Linagliptin provides effective, well-tolerated add-on therapy to pre-existing oral antidiabetic therapy over 1 year in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes

The effect of linagliptin on microalbuminuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy: a randomized, double blinded clinical trial

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of linagliptin on microalbuminuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy (DN). The present double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial was performed on 92 patients with DN who were divided into two groups. The intervention and control groups received linagliptin 5 mg and placebo for 24 weeks, respectively. Blood pressure, lipid profile, liver enzymes, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) were assessed and recorded before, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks after the beginning of the intervention. The mean value of UACR decrease was significant over time in both groups, with higher decrease in linagliptin group, however, the differences between two groups were not, statistically significant (P > 0.05). However, the percentage of improvement in microalbuminuria (UACR < 30 mg/g) in the linagliptin group was significantly higher than that of the control group during 24 weeks of intervention (68.3% vs. 25%; P-value < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean value of the UACR and other parameters between linagliptin treated and placebo treated patients with diabetic nephropathy. Further studies, with longer periods of follow-up are suggested to examine these patients' renal outcomes.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of linagliptin as add-on therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: final results of a 3-year post-marketing surveillance

BACKGROUND

We investigated the long-term safety and effectiveness of linagliptin in Japanese type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients starting linagliptin add-on therapy in routine clinical practice.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This 3-year prospective, observational, post-marketing surveillance (PMS) was conducted in Japanese patients starting linagliptin add-on therapy. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The secondary outcome was the change from baseline in HbA1c.

RESULTS

The safety analysis set comprised of 3,372 patients. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 66.5 ± 12.4 years. Most patients (63.2%) received linagliptin in combination with another antidiabetic drug, most commonly a sulfonylurea (38.6%). The incidence of ADRs was 11.39%; the most common ADRs according to MedDRA preferred terms were diabetes mellitus (1.25%), hypertension (0.83%), and hypoglycemia (0.80%). In the effectiveness analysis set (n = 3,029), mean ± SD HbA1c was 7.76 ± 1.37% at baseline and 7.26 ± 1.19% at last observation; mean change from baseline to last observation was - 0.49 ± 1.33%; sustained reductions in HbA1c were observed. These results were consistent across patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this PMS, linagliptin add-on therapy for Japanese T2D patients had a safety profile consistent with its known profile and HbA1c reductions over 3 years were observed.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV

NCT01904383.

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.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Linagliptin in a Japanese Population with Type 2 Diabetes Aged ≥ 60 Years Treated with Basal Insulin: A Randomised Trial

INTRODUCTION

An estimated 4.3 million people aged ≥ 65 years with diabetes live in Japan. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in older Japanese patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

In this phase 4, randomised, placebo-controlled national study (part of a global study) conducted in Japan over a period of 52 weeks, 102 patients on stable treatment with basal insulin ± metformin/alpha-glucosidase inhibitors were randomised (1:1) to receive linagliptin 5 mg qd or placebo. The primary end point was the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) after 24 weeks of treatment, with additional analyses at 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Mean age and HbA1c of the study population were 71 years and 8.1%, respectively. Approximately two-thirds of participants were aged ≥ 70 years, two-thirds had macrovascular complications, approximately half had a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/min/1.73 m², and two-thirds had a time since diagnosis of diabetes > 10 years. Significant HbA1c reductions with linagliptin vs. placebo were observed at 24 weeks, - 0.71% (95% CI - 0.96, - 0.45, p < 0.0001), and maintained at 52 weeks, - 0.58% (95% CI - 0.82, - 0.34, p < 0.0001). Linagliptin improved the chances of achieving a categorical HbA1c target (< 8.0% and < 7.0%) at 24 and 52 weeks in patients who were not at their respective target at the beginning of the study. Addition of linagliptin to insulin was associated with a numerical increase in the risk of any hypoglycaemia, but not in the risk of clinically significant hypoglycaemia, severe hypoglycaemia or recurring hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSION

Linagliptin was effective in improving glucose control in Japanese patients aged ≥ 60 years with T2DM on stable glucose-lowering therapy with basal insulin. Linagliptin was well tolerated and no new safety concerns were raised. The results presented here are highly consistent with the results from the global study, which was conducted over a 24-week period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02240680.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company Diabetes Alliance.

