Safety and efficacy of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a comprehensive analysis of data from 1331 individuals aged ≥ 65 years

Management of older hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes using linagliptin: Lina-Older study

BACKGROUND

Older patients managed with intensive antidiabetic therapy are more likely to be harmed. Our study's primary endpoint was to analyze the safety and efficacy of linagliptin in combination with basal insulin versus basal-bolus insulin in patients with 75 years of age or older hospitalized in medicine and surgery departments in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled non-critically patients ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes admitted to medicine and non-cardiac surgery departments with admission glycated hemoglobin <8%, admission blood glucose <240 mg/dL, and without at-home injectable therapies managed with our hospital's antihyperglycemic protocol (basal-bolus or linagliptin-basal regimens) between January 2016 and December 2018. To match each patient who started on the basal-bolus regimen with a patient who started on the linagliptin-basal regimen, a propensity matching analysis was used.

RESULTS

Postmatching, 198 patients were included in each group. There were no significant differences in mean daily blood glucose levels after admission (P=0.203); patients with mean blood glucose 100-140mg/dL (P=0.134), 140-180mg/dL (P=0.109), or >200mg/dL (P=0.299); and number and day of treatment failure (P=0.159 and P=0.175, respectively). The total insulin dose and the number of daily injections were significantly lower in the linagliptin-basal group (both, P<0.001). Patients on the basal-bolus insulin regimen had more total hypoglycemic events than patients on the linagliptin-basal insulin regimen (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The linagliptin-basal insulin regimen was an effective alternative with fewer hypoglycemic events and daily insulin injections than intensive basal-bolus insulin in very old patients with type 2 diabetes with mild-to-moderate hyperglycemia treated at home without injectable therapies.

Efficacy / safety balance of DPP-4 inhibitors versus SGLT2 inhibitors in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) offer new options for the oral management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with the advantage in the elderly population to be devoid of a high risk of hypoglycaemia. SGLT2is have also shown benefits regarding cardiovascular (heart failure) and renal protection, including in patients with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years while DPP-4is have only proved cardiovascular and renal safety without superiority compared with placebo. The glucose-lowering efficacy of the two pharmacological classes is almost similar including in older patients with T2DM. However, the tolerance and safety profile may be highly different and overall more favourable with DPP-4is than with SGLT2is. Some adverse events have been reported with SGLT2is which may be more prevalent or severe in older patients than in younger patients. The present comprehensive review focuses on the benefit/risk balance in the elderly population with T2DM by comparing the profile of DPP-4is and SGLT2is regarding the following potential issues: metabolic disorders (hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis); cardiac and vascular issues (atheromatous cardiovascular disease, heart failure, volume reduction hypotension, and lower limb amputations); renal endpoints including acute renal injury; risk of infections; digestive disorders; bone and skin adverse events; and cancer risk. Both DPP-4is and SGLT2is have their own advantages and disadvantages. Personalised treatment is recommended based upon the efficacy/safety profile of each drug class and individual patient characteristics that may be markedly different among the heterogeneous population of older individuals with T2DM.

Careful use to minimize adverse events of oral antidiabetic medications in the elderly

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of older patients has type 2 diabetes treated with different oral antidiabetic agents whose safety may raise concern considering some particularities of a heterogeneous elderly population.

AREAS COVERED

This article discusses some characteristics of older patients that could increase the risk of adverse events, with a focus on hypoglycemia. It describes the most frequent and/or severe complications reported in the elderly in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies with metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (gliptins) and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (gliflozins).

EXPERT OPINION

Old patients may present comorbidities (renal impairment, vascular disease, heart failure, risk of dehydration, osteoporosis, cognitive dysfunction) that could increase the risk of severe adverse events. Sulfonylureas (and meglitinides) induce hypoglycemia, which may be associated with falls/fractures and cardiovascular events. Medications lacking hypoglycemia should be preferred. Gliptins appear to have the best tolerance/safety profile whereas gliflozins exert a cardiorenal protection. However, data are lacking in very old or frailty old patients so that caution and appropriate supervision of such patients are required. Taking advantage of a large choice of pharmacotherapies, personalized treatment is recommended based upon both drug safety profiles and old patient individual characteristics.

