.

METHODS

Literature research was conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published between the date of inception and June 2019. Randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in type 1and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) were included. Random-effects model and meta-regression analysis were accordingly used. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42014009373.

RESULTS

Significantly weight elevation (effect size (ES) = 0.33 kg, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.61 kg) was observed in patients with placebo treatments in T1DM subgroup while significantly HbA1c reduction (ES = - 0.12%, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.07%) and weight reduction (ES = - 0.40 kg, 95% CI, - 0.50 to - 0.29 kg) were observed in patients with placebo treatments in T2DM subgroup. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in patients with injectable placebo treatments (ES = - 0.22%, 95% CI, - 0.32 to - 0.11%) versus oral types (ES = - 0.09%, 95% CI, - 0.14 to - 0.04%) in T2DM (P = 0.03). Older age (β = - 0.01, 95% CI, - 0.02 to - 0.01, P < 0.01) and longer diabetes duration (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.03 to - 0.21 × 10^-2, P = 0.03) was significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T1DM. However, younger age (β = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.01), lower male percentage (β = 0.01, 95% CI, 0.22 × 10^-2, 0.01, P < 0.01), higher baseline BMI (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.04 to - 0.26 × 10^-2, P = 0.02), and higher baseline HbA1c (β = - 0.09, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.01, P = 0.02) were significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T2DM. Shorter diabetes duration (β = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.10, P < 0.01) was significantly associated with more weight reduction by placebo in T2DM. However, the associations between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response were insignificant after the adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The placebo response in diabetes mellitus was systematically outlined. Age, sex, disease severity (indirectly reflected by baseline BMI and baseline HbA1c), and disease duration were associated with placebo response in diabetes mellitus. The association between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response may be the result of regression to the mean.

Reduction in HbA1c with SGLT2 inhibitors vs. DPP-4 inhibitors as add-ons to metformin monotherapy according to baseline HbA1c: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

This study compared the reduction of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) with sodium-glucose cotransporter type-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) as add-ons to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with a specific focus on HbA1c changes according to baseline HbA1c.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were scrutinized for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the reduction of HbA1c from baseline (Δ HbA1c) with an SGLT2i or DPP-4i in patients with T2DM not well controlled by metformin monotherapy. The endpoint was Δ HbA1c using both indirect and direct comparisons.

RESULTS

Overall, Δ HbA1c was slightly greater with SGLT2is (-0.80±0.20% from 8.03±0.35%; 44 analyses, 29 RCTs, 15 with two doses, n=9321) than with DPP-4is (-0.71±0.23% from 8.05±0.43%; 61 analyses, 59 RCTs, n=17,914; P=0.0354). When the mean baseline HbA1c was<8% ([64mmol/mol] 7.79±0.15% vs. 7.71±0.23%), Δ HbA1c averaged -0.735±0.17% vs. -0.62±0.16% (P=0.0117) with SGLT2is vs. DPP-4is, respectively. However, this difference vanished when the mean baseline HbA1c was≥8% (-0.87±0.22% from 8.27±0.32% with SGLT2is vs. -0.80±0.24% from 8.35±0.33% with DPP-4is; P=0.2756). The relationship between Δ HbA1c and baseline HbA1c was only slightly stronger with SGLT2is (slope: -0.39, r²=-0.43; P<0.0001) than with DPP-4is (slope: -0.26, r²=-0.25; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Because of the small difference in Δ HbA1c whatever the baseline HbA1c level with SGLT2is vs. DPP-4is as add-ons to metformin, choosing between these glucose-lowering agents in clinical practice should be based on other efficacy criteria (such as weight and blood pressure changes, cardiovascular and renal protection) or on safety profiles rather than on HbA1c levels.

Risk of any hypoglycaemia with newer antihyperglycaemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

For patients with type 2 diabetes, newer antihyperglycaemic agents (AHA), including the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) offer a lower risk of hypoglycaemia relative to sulfonylurea or insulin. However, it is not clear how AHA compare to placebo on risk of any hypoglycaemia. This study evaluates the risk of any and severe hypoglycaemia with AHA and metformin relative to placebo.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized, placebo-controlled trials ≥12 weeks in duration. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to April 16, 2019. Studies allowing use of other diabetes medications were excluded. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals were used to pool estimates based on class of AHA and number of concomitant therapies used.

PATIENTS

Eligible studies enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes ≥18 years of age.