Post-marketing Study of Linagliptin: A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Linagliptin is a high-cost oral antidiabetic that has been widely used, and studies on its effectiveness and safety for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) in the real world is rare and necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the values of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and adverse events before and after the use of linagliptin in the post-marketing context of a pilot study.

METHODS

This is a descriptive observational and exploratory study with a retrospective longitudinal approach, conducted between January 2014 and December 2016. All patients who participated in the study were over 18 years of age, with DM2, assisted by the Brazilian Public Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS) and had been indicated for use of linagliptin. The users were followed up and the variables of interest were collected from a computerized health information system (sistema informatizado de saúde - SIS) and patient records. For effectiveness analysis, HbA1c before (T0) and after (T1) the use of linagliptin was considered in patients registered as having collected linagliptin at the pharmacy for at least three consecutive months. For safety analysis, registered adverse events (AE) were verified in patients' records. The sample was stratified according to the pharmacotherapeutic scheme of the users. To compare the means before (T0) and after (T1), a paired t-test (data with normal distribution) and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test (non-normal distribution data) were performed.

RESULTS

Considering the total population of the study, in a different pharmacotherapeutic regimen, a median reduction in HbA1c of -0.86% (p < 0.05) was observed. After stratification by pharmacotherapeutic regimen, the most significant reduction of HbA1c was -1.07% (p = 0.014) for the linagliptin group associated with insulins and oral antidiabetic agents (n = 13). On the other hand, patients taking linagliptin in monotherapy had the lowest HbA1c reduction, -0.48% (p > 0.05). AE occurred in 12 (36.4%) patients, and 16.7% were in monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Linagliptin did not presented, in real world, the desired performance as showed in randomized premarketing clinical trials and it should be carefully evaluated in public health services.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Review of the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the clinical relevance of the CAROLINA trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) is a well-recognized complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and there is a clinical need for glucose-lowering therapies that do not further increase CV risk in this population. Although sulfonylureas (SUs) may be used as second-line therapy for patients requiring additional therapy after first-line metformin to improve glycemic control, their long-term effects on CV outcomes remain uncertain, and a wide range of alternative agents exist including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODS

Literature searches in PubMed (2013-2018) were conducted with terms for DPP-4 inhibitors combined with CV terms, with preference given to cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs). Reference lists from retrieved articles and diabetes guidelines were also considered.

RESULTS

This narrative review discusses current evidence for the CV safety of these agents, describes the long-term CV effects of DPP-4 inhibitors, including effects on CV events, mortality, the risk for heart failure hospitalization, and highlights the need for further research into the CV effects of SU therapy. Although SUs remain a treatment option for T2DM, the long-term effects of these agents on CV outcomes are unclear, and further long-term studies are required. For DPP-4 inhibitors, uncertainties have been raised about their long-term effect on hospitalization for heart failure in light of the results of SAVOR-TIMI 53, although the findings of other DPP-4 inhibitor CVOTs in T2DM and data analyses have suggested these agents do not increase the occurrence of adverse CV outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on recent CVOTs and guideline updates, the choice of add-on to metformin therapy for patients with T2DM and established CV disease should be a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist with proven CV benefit. Additional treatment options for those individuals who require therapy intensification, as well as in patients with T2DM and without established CVD include DPP-4 inhibitors and SUs. Since few head-to-head trials have compared the effects of different oral glucose-lowering agents on CV outcomes in T2DM, with most CVOTs using placebo as a comparator, the CAROLINA trial will provide important information on the comparative CV safety of a commonly prescribed SU and a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Linagliptin safety profile: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To describe the safety profile of linagliptin.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic review using PubMed/MEDLINE, BVS and Web of Science. The search strategy "Linagliptin" AND "safety" was used. The inclusion criteria were clinical trials with a control group composed of conventional DM2 pharmacotherapy.

RESULTS

We identified 16 studies, and the most frequent adverse events (AEs) were nasopharyngitis with linagliptin at 5 and 10mg in monotherapy (31.6% and 29.6%, respectively) and gastrointestinal events (>10.0%) with linagliptin in combination. Of the AEs, 14.9 (±3.1)% were associated with the use of linagliptin in monotherapy, and 17.6 (±6.0)% in combination. The linagliptin AEs have a varied occurrence and frequency, ranging from mild to moderate intensity.