Cardiovascular and kidney outcomes of linagliptin treatment in older people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease: A prespecified subgroup analysis of the randomized, placebo-controlled CARMELINA® trial

AIMS

In CARMELINA®, linagliptin demonstrated cardiovascular and renal safety in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with high renal and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We investigated safety and efficacy of this dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor in older participants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects aged ≥18 years with T2D and established CVD with urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) >30 mg/g, and/or prevalent kidney disease, were randomized to linagliptin or placebo added to usual care. The primary endpoint (time to first occurrence of 3P-MACE: cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke) and other outcomes were evaluated across age groups <65 (n = 2968), 65 to <75 (n = 2800) and ≥75 years (n = 1211).

RESULTS

Mean age was 65.9 years (17.4% and 5.9% aged ≥75 and 80, respectively) and median follow-up was 2.2 years. The hazard ratio (HR) for 3P-MACE with linagliptin versus placebo was 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89, 1.17] with no significant interaction between age and treatment effect (P = 0.0937). HRs for participants aged <65, 65 to <75 and ≥75 years were 1.11 (95% CI 0.89, 1.40), 1.09 (0.89, 1.33) and 0.76 (0.57, 1.02), respectively. Linagliptin did not increase the risk of adverse kidney outcomes or hospitalization for heart failure across age groups. The incidence of adverse events, including hypoglycaemia, increased with age but was similar with linagliptin and placebo despite glycated haemoglobin A1c reduction with linagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin did not increase risk for cardiovascular events or hypoglycaemia and kidney function remained stable in older people with T2D and established CVD with albuminuria and/or kidney disease.

Real-World Glycemic Lowering Effectiveness of Linagliptin Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes by Age, Renal Function, and Race

INTRODUCTION

To assess real-world effectiveness of linagliptin in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) across a range of ages and renal function. Effectiveness was assessed in different races, with a focus on African Americans (AA).

METHODS

This was a non-interventional retrospective cohort study using data in the Optum clinical database from adults with T2DM initiating linagliptin. Date of the first linagliptin prescription was the index date. Outcomes included change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and the percentage of persons achieving an HbA1c < 7% (53 mmol/mol) during the 60-180 days following linagliptin initiation. Analyses of age by renal function were conducted. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess change in HbA1c, controlling for an a priori list of covariates.

RESULTS

Overall, 11,001 persons were included. Mean pre-index HbA1c value was 8.2% (66 mmol/mol), with higher levels in younger versus older persons and AAs versus other race groups. Persons initiating linagliptin had an average HbA1c reduction of 0.51% (5.6 mmol/mol). Without adjusting for age, renal function, race, and pre-index HbA1c, greater reductions in HbA1c were observed in younger versus older persons, persons with higher versus lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and AAs versus white or Asians. After multivariate analysis, variables significantly associated with a greater HbA1c reduction included higher pre-index HbA1c and older age.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the HbA1c-lowering effectiveness of linagliptin across age, race, and renal function categories among a large real-world population of adults with T2DM.

Patient-reported outcomes in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with dual oral therapy: a multicenter, observational study from Italy

Objective: To assess patient-reported outcomes after two years of use of dual oral anti-diabetes drug (OAD) therapy in elderly people (≥65 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from Italy under real-life settings.Methods: 3-AGE was a prospective, non-interventional study in elderly people with T2DM inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy (defined as glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.0-9.0%), in whom a second OAD was prescribed. Primary endpoint was to assess the physical and psychological symptoms associated with T2DM from baseline to 24 months using the Diabetes Symptom Check List revised (DSC-R) questionnaire. Patient's quality of life and health status, treatment satisfaction, consumption of healthcare resources, and physician satisfaction with treatment were also assessed (secondary endpoints) using validated questionnaires. Additionally, safety and clinical characteristics were also evaluated.Results: The mean age of the study population (N = 860) was 71.5 ± 5.2 years. Addition of a second OAD significantly (p < .0001) reduced the DSC-R score from baseline (0.73 ± 0.68) to both Months 12 and 24 (0.63 ± 0.59 and 0.61 ± 0.56), and HbA1c from baseline (7.72% ± 0.54%) to Month 12 (6.95% ± 0.82%). Adding a second OAD improved quality of life and health status (baseline, 71.31 ± 15.16 to Month 12, 74.49 ± 13.64; p < .0001), patient's treatment satisfaction (p < .0001), and consumption of healthcare resources per patient. Physicians expressed good satisfaction with patients' treatment (across efficacy, tolerability and compliance domains) at Month 12. Overall, 32 adverse reactions (in 24 patients) and four hypoglycemic episodes were reported during the 24 months.Conclusion: Addition of a second OAD improved physical and psychological symptoms associated with T2DM and was well tolerated in elderly people under real-life settings.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin to improve glucose control in older people with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy: A randomized trial

AIM

To assess the addition of linagliptin as an alternative to insulin uptitration in older people with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This phase 4, randomized, multicentre, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 24-week study recruited individuals on stable insulin, with baseline HbA1c 7.0%-10.0%, aged ≥60 years and body mass index ≤45 kg/m² . HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose were measured at study visits, and participants assessed glycaemic control with a self-monitoring blood glucose device. Adverse events (AEs) were reported during the study.

