Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination therapy, alogliptin plus metformin, in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes: A phase 3 trial

Metformin plus a low hypoglycemic risk antidiabetic drug vs. metformin monotherapy for untreated type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

The aim of the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was to compare the effectiveness of glycemic control and hypoglycemia risk of combination therapy (metformin plus a low hypoglycemic risk antidiabetic drug) vs. standard metformin monotherapy, in patients with untreated type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through October 31, 2021 to find relevant RCTs. Efficacy outcomes were changes in hemoglobulin A1c (HbA1c) and fast plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline as well as proportion of patients achieving HbA1c < 7%; the safety outcome was hypoglycemia risk.

RESULTS

We identified 14 RCTs comprising 5326 patients with untreated T2DM. Mean treatment duration was 28.1 weeks. Pooled results showed that compared to metformin monotherapy, combination therapy was associated with a reduction in HbA1c (mean difference: -0.48 %, -0.58 to - 0.38) and FPG (mean difference: -0.92 mmol/L, -1.14 to - 0.69), and more patients achieving HbA1c < 7% (odds ratio: 2.21, 1.87 to 2.60). Hypoglycemic events and people experiencing hypoglycemia were not different between 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial combination of metformin plus a low hypoglycemic risk antidiabetic drug may achieve better glycemic control, without a rise in hypoglycemia, in patients with untreated T2DM.

Effect of metformin on microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Examine the efficacy of metformin compared to placebo or other glucose-lowering medications on microvascular outcomes in patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from database inception to March 2020. We included randomized clinical trials of patients with T2DM receiving metformin compared with another active glucose-lowering treatment or placebo in which a microvascular outcome was assessed. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Microvascular complications included kidney-related outcomes, retinopathy, and peripheral neuropathy. An inverse-weighted variance random-effect meta-analysis was performed to estimate drugs effect over microvascular disease. PROSPERO (CRD42019120365).

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs (n = 18,181) were included. Metformin increased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) by a mean difference (MD) of 1.08 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.33 ml/min/1.73 m²) after 24 weeks. No effect was found on urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, serum creatinine, and end-stage kidney disease; Patient-important outcomes regarding kidney disease, retinal outcomes, peripheral neuropathy or quality of life were not assessed by any of the included studies and could not be analyzed.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of clinically significant beneficial effect of metformin therapy as compared to other glucose-lowering medications or placebo on the examined microvascular complications.

Comprehensive Review on Neuro-degenerative Type 3 DM

According to research, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is considered a metabolic illness caused by defective insulin signaling, insulin resistance, and low insulin levels in the brain. Type 3 diabetes has been postulated for AD because reduced insulin signaling has molecular and physiological consequences that are comparable to type I and type 2 diabetes mellitus, respectively. The similarities between type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer's disease suggest that these clinical trials might yield therapeutic benefits. However, it is important to note that lowering your risk of Alzheimer's dementia, whether you have diabetes or not, is still a multidimensional process involving factors like exercise, smoking, alcohol, food, and mental challenges. The current aim is to show that the relationship between T3D and AD is based on both the processing of amyloid-β (Aβ) precursor protein toxicity and the clearance of Aβ, which are the results of impaired insulin signaling. The brain's metabolism, with its high lipid content and energy needs, places excess demands on mitochondria and appears more susceptible to oxidative damage than the rest of the body. Current data suggests that increased oxidative stress relates to amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology and the onset of AD.

Genome-Wide Transcriptome Analysis in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated by Sitagliptin

OBJECTIVE

In this study, transcriptome sequencing was performed on patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with different prognosis to explore the differential level genes of different hypoglycemic effects of sitagliptin.

METHODS

Patients with newly diagnosed T2DM (within six months of diagnosis) were selected as the study subjects. Patients were given sitagliptin 100 mg once a day orally. After 12 weeks of regular drug therapy, the reduction in glycated hemoglobin was compared before and after drug administration. The patients were then divided into two groups: the significantly effective group (M) and the less effective group (N). High-throughput sequencing of the transcriptome was conducted to detect the differential expression levels of genes in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Expanded sample size validation of the candidate differential genes was conducted using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR).