Incretin-based therapies and risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 6 recently published large-scale cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), to evaluate the risk of pancreatic cancer with incretin-based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For the period January 1, 2007 to May 1, 2017, the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register and ClininalTrials.gov databases were searched for RCTs in people with T2DM that compared incretin drugs with placebo or other antidiabetic drugs, with treatment and follow-up durations of ≥52 weeks. Two reviewers screened the studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias independently and in duplicate.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies (n = 79 971), including the 6 CVOTs, with 87 pancreatic cancer events were identified. Overall, the pancreatic cancer risk was not increased in patients administered incretin drugs compared with controls (Peto odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-1.02). In the 6 CVOTs, 79 pancreatic cancer events were identified in 55 248 participants. Pooled estimates of the 6 CVOTs showed an identical tendency (Peto OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42-1.01). Notably, in the subgroup of participants who received treatment and follow-up for ≥104 weeks, 84 pancreatic cancer events were identified in 59 919 participants, and a lower risk of pancreatic cancer was associated with incretin-based therapies (Peto OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with incretin drugs was not associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in people with T2DM. Instead, it might protect against pancreatic malignancy in patients treated for ≥104 weeks.

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.

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

AIMS

To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of liraglutide and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as antidiabetics for Japanese patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating outcomes among Japanese adults with uncontrolled T2DM and including liraglutide or DPP-4 inhibitors up to August 2016. We extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, and the following outcomes: HbA1c, weight, patients meeting HbA1c <7%, patients experiencing hypoglycemic events, microalbuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and creatinine. We synthesized data using network meta-analyses (NMA) using a Bayesian framework. Continuous outcomes were modeled using normal likelihoods and an identity link, while dichotomous outcomes were modeled using a binomial likelihood and a logit link.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review yielded 39 publications pertaining to 38 trials. A total of 27 trials (5032 patients) reported change in HbA1c at 12 weeks and at 24 weeks 9 trials (2091 patients). All treatments showed statistically significant reductions in HbA1c relative to placebo at 12 and 24 weeks. Liraglutide 0.9 mg was statistically superior to all DPP-4 interventions (vildagliptin, sitagliptin, linagliptin, alogliptin, teneligliptin, trelagliptin and omarigliptin) at 12 weeks and 24 weeks among those reporting. Treatments were not statistically differentiable with respect to weight change and risk of hypoglycemia. Finally, no comparisons of eGFR and microalbuminuria were conducted, as this data was reported in too few trials to conduct analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Some important outcomes were limited by poor reporting (eGFR and microalbuminuria) or low event rates (hypoglycemia). The follow-up time was relatively short. Clinically, the 24 week time point is more important as it demonstrates more sustained results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research suggests that liraglutide 0.9 mg offers a more efficacious treatment option for T2DM than the DPP-4 inhibitors among adult Japanese patients and that it is a viable option for this population.

Iron-catalyzed cascade reaction of 2-aminobenzyl alcohols with benzylamines: synthesis of quinazolines by trapping of ammonia

A novel iron-catalyzed cascade reaction of 2-aminobenzyl alcohols with benzylamines has been developed, which provides a facile access to 2-substituted quinazolines.

Adverse effects of incretin-based therapies on major cardiovascular and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Recent cardiovascular outcome trials of incretin-based therapies (IBT) in type 2 diabetes have not demonstrated either benefit or harm in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Earlier meta-analyses showed conflicting results but were limited in methodology. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of all available incretin therapies on the incidence of MACE plus arrhythmia and heart failure.

METHODS

We identified studies published through November 2014 by searching electronic databases and reference lists. We included RCTs in which the intervention group received incretin-based therapies and the control group received placebo or standard treatment; enrolled >100 participants in each group; interventions lasted >24 weeks; and reported data on one or more primary major adverse cardiovascular events endpoints plus terms for arrhythmia and heart failure. We used the Peto method for each CV event for individual IBT treatment.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis of 100 RCTs involving 54,758 incretin-based therapies users and 48,175 controls, exenatide was associated with increased risk of arrhythmia (OR 2.83; 95% CI, 1.06-7.57); saxagliptin was associated with an increased risk of heart failure (OR 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.46), and sitagliptin was associated with a significantly decreased risk of all cause death compared to active controls (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

In type 2 diabetes, exenatide may increase the risk of arrhythmia, and sitagliptin may reduce the risk of all cause death; however, the subgroup of patients most likely to experience harm or benefit is unclear. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Safety and efficacy of linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: Analysis of pooled events from 19 clinical trials

AIMS

To examine the safety and efficacy of linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary artery disease (CAD) using pooled data from the global clinical trials program.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled from randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of linagliptin (5mg, monotherapy or combination therapy). Safety/efficacy analyses were conducted for patients with CAD and ≥12 and ≥24weeks of treatment, respectively.