RESULTS

144 studies met our inclusion criteria. Any hypoglycaemia was not increased with AHA when used as monotherapy (DPP4i (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.81-1.56), GLP1RA (1.77; 0.91-3.46), SGLT2i (1.34; 0.83-2.15)), or as add-on to metformin (DPP4i (0.95; 0.67-1.35), GLP1RA (1.24; 0.80-1.91), SGLT2i (1.29; 0.91-1.83)) or as triple therapy (1.13; 0.67-1.91). However, metformin monotherapy (1.73; 1.02-2.94) and dual therapy initiation (3.56; 1.79-7.10) was associated with an increased risk of any hypoglycaemia. Severe hypoglycaemia was rare not increased for any comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin and the simultaneous initiation of dual therapy, but not AHA used alone or as single add-on combination therapy, was associated with an increased risk of any hypoglycaemia relative to placebo.

Linagliptin and cardiorenal outcomes in Asians with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular and/or kidney disease: subgroup analysis of the randomized CARMELINA® trial

Objective

Linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, demonstrated cardiovascular and renal safety in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) with albuminuria and/or kidney disease in the multinational CARMELINA^® trial. We investigated the effects of linagliptin in Asian patients in CARMELINA^®.

Methods

T2DM patients with HbA1c 6.5-10.0% and established CVD with urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) > 30 mg/g, and/or prevalent kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 15-< 45 ml/min/1.73 m² or ≥ 45-75 with UACR > 200 mg/g), were randomized to linagliptin or placebo added to usual care. The primary endpoint was time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke (3-point MACE).

Results

Of the 6979 patients, 555 (8.0%) were Asians living in Asia. During a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-point MACE occurred in 29/272 (10.7%) and 33/283 (11.7%) of linagliptin and placebo patients, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-1.48), consistent with the overall population (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.89-1.17; P value for treatment-by-region interaction: 0.3349). Similar neutrality in Asian patients was seen for other cardiorenal events including the secondary kidney endpoint of death from renal failure, progression to end-stage kidney disease, or ≥ 40% eGFR decrease (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.58-1.59). Linagliptin was associated with a nominal decrease in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24-0.95). Overall in Asian patients, linagliptin had an adverse event rate similar to placebo, consistent with the overall population.

Conclusions

Linagliptin showed cardiovascular and renal safety in Asian patients with T2DM and established CVD with albuminuria and/or kidney disease.

Standards of medical care for type 2 diabetes in China 2019

The prevalence of diabetes in China has increased rapidly from 0.67% in 1980 to 10.4% in 2013, with the aging of the population and westernization of lifestyle. Since its foundation in 1991, the Chinese Diabetes Society (CDS) has been dedicated to improving academic exchange and the academic level of diabetes research in China. From 2003 to 2014, four versions of Chinese diabetes care guidelines have been published. The guidelines have played an important role in standardizing clinical practice and improving the status quo of diabetes prevention and control in China. Since September 2016, the CDS has invited experts in cardiovascular diseases, psychiatric diseases, nutrition, and traditional Chinese medicine to work with endocrinologists from the CDS to review the new clinical research evidence related to diabetes over the previous 4 years. Over a year of careful revision, this has resulted in the present, new version of guidelines for prevention and care of type 2 diabetes in China. The main contents include epidemiology of type 2 diabetes in China; diagnosis and classification of diabetes; primary, secondary, and tertiary diabetes prevention; diabetes education and management support; blood glucose monitoring; integrated control targets for type 2 diabetes and treatments for hyperglycaemia; medical nutrition therapy; exercise therapy for type 2 diabetes; smoking cessation; pharmacologic therapy for hyperglycaemia; metabolic surgery for type 2 diabetes; prevention and treatment of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases in patients with type 2 diabetes; hypoglycaemia; chronic diabetic complications; special types of diabetes; metabolic syndrome; and diabetes and traditional Chinese medicine.

Odds of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Receiving Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors: A National Cohort Study Within the Department of Veterans Affairs

Preclinical and clinical data of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have demonstrated discordant data regarding acute kidney injury (AKI). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the association between DPP-4 use and AKI. This cohort study utilized data from the Department of Veterans Affairs evaluating patients diagnosed with type 2 (T2) diabetes with a DPP-4 inhibitor and compared with nondiabetic and diabetic patients. The primary end point is the development of AKI, and statistical analyses were performed to examine the association. DPP-4 use is associated with a lower odds of AKI compared with diabetics (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.32-0.48) and nondiabetics (OR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.52-0.79). DPP-4 use in patients with T2 diabetes mellitus is associated with lower odds of AKI within 120 days compared with nondiabetic and diabetic controls when adjusting for study covariates.

The efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 58 randomized controlled trials

AIMS

The aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-I: sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, vildagliptin and alogliptin) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database from inception to April, 2018. Randomized controlled trials were included if they compared the different versions of DPP4-I with each other or with placebo in treatment of type 2 diabetes. Bayesian network meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the different kinds of DPP4-I and placebo. The data were analyzed using STATA 12.0 and WinBUGS1.4 software.

RESULTS

We identified 58 eligible studies (with 31356 patients) involving 14 treatment arms. Indirect comparison results showed that except for alogliptin, a decrease was found for all DPP4-I versus the placebo for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) with vildagliptin50 twice daily (BID) showing the highest probability. Linagliptin5 once daily (QD) decreased the level of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) the most for all DPP4-I versus the placebo; when comparing them with each other, alogliptin25QD was more effective when compared with sitagliptin100QD and vildaglipti50BID; linagliptin5qd had the highest decrease impact on body mass index (BMI). Except for hypoglycemia and upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), there are no statistical significance on incidence of adverse events and the body weight when DPP4-I are compared with each other or with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Our network meta-analysis presents the associations of DPP4-I versus placebos on HbA1c, FPG, 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2HPPG), BMI, body weight and adverse events. DPP4-I have a lowering effect on the glycemic level (HbA1c, FPG), especially vildaglipti50BID and linagliptin10QD, respectively. Besides, linagliptin5QD has the greatest probabilities of reducing BMI. In addition, DPP4-I were associated with not increasing the incidence of adverse events. Among them, vildagliptin100QD and sitagliptin100QD have the lowest probability in reducing the incidence of hypoglycemia and URTI, respectively.

Risk of hypoglycaemia in people aged ≥65 years receiving linagliptin: pooled data from 1489 individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To investigate the risk of hypoglycaemia in people aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with linagliptin, in the largest pooled analysis performed to date.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One thousand four hundred and eighty-nine patients aged ≥65 years with T2DM were pooled from 11 randomised, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trials evaluating linagliptin 5 mg alone, or in addition to various background therapies. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of investigator-defined hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the risk of hypoglycaemia between linagliptin and placebo in the all-patient population at 24 weeks (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84, 1.36; P = 0.5943)-despite significant (P < 0.0001) improvements in glycaemic control-and 1 year (HR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.27; P = 0.8803). Similar findings were observed for linagliptin vs placebo in subgroup analyses by background medication (eg, sulphonylureas (SUs) and/or insulin vs no such drugs), age, baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), ethnicity, and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate. Patients with a baseline HbA1c ≥7.5% had significantly higher odds of achieving HbA1c <7.5% without hypoglycaemia in the linagliptin group compared with placebo at 24 weeks (34.1% vs 13.7%; 95% CI: 2.04, 4.12; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis indicates that linagliptin was effective in treating older people with T2DM towards their HbA1c targets with a favourable safety and tolerability profile and low risk of hypoglycaemia. The safety profile was maintained even on background therapies with known risk of hypoglycaemia, such as insulin and SU.

Oral glucose lowering with linagliptin and metformin compared with linagliptin alone as initial treatment in Asian patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycemia: Subgroup analysis of a randomized clinical trial

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an epidemic in Asia, yet clinical trials of glucose-lowering therapies often enroll predominantly Western populations. We explored the initial combination of metformin and linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Asia with marked hyperglycemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a post-hoc subgroup analysis of a multinational, parallel-group clinical trial in which 316 newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.5-12.0% were randomized to double-blind oral treatment with linagliptin/metformin or linagliptin monotherapy. The primary end-point was the change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24. We evaluated data for the 125 participants from Asian countries.