RESULTS

Three hundred and two participants were randomized 1:1 to linagliptin 5 mg qd and placebo, with one third of patients from Japan. Study population age and HbA1c (baseline mean ± SD) were 72.4 ± 5.4 years and 8.2 ± 0.8%, respectively; ~80% of participants were aged ≥70 years; 80% had macrovascular complications, one third had a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m² ; and half had been diagnosed with diabetes for >15 years. Linagliptin significantly improved glucose control at 24 weeks (HbA1c-adjusted mean change vs. placebo: -0.63%; P <0.0001) and the probability of achieving predefined HbA1c targets without hypoglycaemia (HbA1c <8.0%: OR 2.02; P <0.05 and HbA1c <7.0%: OR 2.44; P <0.01). Linagliptin versus placebo was well tolerated, with similar incidences of AEs, including clinically important hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of linagliptin improves glucose control without an excess of hypoglycaemia in older patients with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy.

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.

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.

Effects on the glucagon response to hypoglycaemia during DPP-4 inhibition in elderly subjects with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, placebo-controlled study

AIMS

Maintainance of glucagon response to hypoglycaemia is important as a safeguard against hypoglycaemia during glucose-lowering therapy in type 2 diabetes. During recent years, DPP-4 (dipeptidyl peptidase-4) inhibition has become more commonly used in elderly patients. However, whether DPP-4 inhibition affects the glucagon response to hypoglycaemia in the elderly is not known and was the aim of this study.

METHODS

In a single-centre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study, 28 subjects with metformin-treated type 2 diabetes (17 male, 11 female; mean age, 74 years [range 65-86]; mean HbA1c, 51.5 mmol/mol [6.9%]) received sitagliptin (100 mg once daily) as add-on therapy or placebo for 4 weeks with a 4-week washout period in between. After each treatment period, the subjects underwent a standard breakfast test, followed by a 2-step hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemic clamp (target 3.5 and 3.0 mmol/L), followed by lunch.

RESULTS

Glucagon levels after breakfast and lunch, and the glucagon response at 3.5 mmol/L, were lower after sitagliptin than after placebo. However, the glucagon response to hypoglycaemia at 3.1 mmol/L did not differ significantly between the two. Similarly, the noradrenaline, adrenaline and cortisol responses were lower with sitagliptin than with placebo at 3.5 mmol/L, but not at 3.1 mmol/L glucose. Responses in pancreatic polypeptide did not differ between the two.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly subjects with metformin-treated type 2 diabetes have lower glucagon levels at 3.5 mmol/L glucose, but maintain the glucagon response to hypoglycaemia at 3.1 mmol/L during DPP-4 inhibition, which safeguards against hypoglycaemia and may contribute to decreasing the risk of hypoglycaemia by DPP-4 inhibition in this age group.

Risk of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors on site-specific cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The long-term impact of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition is unknown, and there are concerns about the influence of DPP-4 inhibition on carcinogenesis of the pancreas and thyroid. As DPP-4 is a rather unselective enzyme present in many tissues, we focused on all specific cancer types. PubMed and EMBASE were searched between January 2005 and April 2017 to identify studies comparing DPP-4 inhibitors with either placebo or active drugs on cancer risk. Studies were included if they reported on at least one specific cancer outcome and had a follow-up of at least 1 year after start of drug use. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (12 randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies). Sample sizes of the DPP-4 inhibitor groups ranged from 29 to 8212 patients for randomized controlled trials and from 2422 to 71 137 patients for observational studies. Mean age ranged from 51 to 76 years, and mean follow-up was 1.5 years. None of the pooled (sensitivity) analyses, except the observational studies studying breast cancer (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.76 [0.60-0.96]), showed evidence for an association between DPP-4 inhibitors and site-specific cancer. Also for pancreatic and thyroid cancer, no statistically significant risk was found. Based on the current literature, it is not possible to conclude whether DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of site-specific cancer. Future studies should address the methodological limitations and follow patients for a longer period to determine the long-term cancer risk of DPP-4 inhibitors.