RESULTS

The safety analysis included 19 trials (linagliptin, n=451; placebo, n=272) and the efficacy analysis, 12 trials (linagliptin, n=328; placebo, n=198); mean (± standard deviation) exposure to study treatment was 212 (144) days linagliptin and 245 (171) days placebo. Occurrence of cardiac adverse events (AEs) was similar for linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients (9.1% and 9.2%, respectively); exposure-adjusted incidence rates (per 100 patient-years) were 16.6 and 14.0, respectively. Overall incidence of AEs was numerically lower with linagliptin than placebo. After 24weeks, mean adjusted change (standard error) from baseline glycosylated hemoglobin was -0.64% (0.04) with linagliptin vs. -0.08% (0.05) with placebo (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive pooled analysis showed that addition of linagliptin to treatment regimens of patients with T2DM and CAD was not associated with an increased incidence of cardiac AEs, was well tolerated, and was effective.

Population Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Linagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Background and Objectives

Linagliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor, used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses were performed to characterize the impact of clinically relevant intrinsic/extrinsic factors (covariates) on linagliptin exposure and DPP-4 inhibition in patients with T2DM.

Methods

Linagliptin plasma concentrations and DPP-4 activities were obtained from four studies (two phase 1, two phase 2b). Non-linear mixed-effects modelling techniques were implemented using NONMEM software. The covariates that were studied comprised demographic information and laboratory values, including liver enzyme levels and creatinine clearance, as well as study-related factors such as metformin co-treatment. Covariate effects on parameters describing the pharmacokinetics and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship were investigated using stepwise forward inclusion/backward elimination.

Results

The pharmacokinetic analysis included 6,907 measurements of plasma linagliptin concentrations from 462 patients; the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis included 9,674 measurements of plasma DPP-4 activity and linagliptin plasma concentrations from 607 patients. The non-linear pharmacokinetics were described by a target-mediated drug disposition model accounting for the concentration-dependent binding of linagliptin to its target, DPP-4. The difference in exposure between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the covariate distributions and median was <20 % for each single covariate. Likewise, the impact of the covariates on both the half-maximum effect (EC₅₀) and the concentration leading to 80 % DPP-4 inhibition was <20 %.

Conclusion

These analyses show that the investigated factors do not alter the pharmacokinetics and DPP-4 inhibitory activity of linagliptin to a clinically relevant extent and that dose adjustment is not necessary on the basis of factors including age, sex and weight.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40262-014-0232-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The clinical application of linagliptin in Asians

Asia has a growing diabetic population. Linagliptin, a member of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor class, is unique in its nonlinear pharmacokinetics with the characteristics of rapid attainment of steady state, little accumulation, predominantly nonrenal route of elimination, prolonged terminal half-life, and sustained inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 enzyme. No clinically relevant difference in pharmacokinetics was observed between Asians and non-Asians. The management of type 2 diabetes is increasingly challenging with the progression of disease, especially with the requirements of minimal hypoglycemia, weight gain, fluid retention, and other adverse effects. Linagliptin was efficacious and well-tolerated in Asian type 2 diabetes patients with or without renal or hepatic dysfunctions, comparable to that in Caucasians. This review will focus on the usage of linagliptin in clinical studies in Asians.

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

Aims/Introduction

Asian patients represent a large portion of the global population with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but are underrepresented in trials of glucose-lowering therapies. The present randomized, phase III, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 24-week study evaluated the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, linagliptin, as monotherapy in Asian patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Materials and Methods

Patients who were treatment naïve or had been treated with one oral antidiabetes drug were randomized to either linagliptin 5 mg daily or a placebo after washout. The primary end-point was a change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin after 24 weeks.