RESULTS

After 12 weeks of treatment with sitagliptin, high-throughput sequencing of the transcriptome found that expression of the following genes was different when comparing the significantly effective group (M) and the less effective group (N): ghrelin (GHRL), insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF1R), mitogen-activated protein kinase-3 (MAPK3), phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphonate 3-kinase, catalytic subunit delta (PIK3CD), and the suppressor of cytokine signaling-3 (SOCS3). The validation results of RT-PCR showed that, in the significantly effective group (M), the expression of IGF1R was significantly increased (P = 0.034), the expression of MAPK3 was significantly reduced (P = 0.002), and the expression of SOCS3 was also significantly reduced (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

There was a significant difference in gene level between patients with significant hypoglycemic effect and patients with poor hypoglycemic effect, and the expression of IGF1R increased and the expression of MAPK3 and SOCS3 decreased.

Association of metformin monotherapy or combined therapy with cardiovascular risks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background

Metformin is a first-line drug in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment, yet whether metformin may increase all-cause or cardiovascular mortality of T2DM patients remains inconclusive.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Embase for data extracted from inception to July 14, 2020, with a registration in PROSPERO (CRD42020177283). This study included randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing the cardiovascular effects of metformin for T2DM. This study is followed by PRISMA and Cochrane guideline. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was pooled across trials by a random-effects model. Primary outcomes include all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality.

Results

We identified 29 studies that randomly assigned patients with 371 all-cause and 227 cardiovascular death events. Compared with untreated T2DM patients, metformin-treated patients was not associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.98; 95%CI: 0.69–1.38; P = 0.90), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.60, 2.15; P = 0.70), macrovascular events (RR: 0.87; 95%CI: 0.70–1.07; P = 0.19), heart failure (RR: 1.02; 95% CI:0.61–1.71; P = 0.95), and microvascular events (RR: 0.78; 95% CI:0.54–1.13; P = 0.19). Combination of metformin with another hypoglycemic drug was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.02, 2.16) and cardiovascular mortality (RR: 2.21; 95% CI: 1.22, 4.00) compared with hypoglycemic drug regimens with no metformin.

Conclusion

The combination of metformin treatment may impose higher risk in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. This finding, at least in part, shows no evidence for benefits of metformin in combination in terms of all-cause/cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events for T2DM. However, the conclusion shall be explained cautiously considering the limitations from UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS).

Early combination versus initial metformin monotherapy in the management of newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: An East Asian perspective

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the East Asian population is characterized by phenotypes such as low body mass index, an index of β-cell dysfunction, and higher percentage of body fat, an index of insulin resistance. These phenotypes/pathologies may predispose people to early onset of diabetes with increased risk of stroke and renal disease. Less than 50% of patients with T2D in East Asia achieve glycaemic targets recommended by national or regional guidelines, which may be attributable to knowledge and/or implementation gaps. Herein, we review the latest evidence with special reference to East Asian patients with T2D and present arguments for the need to use early combination therapy to intensify glycaemic control. This strategy is supported by the 5-year worldwide VERIFY study, which reported better glycaemic durability in newly diagnosed patients with T2D with a mean HbA1c of 6.9% treated with early combination therapy of vildagliptin plus metformin versus those treated with initial metformin monotherapy followed by addition of vildagliptin only with worsening glycaemic control. This paradigm shift of early intensified treatment is now recommended by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. In order to translate these evidence to practice, increased awareness and strengthening of the healthcare system are needed to diagnose and manage patients with T2D early for combination therapy.

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.