A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing a DPP4 Inhibitor (Linagliptin) and Basal Insulin (Glargine) in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Long-term Care and Skilled Nursing Facilities: Linagliptin-LTC Trial

OBJECTIVES

Safe and easily implemented treatment regimens are needed for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in long-term care (LTC) and skilled nursing facilities.

DESIGN

This 6-month open-label randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy and safety of a DPP4 inhibitor (linagliptin) and basal insulin (glargine) in LTC residents with T2DM.

SETTINGS

Three LTC institutions affiliated with a community safety-net hospital, US Department of Veterans Affairs and Emory Healthcare System in Atlanta, Georgia.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 140 residents with T2DM treated with oral antidiabetic agents or low-dose insulin (≤0.1 U/kg/d), with fasting or premeal blood glucose (BG) > 180 mg/dL and/or HbA1c >7.5%.

INTERVENTION

Baseline antidiabetic therapy, except metformin, was discontinued on trial entry. Residents were treated with linagliptin 5 mg/d (n = 67) or glargine at a starting dose of 0.1 U/kg/d (n = 73). Both groups received supplemental rapid-acting insulin before meals for BG > 200 mg/dL.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome was mean difference in daily BG between groups. Main secondary endpoints included differences in frequency of hypoglycemia, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), complications, emergency department visits, and hospital transfers.

RESULTS

Treatment with linagliptin resulted in no significant differences in mean daily BG (146 ± 34 mg/dL vs. 157 ± 36 mg/dL, P = .07) compared to glargine. Linagliptin treatment resulted in fewer mild hypoglycemic events <70 mg/dL (3% vs. 37%, P < .001), but there were no differences in BG < 54 mg/dL (P = .06) or <40 mg/dL (P = .05) compared to glargine. There were no significant between-group differences in HbA1c, length of stay, complications, emergency department visits, or hospitalizations.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with linagliptin resulted in noninferior glycemic control and in significantly lower risk of hypoglycemia compared to insulin glargine in long-term care and skilled nursing facility residents with type 2 diabetes.

[Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly patients]

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) increases markedly with age. Antidiabetic treatment and the objectives of glycaemic control in elderly patients with DM2 should be individualised according to their biopsychosocial characteristics. In elderly patients for whom the benefits of intensive antidiabetic treatment are limited, the basic objectives should be to improve the quality of life, preserve functionality and avoid adverse effects, especially hypoglycaemia. Treatment of DM2 in the elderly was the subject of a consensus document published in 2012 and endorsed by several Spanish scientific societies. Since then, new therapeutic groups and evidence have emerged that warrant an update to this consensus document. The present document focuses on the therapeutic aspects of DM2 in elderly patients, understood as being older than 75 years or frail.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly patients

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) increases markedly with age. Antidiabetic treatment and the objectives of glycaemic control in elderly patients with DM2 should be individualised according to their biopsychosocial characteristics. In elderly patients for whom the benefits of intensive antidiabetic treatment are limited, the basic objectives should be to improve the quality of life, preserve functionality and avoid adverse effects, especially hypoglycaemia. Treatment of DM2 in the elderly was the subject of a consensus document published in 2012 and endorsed by several Spanish scientific societies. Since then, new therapeutic groups and evidence have emerged that warrant an update to this consensus document. The present document focuses on the therapeutic aspects of DM2 in elderly patients, understood as being older than 75 years or frail.

Incretin-Based Therapy and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

The present study aims to evaluate the risk of pancreatic cancer with incretin-based therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible studies published up to March 06 2016. This meta-analysis includes all studies reporting adverse events of pancreatic cancer with use of incretin-based therapies compared with placebo or non-incretin anti-diabetic drugs in patients with T2DM. We used fixed-effect model to compare pooled relative risk (RR) with related 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 159 randomized trials were identified. Out of these, 135 studies were excluded as pancreatic cancer occurrence had not been included as an end point. The remaining 24 trials enrolling 47,904 participants were further assessed. Overall, no increased risk of pancreatic cancer were detected in association with incretin-based treatment (RR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.37-1.05). The incidence of pancreatic neoplasm was even lower among incretin-based groups than controls (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87) in trials with duration more than 104 weeks. There was even decreased risk of pancreatic cancer within groups paralleled by incretin-matched placebos (RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.93) than by non-incretin anti-diabetic drugs. Neither monotherapy (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.38-1.01) nor combination regimen (RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.45-1.90) of incretin mimetics increased the risk of pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows that incretin-based therapies are not associated with increase in the risk of pancreatic cancer. Interestingly, subgroup analyses suggested lower risk of pancreatic cancer in incretin groups than placebo in long-term studies (>104 weeks). Considering the inconsistent results among randomized trials and previous epidemiological investigations, more such studies should be conducted to clarify the existence or non-existence of this association.