Results

A total of 300 Asian (87% Chinese) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomized to linagliptin or placebo at a 2:1 ratio. After 24 weeks of treatment, adjusted mean (standard error) glycated hemoglobin decreased by a placebo-corrected −0.50 ± 0.11 (P < 0.0001). In patients with baseline glycated hemoglobin ≥8.5%, the placebo-corrected decrease in glycated hemoglobin was −0.91 ± 0.20% (P < 0.0001). Adverse events occurred in 28.0 and 28.3% of linagliptin and placebo patients, respectively, but few were drug-related (3.0 and 2.0%, respectively). Hypoglycemia was reported by one linagliptin patient and no placebo patients. Treatment with linagliptin was weight neutral.

Conclusions

In Asian patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus, linagliptin 5 mg as monotherapy was efficacious and well tolerated over 24 weeks.

Linagliptin improves glycemic control after 1 year as add-on therapy to basal insulin in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and long-term safety of linagliptin added to basal insulin in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled by basal insulin with/without oral agents.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of Asian patients from a global ≥52 week study in which patients on basal insulin were randomized (1:1) to double-blind treatment with linagliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo (NCT00954447). Basal insulin dose remained stable for 24 weeks, after which adjustments could be made according to the investigator's discretion to improve glycemic control. The primary endpoint was the mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Data were available for 154 Asian patients (80 linagliptin, 74 placebo). Baseline HbA1c (standard deviation [SD]) was 8.6 (0.9)% (70 [10] mmol/mol). The placebo-corrected mean change (standard error [SE]) in HbA1c from baseline was -0.9 (0.1)% (-10 [1] mmol/mol) (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.2, -0.7; p<0.0001) at Week 24 and -0.9 (0.1)% (-10 [1] mmol/mol) (95% CI: -1.1, -0.6; p<0.0001) at Week 52. The frequency of adverse events (linagliptin 81.3%, placebo 91.9%) and hypoglycemia (Week 24: linagliptin 25.0%, placebo 25.7%; treatment end: linagliptin 28.8%, placebo 35.1%) was similar between groups. By Week 52, changes (SE) in mean body weight were similar in both groups (linagliptin -0.67 [0.26] kg, placebo -0.38 [0.25] kg).

CONCLUSIONS

This study was limited by the post hoc nature of the analysis and the small number of patients in the subgroup. However, the results suggest that linagliptin significantly improves glycemic control in Asian patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by basal insulin, without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia or weight gain. ClinicalTrials identifier: NCT00954447.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin as monotherapy or add-on treatment in Asian patients with suboptimal glycemic control: a pooled analysis

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor linagliptin in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a rapidly increasing population.

METHODS

Data were pooled for Asian patients receiving linagliptin orally once daily, as monotherapy or added to existing oral antidiabetes therapies, in multinational randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials. Efficacy data were taken from four pivotal trials with 24-week durations to allow for robust efficacy assessment. Safety data were pooled from a wider group of 10 trials with varying durations to capture the largest possible incidence of adverse events (AEs). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c. AEs were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA1c (±SD) in this population was 8.2 ± 0.9%. Placebo-corrected mean change in HbA1c after 24 weeks was -0.79% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.92 to -0.67; p < 0.0001). Placebo-corrected mean change in fasting plasma glucose was -17.8 ± 2.4 mg/dL (95% CI: -22.6, -13.0; p < 0.0001). In a small subgroup, mean post-prandial glucose was reduced by a placebo-corrected -56.9 ± 14.0 mg/dL (95% CI: -85.2, -28.5). AEs occurred in 58.0% of linagliptin patients (serious AEs in 2.4%) and 58.2% of placebo patients (serious AEs in 3.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study was limited by the post hoc nature of the analysis, and because the pooling did not differentiate between geographically distant Asian regions. Nonetheless, this analysis provides evidence that linagliptin was efficacious and well tolerated as monotherapy or added to other oral antidiabetes therapies in Asian patients with T2DM.

Glycemic/metabolic responses to identical meal tolerance tests at breakfast, lunch and dinner in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and the effects of adding a mitiglinide/voglibose fixed-dose combination

BACKGROUND

The effects of the mitiglinide/voglibose fixed-dose combination on postprandial glycemic/metabolic responses in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are unknown.

METHODS

Twelve T2DM patients treated with a DPP-4 inhibitor underwent identical meal tolerance tests (MTTs) at breakfast, lunch and dinner, before and 2 - 3 weeks after treatment with a fixed-dose combination of mitiglinide 10 mg and voglibose 0.2 mg (combination). Patients were randomized in a cross-over fashion to administer the combination either three-times-daily before each meal or twice-daily before breakfast and dinner. Glycemic/metabolic responses were evaluated at 0, 30, 60 and 120 min in each MTT.

RESULTS

Three-times-daily administration of the combination significantly suppressed postprandial hyperglycemia after each meal, particularly after lunch and dinner. Active glucagon-like peptide-1 levels increased significantly after each meal, as did early-phase insulin secretion without excessive insulin secretion. Postprandial hyperglycemia after lunch was significantly greater after twice-daily than three-times-daily administration, but there were no clinically relevant differences in other metabolic responses.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that adding the mitiglinide/voglibose combination to a DPP-4 inhibitor elicited additive improvements in postprandial glycemic/metabolic responses assessed using MTTs at breakfast, lunch and dinner with identical meal compositions.

Safety and Tolerability of Linagliptin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Comprehensive Pooled Analysis of 22 Placebo-controlled Studies

PURPOSE

Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors are an increasingly used antihyperglycemic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Linagliptin, an orally administered DPP-4 inhibitor, has demonstrated favorable efficacy/safety in clinical trials. The aim of this post hoc pooled analysis was to expand current knowledge of the safety of linagliptin.

METHODS

Safety data for once-daily linagliptin 5 mg (1 study of linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily) were analyzed from 22 randomized, double-blind, Phase I-III, placebo-controlled clinical trials of ≤102 weeks' duration. Assessments of pooled data included incidence of patient-reported adverse events (AEs).

FINDINGS

Data from 7400 patients (linagliptin, 4810; placebo, 2590) were pooled. Most patients (58.4%) had T2DM diagnosis for >5 years; approximately 75% were receiving ≥1 type of background therapy in addition to linagliptin/placebo. Overall exposure to the study drug was 2412.8 years for linagliptin and 1481.4 years for placebo (mean [SD], 183 [120] days and 209 [150] days, respectively). Overall frequencies of AEs were similar for linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients (57.3% and 61.8%, respectively). The incidence of neoplastic AEs was low (0.6% and 0.9%, respectively); there were no reports of pancreatic neoplasia. Pancreatitis was observed in 2 linagliptin-treated patients (<0.1%) and 1 placebo-treated patient (<0.1%). The occurrence of cardiac disorder AEs was similar in linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients (3.2% [n = 153] and 3.3% [n = 83], respectively); the incidence of heart failure AEs for linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients was 0.2% (n = 11) and 0.3% (n = 7), respectively. Overall, linagliptin was weight neutral. Occurrence of investigator-defined hypoglycemic AEs was low for both linagliptin and placebo (11.5% vs 14.0%). In patients receiving concomitant sulfonylurea therapy, investigator-defined hypoglycemic AEs were more frequent with linagliptin versus placebo (22.1% [238/1079] vs 14.5% [61/421], respectively). Subgroup analyses showed similar frequencies of AEs for linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients across different age groups and renal function levels.

IMPLICATIONS

This updated and expanded pooled, post hoc analysis of 22 placebo-controlled trials of linagliptin 5 mg daily supports previous findings of the acceptable overall safety/tolerability profile of linagliptin when administered to a broad range of patients with T2DM. Linagliptin-treated patients demonstrated a low overall risk of hypoglycemia (risk increased by concomitant sulfonylurea therapy). As with all pooled analyses, this study is limited by the use of data from different studies, and the relatively short duration of some included studies, although use of individual patient data from consistently designed trials should minimize methodological differences between trials. Results from ongoing clinical trials will provide additional insight into the long-term safety/tolerability of linagliptin.

Efficacy and Safety of Vildagliptin as Add-on to Metformin in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin, a potent dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, as an add-on to metformin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This multicenter, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm study compared vildagliptin 50 mg bid with placebo in T2DM patients who were inadequately controlled [glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0-10.0%] on a stable daily dose of metformin monotherapy (250 mg bid or 500 mg bid).