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.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Alogliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) alogliptin is an oral, antidiabetic treatment that is approved in many countries to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), including the USA, Europe, and Japan. Alogliptin is efficacious both as monotherapy and as add-on/combination therapy with other commonly prescribed T2DM treatments, such as metformin and pioglitazone. Overall, alogliptin is well-tolerated in patients with T2DM, including older patients, those with renal and/or hepatic impairment, and those at high risk of cardiovascular events. There is a low risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, acute pancreatitis, and gastrointestinal adverse events with alogliptin treatment, as demonstrated in long-term trials (lasting up to 4.5 years) and in a real-world setting. Additionally, alogliptin has a generally favorable or similar safety profile in comparison to other antidiabetic agents (metformin, thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, and insulin). However, further evaluation would be required to determine the mechanism and effect of alogliptin on heart failure, bullous pemphigoid, and inflammatory bowel disease. Of note, due to the ethnic diversity in the epidemiology of T2DM, alogliptin has been shown to be more efficacious in Asian patients than in non-Asian patients with T2DM, but with a similar tolerability profile. These data indicate that DPP-4is, including alogliptin, are important treatment options, especially for Asian patients with T2DM, for whom they have potential as a first-line therapy. This benefit-risk assessment aims to place alogliptin within the current armamentarium of T2DM and aid physicians when choosing optimal diabetes treatment for their patients.

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.

An up-to-date evaluation of alogliptin benzoate for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Introduction: A growth in the market for anti-diabetic drugs, along with an ever-increasing population suffering from type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), requires a critical re-evaluation of anti-diabetic drugs used for a long time, in order to provide up-to-date practical prescribing information for clinicians. Alogliptin benzoate was firstly approved in 2010 in Japan for T2DM, both as a monotherapy or in combination with other anti-diabetic drugs. Areas covered: This article provides a comprehensive review of the latest data on alogliptin benzoate, including hypoglycemic activity and safety. Expert opinion: The cumulative evidence for alogliptin benzoate is robust with regards to glycemic efficacy and safety. Low hypoglycemia risks and weight changes support its consideration as a first-line medication for T2DM, either as a monotherapy or in combination therapy with other anti-diabetic drugs such as metformin. Ongoing trials will look to better analyze and address its safety and efficacy in pediatric patients and expand our clinical knowledge of this medication.

Efficacy and Safety of Initial Combination Therapy in Treatment-Naïve Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy compared with monotherapy in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials of initial combination therapy with hypoglycemic agents compared with monotherapy. Those which satisfied the search criteria were included in the meta-analysis. Weighted mean difference and relative risks were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin plus another anti-diabetes drug exhibited significant reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (p < 0.001). Most of the combination therapies had a similar risk of hypoglycemia (p > 0.05), with the exception of combinations of sulfonylurea/glinide and metformin or combinations of thiazolidinedione and metformin. Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor monotherapy, initial combination therapy with DPP-4 inhibitor plus another anti-diabetes drug showed a significant decrease in HbA1c (p < 0.001) and a similar risk of hypoglycemia (p > 0.05). Compared with monotherapy with other anti-diabetes drugs, initial combination therapies also resulted in significant HbA1c reductions, a similar risk of hypoglycemia and similar risks of other adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Compared with monotherapy, all initial combination therapies resulted in significant HbA1c reductions. Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial combination therapies with DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin, sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and metformin, respectively, were associated with similar risks of hypoglycemia, but initial combination therapies with sulfonylurea plus metformin, thiazolidinedione and metformin, respectively, were associated with higher risks of hypoglycemia.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca Ltd. (China).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration number CRD42017060717 in PROSPERO.

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination therapy, alogliptin plus metformin, in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes: A phase 3 trial

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of 26 weeks of twice-daily (BID) alogliptin + metformin fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7.5% to 10.0% after ≥2 months of diet and exercise and a 4-week placebo run-in were enrolled. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to placebo, alogliptin 12.5 mg BID, metformin 500 mg BID or alogliptin 12.5 mg plus metformin 500 mg FDC BID. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment (Week 26). In total, 647 patients were randomized. The least-squares mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 was -0.19% with placebo, -0.86% with alogliptin, -1.04% with metformin and -1.53% with alogliptin + metformin FDC. Alogliptin + metformin FDC was significantly more effective ( P  < .0001) in lowering HbA1c than either alogliptin or metformin alone. The safety profile of alogliptin + metformin FDC was similar to that of the individual components alogliptin and metformin. The study demonstrated that treatment with alogliptin + metformin FDC BID resulted in better glycaemic control than either monotherapy and was well tolerated in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes.