Saxagliptin add-on therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin with or without metformin: Results from the SUPER study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and acute kidney injury in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

This network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to determine whether any individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increase the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online via PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was AKI. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to account for heterogeneity. Twenty-nine studies involving 56 117 participants were included. There were 918 cases of AKI (1.63%). The risk of bias was generally considered to be low. The only DPP-4 inhibitor that significantly increased the frequency of AKI when compared with placebo was sitagliptin (risk ratio 1.65, 95% confidence interval 1.22-2.23). However, because one study showed significant outliers in the funnel plot, in a highly heterogeneous population composed solely of patients undergoing surgery for coronary artery bypass graft, we conducted a post-hoc sensitivity analysis to exclude this study. The results showed no statistically significant difference in the risk of AKI between sitagliptin and placebo. Individual DPP-4 inhibitors do not appear to increase the risk of AKI. However, sitagliptin may be associated with AKI in patients with underlying severe cardiovascular disease.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021271647.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor treatment and the risk of bullous pemphigoid and skin-related adverse events: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the risk of developing bullous pemphigoid (BP) and other skin-related adverse events (AEs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) undergoing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) treatment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for RCTs, which involve patients with T2DM reporting skin-related AEs. RCTs that comparatively evaluated the effects of DPP-4i treatment and placebo on patients with T2DM and reported skin-related AEs were included in the analysis. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the Peto's methods. The GRADE approach was used to rate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 46 randomized placebo-controlled trials, including 3 trials with reports of BP (n = 38 011), that reported skin-related AEs were included (n = 59 332). Compared to the placebo group, the risk of developing BP was significantly higher in the DPP-4i treatment group (OR = 7.38, 95% CI 2.00-27.25, I² = 0%, P = .003; quality rating: very low). Additionally, DPP-4i treatment was associated with an increased overall risk of developing skin-related AEs (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.02-1.46, I² = 32%, P = .03; quality rating: moderate).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggested that treatment with DPP-4is, including sitagliptin, saxagliptin, and linagliptin, was associated with an increased risk of developing BP. Additionally, the risk of developing skin-related AEs increased when all DPP-4is were combined. Skin lesion, especially BP, should be monitored in patients with diabetes undergoing DPP-4i treatment. Future studies should evaluate the susceptible population and develop strategies for early detection of skin-related AEs.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin as add-on therapy to insulin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

This 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in 206 Chinese patients with inadequately controlled (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.5%-10.0%) type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving insulin (basal or premixed) ± metformin. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive linagliptin 5 mg/d or placebo. The decrease from baseline in HbA1c (primary endpoint) was greater with linagliptin than with placebo (-0.61% vs. -0.20%, adjusted mean difference -0.40%; P = 0.0016). Linagliptin demonstrated significantly greater improvement in 2-hour postprandial glucose (-1.77 mmol/L [-31.95 mg/dL]; P < 0.001), and a numerical reduction in fasting plasma glucose (-0.34 mmol/L [-6.2 mg/dL]; P = 0.2241) versus placebo. Proportionally more patients on linagliptin achieved a HbA1c reduction of ≥0.5% versus those on placebo (odds ratio 2.293, P < 0.01). Adverse events in both groups were similar, with no new safety findings or clinically relevant changes in body weight. Among investigator-defined hypoglycaemic events (linagliptin: 17.3%; placebo: 12.7%; odds ratio 1.48, P = 0.337), none were severe. In Chinese patients with T2DM, linagliptin add-on to insulin improved glycaemic control and was well tolerated, without increased risk of hypoglycaemia or weight gain.

Efficacy and safety of DPP-IV inhibitors combined with basal insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors when added to insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the efficacy or safety of DPP-IV inhibitors in T2DM patients. The quality of the included RCTs was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. For outcomes, odds ratios or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs were calculated using both random- and fixed-effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis with 5418 participants. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was significantly decreased in the DPP-IV inhibitors with insulin (DPP-IVi/INS) group compared with the insulin-alone (with or without placebo) group (WMD = -0.62%; 95% CI: -0.74, -0.49; P < .05). Consistent with this finding, the fasting blood glucose (FBG)-lowering effect (WMD = -0.61 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.77, -0.45; P < .05) and 2-hour postprandial glucose (2hPPG)-lowering efficacy (WMD = -2.39 mmol/L; 95% CI: -2.81, -1.97; P < .05) in the DPP-IVi/INS group were also significantly better than in the insulin-alone group. Regarding safety indicators, compared with the insulin-alone group, DPP-IVi/INS treatments had no association with the risk of adverse effects, including hypoglycemia, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with insulin treatment alone, treatment with DPP-IVi/INS improved HbA1c, FBG, and 2hPPG without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia, AEs, or SAEs.

Effect of Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors Used in Combination with Insulin Treatment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) used in combination with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through June 2018. Studies with at least a 12-week treatment period were included to compare the addition of DPP4i to insulin with insulin control therapy. Meanwhile, groups on a stable insulin dosage (insulin-stable subgroup) or titrating insulin dosage (insulin-flexible subgroup) were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs with 3697 patients randomized to a DPP4i/insulin treatment arm and 3538 to an insulin control arm were included. DPP4i, when added to insulin therapy, led to a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c (- 0.57%, 95% CI - 0.66, - 0.48) and provided significantly greater odds of achieving the HbA1c target < 7% (OR 3.45; 95% CI 2.58, 4.63). These effects were achieved in the context of a decrease in the daily insulin requirement, without increases in hypoglycemia risk and body weight, compared with the control treatment. Subgroup analysis showed control-adjusted reductions in HbA1c from baseline in the insulin-stable subgroup (-  0.64%; 95% CI - 0.74, - 0.53) and the insulin-flexible subgroup (- 0.43%; 95% CI - 0.56, - 0.30). Other results occurred similarly in both subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of DPP4i to insulin is associated with a statistically significant reduction in glycemic control as measured by HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, and 2-h postprandial glucose, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. These conclusions were also observed in both stable-dose and flexible-dose insulin subgroups.