RESULTS

A total of 139 patients were randomized to receive either vildagliptin (n = 69) or placebo (n = 70). Patient demographics were comparable between the groups at baseline. After 12 weeks of treatment, adjusted mean change in HbA1c was -1.1% in the vildagliptin group (baseline 8.0%) and -0.1% in the placebo group (baseline 8.0%), with a between-treatment difference of -1.0% (P < 0.001). Vildagliptin showed a similar reduction in HbA1c of -1.1% for both the subpopulations of patients receiving metformin 250 mg bid or 500 mg bid (P < 0.001 vs. baseline). Significantly more patients in the vildagliptin group achieved an HbA1c target of ≤6.5% (30.9%) and <7.0% (64.1%) compared with the placebo group (P < 0.001). The between-treatment difference in adjusted mean change in fasting plasma glucose was -1.6 mmol/L (P < 0.001) in favor of vildagliptin. Patients in the vildagliptin and placebo groups reported comparable incidences of adverse events (44.1% vs. 41.4%). No deaths or hypoglycemic events were reported in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin 50 mg bid added to metformin improved glycemic control without any tolerability issues and hypoglycemia in Japanese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

Effects of sitagliptin or mitiglinide as an add-on to acarbose on daily blood glucose fluctuations measured by 72 h subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a prospective randomized study

OBJECTIVE

Postprandial hyperglycemia and blood glucose fluctuations increase the risk of macroangiopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, few studies have examined the effects of oral hypoglycemic drugs on blood glucose fluctuations in daily life.

METHODS

Twenty-nine T2DM patients treated with acarbose were randomized to receive either sitagliptin (14 patients) or mitiglinide (15 patients) together with acarbose for 4 weeks. Patients were then switched to a combination of 10 mg mitiglinide and 0.2 mg voglibose for 4 weeks. All patients wore a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) device for 5 - 7 days in week 3 of each treatment period.

RESULTS

The percentage of blood glucose levels in the hyperglycemic range, blood glucose indices derived from 24-h CGM profiles and the glycemic parameters (HbA1c, glycated albumin and fasting plasma glucose) were significantly improved by adding sitagliptin or mitiglinide to ongoing acarbose therapy. These parameters also tended to improve in the mitiglinide/voglibose combination period.

CONCLUSION

Daily blood glucose fluctuations were significantly improved by adding sitagliptin or mitiglinide to acarbose, and improved after switching to the mitiglinide/voglibose combination. Larger controlled studies are needed to verify the effects of adding sitagliptin or mitiglinide to acarbose on glucose fluctuations.

Comparative effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue as add-on therapies to sulphonylurea among diabetes patients in the Asia-Pacific region: a systematic review

The prevalence of diabetes mellitus is rising globally, and it induces a substantial public health burden to the healthcare systems. Its optimal control is one of the most significant challenges faced by physicians and policy-makers. Whereas some of the established oral hypoglycaemic drug classes like biguanide, sulphonylureas, thiazolidinediones have been extensively used, the newer agents like dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the human glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues have recently emerged as suitable options due to their similar efficacy and favorable side effect profiles. These agents are widely recognized alternatives to the traditional oral hypoglycaemic agents or insulin, especially in conditions where they are contraindicated or unacceptable to patients. Many studies which evaluated their clinical effects, either alone or as add-on agents, were conducted in Western countries. There exist few reviews on their effectiveness in the Asia-Pacific region. The purpose of this systematic review is to address the comparative effectiveness of these new classes of medications as add-on therapies to sulphonylurea drugs among diabetic patients in the Asia-Pacific countries. We conducted a thorough literature search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE from the inception of these databases to August 2013, supplemented by an additional manual search using reference lists from research studies, meta-analyses and review articles as retrieved by the electronic databases. A total of nine randomized controlled trials were identified and described in this article. It was found that DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues were in general effective as add-on therapies to existing sulphonylurea therapies, achieving HbA1c reductions by a magnitude of 0.59-0.90% and 0.77-1.62%, respectively. Few adverse events including hypoglycaemic attacks were reported. Therefore, these two new drug classes represent novel therapies with great potential to be major therapeutic options. Future larger-scale research should be conducted among other Asia-Pacific region to evaluate their efficacy in other ethnic groups.