FUNDING

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 81270476 and 81470830).

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.

EMPA-REG and Other Cardiovascular Outcome Trials of Glucose-lowering Agents: Implications for Future Treatment Strategies in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

During the last decade, the armamentarium for glucose-lowering drugs has increased enormously by the development of DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors, allowing individualization of antidiabetic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Some combinations can now be used without an increased risk for severe hypoglycemia and weight gain. Following a request of the US Food and Drug Administration, many large cardiovascular (CV) outcome studies have been performed in patients with longstanding disease and established CV disease. In the majority of CV outcome studies, CV risk factors were well controlled and a high number of patients were already treated with ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, statins and antiplatelet drugs. Most studies with insulin glargine and newer glucose-lowering drugs (saxagliptin, alogliptin, sitagliptin, lixisenatide) demonstrated safety of newer glucose-lowering agents but did not show superiority in the CV outcomes compared with placebo. By contrast, in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) study, CV death, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure were significantly decreased when empagliflozin was added instead of placebo to therapy for patients with high CV risk and T2DM already well treated with statins, glucose-lowering drugs, and blood pressure-lowering drugs as well as antiplatelet agents. In addition, renal endpoints including endstage renal disease were also significantly reduced when empagliflozin was added instead of placebo. Interestingly, the reduction of these clinically relevant end points was observed after a few months, making antiatherogenic effects an unlikely cause. The fact that the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke were not reduced is in line with the hypothesis that hemodynamic factors in particular have contributed to the impressive improvement of the prognosis. To reduce the CV burden of patients with T2DM, drugs influencing factors involved in atherogenesis (eg, insulin resistance, chronic inflammation, increase of HDL, prothrombotic state) are more promising. The recent IRIS (Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke) study documented a significant reduction in stroke and MI when pioglitazone instead of placebo was given to nondiabetic patients presenting with both stroke/transient ischemic attack and insulin resistance, confirming results from the PROactive (Prospective Pioglitazone Clinical Trial in Macrovascular Events) study in patients with T2DM. Based on these new data, we suggest that the addition of both empagliflozin and pioglitazone to metformin might be the relative best option to reduce the high CV morbidity and mortality of patients with T2DM and already established CV complications. The very recent announcement that the CV outcome study with liraglutide (LEADER) also demonstrated a significant reduction of the composite endpoint (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke) gives new hope for further beneficial treatment options for T2DM patients with established CVD.

Glucose-lowering therapy in type 2 diabetes. New hope after the EMPA-REG outcome trial

Prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality remains the key factor in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). In the early phase of T2DM, multifactorial intervention is mandatory and glucose levels should be near normal, in particular in younger patients presenting with the highest cardiovascular risk. Anti-diabetic drugs without any risk for hypoglycaemia should be preferred in order to reduce clinical inertia and increase the long-term adherence to the treatment. In patients already presenting with cardiovascular disease, the best outcome may be expected with the triple oral therapy of metformin, pioglitazone, and empagliflozin, although a controlled prospective study versus insulin therapy is needed to confirm the expectation.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibition in chronic kidney disease and potential for protection against diabetes-related renal injury