RESULTS

After 24 weeks, the mean ± standard error reduction from baseline in HbA1c (mean 10.0%) was -2.99 ± 0.18% with linagliptin/metformin and -1.84 ± 0.18% with linagliptin; a treatment difference of -1.15% (95% confidence interval -1.65 to -0.66, P < 0.0001). HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 60% of participants receiving linagliptin/metformin. The mean bodyweight change after 24 weeks was -0.45 ± 0.41 kg and 1.33 ± 0.45 kg in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively (treatment difference -1.78 kg [95% confidence interval -2.99 to -0.57, P = 0.0043]). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 9.7% of participants receiving linagliptin/metformin and 4.8% of those receiving linagliptin. Hypoglycemia occurred in 6.5% and 4.8% of the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively, with no severe episodes. Gastrointestinal disorders occurred in 12.9% and 12.7% of the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively, with no associated treatment discontinuations.

CONCLUSIONS

In people from Asia with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus and marked hyperglycemia, the initial combination of linagliptin and metformin substantially improved glycemic control without weight gain and with infrequent hypoglycemia. Initial oral combination therapy might be a viable treatment for such individuals.

Efficacy and Safety of Linagliptin in 2681 Asian Patients Stratified by Age, Obesity, and Renal Function: A Pooled Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Introduction

Asian patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are younger, leaner, and more likely to develop renal dysfunction than White populations. In this multiethnic analysis of data from phase 3 trials, we investigated the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in Asians stratified by these subphenotypes.

Methods

Data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating linagliptin (as monotherapy, add-on therapy to metformin ± sulfonylurea, combined with pioglitazone or added to insulin) were pooled with efficacy data from 11 randomized trials of at least 24 weeks and safety data from 15 trials of various durations.

Results

In the efficacy set, 1404 Asian patients received linagliptin [mean (standard deviation) age 54.5 (10.1) years; body mass index (BMI) 26.0 (3.9) kg/m²] and 661 received placebo [age 55.0 (9.7) years; BMI 26.1 (3.9) kg/m²] with the same glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c): 8.2 (0.9)% in both groups. At 24 weeks, the placebo-corrected adjusted mean ± standard error change from baseline in HbA1c with linagliptin was −0.73 ± 0.04% (95% confidence interval −0.81, −0.65; P < 0.0001). Reductions in HbA1c were similar upon stratification by age [<65 years, −0.71 ± 0.05% (−0.80, −0.62; P < 0.0001); ≥65 years, −0.81 ± 0.10% (−1.01, −0.60; P < 0.0001)], BMI (<25 kg/m², −0.82 ± 0.06% [−0.94, −0.70; P < 0.0001]; ≥25 kg/m², −0.65 ± 0.06% [−0.76, −0.54; P < 0.0001]) and estimated glomerular filtration rate [<90 mL/min/1.73 m², −0.71 ± 0.06% (−0.82, −0.60; P < 0.0001); ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m², −0.75 ± 0.06% (−0.87, −0.64; P < 0.0001)]. In the safety set (linagliptin, n = 1842; placebo, n = 839), 52.2% and 54.6% of patients, respectively, experienced adverse events. The rates of drug-related adverse events were 10.9% in the linagliptin group and 10.4% in the placebo group. The respective rates of hypoglycemia were 8.3% and 9.5%, mainly among patients treated with sulfonylurea or insulin. Severe hypoglycemia was rare (<1.0% in either group).

Conclusion

Linagliptin effectively reduced hyperglycemia in Asian patients with uncontrolled T2D, irrespective of age, BMI, renal function, or ethnic subgroups, and was well tolerated.

Funding

Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, and the Diabetes Alliance.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0595-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cardiovascular Safety of Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Large randomized trials have shown conflicting evidence regarding the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Systematic reviews have been limited by incomplete data and inclusion of observational studies. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared DPP-4 inhibitors versus placebo and reported cardiovascular outcomes. The main outcome assessed in this analysis was heart failure. Other outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were primarily constructed using Peto's model.

RESULTS

A total of 90 trials with 66,730 patients were included. Compared with placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a non-significant increased risk of heart failure [OR 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.25, P = 0.07] at a mean of 108 weeks. The risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12, P = 0.53), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.14, P = 0.72), myocardial infarction (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.09, P = 0.69), and ischemic stroke (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85-1.15, P = 0.92) was similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with type 2 diabetes, the safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors is similar to placebo. As a class, there is only weak evidence for an increased risk of heart failure.

DPP-4 Inhibitor Treatment in Chinese Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the comprehensive clinical efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitors in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients and to evaluate whether there is a different response to treatment with different kinds of DPP-4 inhibitors in those patients.