Impact of baseline characteristics on glycemic effects of add-on saxagliptin or acarbose to metformin therapy: Subgroup analysis of the SMART study in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

This secondary analysis of the 24-week SMART study examined the efficacy of add-on saxagliptin or acarbose to metformin across different patient subgroups with type 2 diabetes mellitus, based on baseline characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized patients (n = 481) were classified into subgroups based on their baseline age (<65, ≥65 years), body mass index (BMI; <24, 24-<28, ≥28 kg/m2 ), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c; <8%, 8-<9%, 9-<10%, ≥10%) and renal function (creatinine clearance 50-<80, ≥80 mL/min). Treatment effects on primary outcome (HbA1c) and key secondary outcomes of fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h postprandial glucose and homeostatic model assessment of β-cell function were assessed across patient subgroups.

RESULTS

For saxagliptin, reductions in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 were consistent across different subgroups regardless of baseline age, body mass index, HbA1c and renal function (range -0.66 to -1.16%). Saxagliptin was associated with consistent reductions in FPG (-0.60 to -1.33 mmol/L) and 2-h postprandial glucose (-0.48 to -1.95 mmol/L) across the majority of subgroups studied. The efficacy of acarbose on FPG attenuated progressively with increasing baseline HbA1c (+0.86 to -1.43 mmol/L); an increase from baseline FPG was observed in patients with HbA1c >9%. The effect of acarbose on postprandial glucose was also variable (+0.23 to -3.38 mmol/L).

CONCLUSIONS

As add-on to metformin, both saxagliptin and acarbose reduced HbA1c regardless of baseline HbA1c, age, body mass index and renal function; however, only saxagliptin was effective at a stable glycemic control (FPG and PPG). The efficacy of acarbose on FPG and PPG was significantly attenuated in patients with higher baseline HbA1c (≥8%).

Effect of adding vildagliptin to insulin in haemodialysed patients with type 2 diabetes: The VILDDIAL study, a randomized, multicentre, prospective study

AIM

To evaluate the effect of adding the dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin to insulin on the glycaemic control of patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing haemodialysis.

METHODS

Overall, 65 insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing haemodialysis (HbA1c: 7.3% ± 1.1%; age: 70.5 ± 8.5 years) were randomized (1:1) either to receive vildagliptin 50 mg/day in addition to insulin (vildagliptin-insulin group) or to pursue their usual insulin regimen (insulin-only group). Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed for 48 ± 6 hours at baseline and at week 12. The primary study endpoint was change from baseline in mean interstitial glucose using CGM. The secondary endpoints included other CGM variables and glucose control markers.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks, a greater reduction in mean CGM glucose from baseline was observed in the vildagliptin-insulin group compared with the insulin-only group, although the between-treatment difference was not statistically significant (mean difference [CI 95%]: -0.96 mmol/L [-2.09; 0.18] vs. -0.29 mmol/L [-1.29; 0.76], P = 0.32). However, a significant decrease from baseline in HbA1c, glycated albumin and insulin daily doses was observed in the vildagliptin-insulin group versus the insulin-only group (-0.6% [-1.19; -0.1], P < 0.01), in the vildagliptin-insulin group versus no change in the insulin-only group (-130.6 μmol/L [-271; 10.7] vs. +36.2 μmol/L [-164.4; 236.9], P = 0.04 and - 5.9 IU/day [-1.8; 7.1] vs. +1.1 IU/day [-14.5; 16.6], P = 0.01, respectively). There was no significant difference in the percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia using CGM, occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia or number of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

In this study, vildagliptin added to insulin improved glycaemic control with an associated insulin-sparing effect in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing haemodialysis and was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of saxagliptin for type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and two Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing saxagliptin with placebo or active comparators was performed up to July 2017. A complementary search was done to cover literature until March 2018. For continuous data, estimates were pooled using inverse variance methodology to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs). Dichotomous data were presented as Mantel-Haenzel risk ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine references of 30 RCTs involving 29,938 patients were analyzed. Compared with placebo, saxagliptin significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, WMD -0.52%, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.44) and fasting plasma glucose (WMD -13.78 mg/dL, 95% CI -15.31 to -12.25), and increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.75). When combined with submaximal-dose metformin, saxagliptin significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% compared with acarbose (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.83) and uptitrated metformin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.63). Saxagliptin was similar to other DPP-4 inhibitors but inferior to liraglutide and dapagliflozin on glycemic control. Saxagliptin significantly decreased the incidences of overall adverse events compared with acarbose (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89) and liraglutide (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) when added to metformin. Weight gain and hypoglycemia with saxagliptin was slightly but significantly higher than placebo and lower than sulfonylureas. Saxagliptin did not increase the risk of arthralgia, heart failure, pancreatitis and other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, saxagliptin has similar efficacy compared with most oral antidiabetic drugs and may be more effective than acarbose, while having a better safety profile than both acarbose and sulfonylureas.