AIMS

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with a high risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD). About 20% of patients with T2DM have CKD of stage ≥ 3; up to 40% have some degree of CKD. Beyond targeting all renal risk factors together, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers are to date the only effective mainstay for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). Indeed, several potentially nephroprotective agents have been in use, which have been unsuccessful. Some glucose-lowering agents, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), have shown promising results. Here, we discuss the evidence that glucose lowering with DPP-4i may be an option for protecting against diabetes-related renal injury.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A comprehensive search was performed of the literature using the terms "alogliptin," "linagliptin," "saxagliptin," "sitagliptin," and "vildagliptin" for original articles and reviews addressing this topic. DPP-4i are an effective, well-tolerated treatment option for T2DM with any degree of renal impairment. Preclinical observations and clinical studies suggest that DPP-4i might also be a promising strategy for the treatment of DKD. The available data are in favor of saxagliptin and linagliptin, but the consistency of results points to the possible nephroprotective effect of DPP-4i. This property appears to be independent of glucose lowering and can potentially complement other therapies that preserve renal function. Larger prospective clinical trials are ongoing, which might strengthen these hypothesis-generating findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The improvement in albuminuria associated with DPP-4i suggests that these agents may provide renal benefits beyond their glucose-lowering effects, thus offering direct protection from DKD. These promising results must be interpreted with caution and need to be confirmed in forthcoming studies.

Effects of sitagliptin on circulating zinc-α2-glycoprotein levels in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes patients: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Zinc-α2-glycoprotein (ZAG) has recently been characterized as a potent metabolic regulator. However, the effects of anti-diabetic agents on circulating ZAG levels in humans remain largely unknown. To explore the possible mechanisms by which the dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitor improves insulin resistance, we investigated the effect of sitagliptin, a DPP-IV inhibitor, on circulating cytokine levels in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (nT2DM) patients.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A subset of 141 subjects with nT2DM were assigned to receive placebo (n=47) or sitagliptin (n=94) for 3 months. Before and after treatment, subjects received a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test, euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp (EHC), and measurement of ZAG and adiponectin (ADI) concentrations.

RESULTS

Circulating ZAG levels were lower in nT2DM than in control individuals (P<0.01). After 3 months of sitagliptin treatment, HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, postprandial glucose, 2-h insulin after glucose overload, triglycerides, and homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were decreased significantly compared with pre-treatment (P<0.05 or P<0.01), whereas the glucose infusion rate during the stable period of the clamp (M values) during EHC were significantly increased (P<0.01). In addition, circulating ZAG and ADI concentrations were significantly increased along with improved glucose metabolism and insulin sensitivity compared with pre-treatment (both P<0.01) and the change of ZAG (ΔZAG) was positively associated with ΔADI, ΔHOMA-IR, ΔBMI, Δfasting insulin and negatively associated with Δ tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). Furthermore, sitagliptin treatment resulted in significantly lowered plasma TNF-α level (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

A low level of circulating ZAG is associated with insulin resistance and sitagliptin treatment significantly increases circulating ZAG levels. These observations have implications in relation to the mode of action of the DPP-IV inhibitor as an insulin sensitizing agent.

[Differential characteristics of type 2 diabetes in the elderly. Role of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors]

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus increases with age, reaching rates around 30% in those over 75 years. The type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly has different pathophysiological and clinical characteristics from those of the younger diabetic patient. Some differential aspects in this population are the lower life expectancy and the frequent comorbidity, frailty and associated disability. Avoiding hypoglycemia is a therapeutic priority, given their increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. It is a situation in which the benefits of intensive glycemic control are virtually non-existent, thus prevention of side effects of treatments becomes a priority. Therefore, the goals of glycemic control should be less stringent than in the general population (glycated hemoglobin>7%), and the drugs of choice should be those with a low risk of side effects (especially hypoglycemia) and well tolerated. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (iDPP4) are particularly useful in this age group, either as a second drug added to metformin monotherapy, or as first line when metformin is contraindicated or not tolerated. In this article the evidence available on the efficacy and tolerance of different pharmacological options available in population over 70 years is reviewed.

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for treating type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (gliptins) occupy a growing place in the armamentarium of drugs used for the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, although some safety concerns have been raised in recent years.

AREAS COVERED

An updated review providing an analysis of available safety data (meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, observational cohort and case-control studies and pharmacovigilance reports) with five commercialized DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, linagliptin). A special focus is given to overall safety profile; pancreatic adverse events (AEs) (acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer); overall cardiovascular safety (myocardial infarction and stroke); congestive heart failure concern and finally, safety in special populations (elderly, renal impairment).

EXPERT OPINION

The good tolerance/safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors has been largely confirmed, including in more fragile populations (elderly, renal impairment) with almost no increased risk of infection or gastrointestinal AEs, no weight gain and a minimal risk of hypoglycemia. Although an increased risk of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer was suspected, the complete set of available data appears reassuring so far. Cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors has been proven but an unexpected increased risk of heart failure has been reported which should be confirmed in ongoing trials and better understood. Further postmarketing surveillance is recommended.