METHODS

Databases were systematically searched, and qualifying clinical studies of Chinese type 2 diabetes patients were included.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies were included. Treatment with saxagliptin resulted in a significantly greater change from baseline in HbA_1c levels (weighted mean difference [WMD], -1.28%; 95% CI, -1.37% to -1.19%); treatment with sitagliptin led to a significantly greater change from baseline (WMD, -1.17%; 95% CI, -1.46% to -0.89%); treatment with vildagliptin was associated with a significantly greater change in HbA_1c levels (WMD, -0.77%; 95% CI, -0.88% to -0.65%); treatment with linagliptin led to a significantly greater change (WMD, -0.84%; 95% CI, -0.92% to -0.75%); and treatment with alogliptin also led to a significantly greater change (WMD, -0.91%; 95% CI, -1.48% to -0.33%). In terms of body weight, treatment with saxagliptin was associated with no significant decreases in Chinese type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients (WMD, -0.17 kg, 95% CI, -4.26 to 3.92 kg). Treatment with sitagliptin and linagliptin was also associated with no significant changes in body weight (WMD, 0.16 and 0.11 kg, respectively, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In Chinese type 2 diabetes patients, the efficacy of glucose control in all five kinds of DPP-4 inhibitor treatments was well confirmed, and no significant change in body weight was found.

Comparable pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety of linagliptin 5 mg among Japanese, Asian and white patients with type 2 diabetes

Aims/Introduction

The efficacy and safety of drugs can vary between different races or ethnic populations because of differences in the relationship of dose to exposure, pharmacodynamic response or clinical efficacy and safety. In the present post‐hoc analysis, we assessed the influence of race on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy and safety of monotherapy with the dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor, linagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in two comparable, previously reported randomized phase III trials.

Materials and Methods

Study 1 (with a 12‐week placebo‐controlled phase) recruited Japanese patients only (linagliptin, n = 159; placebo, n = 80); study 2 (24‐week trial) enrolled Asian (non‐Japanese; linagliptin, n = 156; placebo, n = 76) and white patients (linagliptin, n = 180; placebo, n = 90).

Results

Linagliptin trough concentrations were equivalent across study and race groups, and were higher than half‐maximal inhibitory concentration, resulting in dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibition >80% at trough. Linagliptin inhibited plasma dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 activity to a similar degree in study 1 and study 2. Linagliptin reduced fasting plasma glucose concentrations by a similar magnitude across groups, leading to clinically relevant reductions in glycated hemoglobin in all groups. Glycated hemoglobin levels decreased to a slightly greater extent in study 1 (Japanese) and in Asian (non‐Japanese) patients from study 2. Linagliptin had a favorable safety profile in each race group.

Conclusions

Trough exposure, pharmacodynamic response, and efficacy and safety of linagliptin monotherapy were comparable among Japanese, Asian (non‐Japanese) and white patients, confirming that the recommended 5‐mg once‐daily dose of linagliptin is appropriate for use among different race groups.

Effect of Linagliptin on Glycemic Control in Chinese Patients with Newly-Diagnosed, Drug-Naïve Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin (a novel dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor) on glucose metabolism and β-cell function in Chinese patients with newly-diagnosed, drug-naïve type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Material/Methods

Newly-diagnosed and drug-naïve T2DM patients were enrolled. After 4-week lifestyle modulation and 2-week placebo run-in, 57 patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with linagliptin (n=34) or placebo (n=23). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) after 24 weeks. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h postprandial plasma glucose (2h-PPG), fasting insulin, proinsulin-to-insulin ratio, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function (HOMA-β) were also evaluated.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with placebo, linagliptin therapy resulted in a significant decrease in HbA1C (−1.2±0.7% vs. −0.4±0.4%, P<0.001), FBG (−0.98±1.17 vs. −0.32±0.51 mmol/L, P=0.011, and 2h-PPG (−2.02±0.94 vs. −0.97±0.63 mmol/L, P<0.001). Significant differences were observed for the proinsulin/insulin ratio (P<0.001) and HOMA-β index (P=0.001). Rates of adverse events were similar between the 2 groups (30.3% vs. 27.3%). All adverse events were mild. One patient discontinued participation due to pregnancy.

Conclusions

Linagliptin treatment resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful improvement of glycemic control in drug-naïve Chinese patients with T2DM, as well as improved parameters of β-cell function. Linagliptin had an excellent safety profile.