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

Association between longitudinal changes in body composition and the risk of kidney outcomes in participants with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To assess the relationship of longitudinal changes in fat mass (FM), lean mass (LM) and waist circumference (WC) with incident kidney outcomes in people with overweight/obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 3927 participants with baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 from the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) trial were included. The primary outcome was kidney outcomes, defined as a decrease in eGFR of at least 40% from baseline at follow-up visit, or end-stage kidney disease.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 8.0 years, 450 kidney outcomes were documented after the first 1 year. In the intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) group, reductions in FM (per 10% decrease, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.94) and WC (per 10% decrease, adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88) from baseline to 1-year follow-up were significantly associated with a lower risk of kidney outcomes. The change in LM was not significantly associated with risk of kidney outcomes (per 10% decrease, adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.58-1.06). In the diabetes support and education group (control group), no significant association was found between changes in body composition and kidney outcomes. Similar results were observed for the 4-year changes in body composition.

CONCLUSIONS

In this post hoc analysis of the Look AHEAD trial, longitudinal declines in FM and WC were associated with a lower risk of kidney outcomes in the ILI group in participants with overweight/obesity and T2DM.

Evaluation of glucose-lowering medications in older people: a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasingly being diagnosed in older adults. Our objective is to assess the advantages and potential drawbacks of different glucose-lowering medications in this specific population.

METHODS

A network meta-analysis was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that examined patient-centered outcomes in adults aged ≥65 years with T2DM. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase up to September 23, 2023. Quality of eligible studies were assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.

RESULTS

A total of 22 trials that involved 41 654 participants were included, incorporating sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, metformin, sulfonylureas (SU) and acarbose. Our findings reveal that GLP-1RAs reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (risk ratio [RR], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.97) and body weight (mean difference [MD], -3.87 kg; 95% CI, -5.54 to -2.21). SGLT2 inhibitors prevent hospitalization for heart failure (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.77), renal composite outcome (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89), and reduce body weights (MD, -1.85 kg; 95% CI, -2.42 to -1.27). SU treatment increases the risk of any hypoglycaemia (RR, 4.19; 95% CI, 3.52 to 4.99) and severe hypoglycaemia (RR, 7.06; 95% CI, 3.03 to 16.43). GLP-1RAs, SGLT2 inhibitors, metformin, SU and DPP-4 inhibitors are effective in reducing glycaemic parameters. Notably, the number of treatments needed decreases in most cases as age increases.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel glucose-lowering medications with benefits that outweigh risks should be prioritized for older patients with diabetes.

Guideline for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus in the Elderly in China (2024 Edition)

With the deepening of aging in China, the prevalence of diabetes in older people has increased noticeably, and standardized diabetes management is critical for improving clinical outcomes of diabetes in older people. In 2021, the National Center of Gerontology, Chinese Society of Geriatrics, and Diabetes Professional Committee of Chinese Aging Well Association organized experts to write the first guideline for diabetes diagnosis and treatment in older people in China, the Guideline for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus in the Elderly in China (2021 Edition). The guideline emphasizes that older patients with diabetes are a highly heterogeneous group requiring comprehensive assessment and stratified and individualized management strategies. The guideline proposes simple treatments and de-intensified treatment strategies for older patients with diabetes. This edition of the guideline provides clinicians with practical and operable clinical guidance, thus greatly contributing to the comprehensive and full-cycle standardized management of older patients with diabetes in China and promoting the extensive development of clinical and basic research on diabetes in older people and related fields. In the past 3 years, evidence-based medicine for older patients with diabetes and related fields has further advanced, and new treatment concepts, drugs, and technologies have been developed. The guideline editorial committee promptly updated the first edition of the guideline and compiled the Guideline for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus in the Elderly in China (2024 Edition). More precise management paths for older patients with diabetes are proposed, for achieving continued standardization of the management of older Chinese patients with diabetes and improving their clinical outcomes.

Efficacy of linagliptin on cardiovascular risk and cardiometabolic parameters in Thai patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A real-world observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is no published data on linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, on its cardiovascular risk reduction in Thai population. This study, therefore, aimed to investigate the effect of linagliptin on cardiovascular risk reduction in Thai patients with diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Patient profiles of all patients treated with linagliptin in a hospital in Thailand were reviewed. Patients who had used linagliptin for at least 12 months were recruited for analysis. Their cardiovascular risk scores were calculated using the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Estimator Plus tool and were compared between pre-treatment and 12-month post-treatment of linagliptin.

RESULTS

There were a total of 73 patients recruited for analysis. At 12 months of treatment, the results indicated no significant reduction in the cardiovascular risk score of all patients compared to pre-treatment (25.67% vs. 23.37%, p-value 0.442). The atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk reduction with linagliptin was significantly higher in patients with high baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk and in the elderly population. A significant reduction in patients with ≥20% baseline cardiovascular risk score (6.36% decrease, p-value 0.017) was observed. Significant decreases in fasting blood sugar, haemoglobin A1c, and triglyceride were observed, but not in total and LDL-cholesterol levels. Additionally, HDL-cholesterol was significantly increased.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean cardiovascular risk score of all patients was not significantly changed with 12-month linagliptin treatment. However, linagliptin could significantly reduce the 10-year cardiovascular risk score in patients with ≥20% baseline risk. Also, patients with advanced age gained more benefit from linagliptin treatment. A limitation of this study was the drugs which might affect cardiovascular risk were not collected at 12-month post-treatment.

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Registration:

PROSPERO: CRD42020210645

Introduction:

We aimed to assess the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in older patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control.

Methods:

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in older (⩾65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes. The intervention group was randomized to treatment with any DPP-4 inhibitors. A systematic search in MEDLINE and Embase was performed in December 2020. For assessing the risk of bias, RoB 2 tool was applied. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We pooled outcomes using random effects meta-analyses.

Results:

We identified 16 RCTs that included 19,317 patients with a mean age of greater than 70 years. The mean HbA1c level ranged between 7.1 and 10.0 g/dl. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care alone may increase mortality slightly [risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89–1.21]. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care increases the risk for hypoglycaemia (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01–1.16), but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. DPP-4 inhibitors added to standard care may reduce mortality compared with sulfonylureas (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75–1.04). DPP-4 inhibitors probably reduce the risk for hypoglycaemia compared with sulfonylureas (magnitude of effect not quantifiable because of heterogeneity) but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. There is insufficient evidence on hospitalizations, falls, fractures, renal impairment and pancreatitis.

Conclusion:

There is no evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors in addition to standard care decrease mortality but DPP-4 inhibitors increase hypoglycaemia risk. Second-line therapy in older patients should be considered cautiously even in drugs with a good safety profile such as DPP-4 inhibitors. In case second-line treatment is necessary, DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be preferable to sulfonylureas.

Plain language summary

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes Introduction: We performed the review to assess the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in older type 2 diabetes patients with blood sugar outside the normal level. Methods: To answer the question, we searched various electronic databases. We included studies in older (⩾65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes that assessed the safety of DPP-4 inhibitors. The data from the different studies were quantitatively summarized using statistical methods. We assessed the quality of the data to judge the certainty of the findings. Results: We identified 16 studies that included 19,317 patients with a mean age greater than 70 years. The average blood sugar level of patients in the included studies was slightly or moderately increased. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care alone may increase mortality slightly. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care increases the risk for hypoglycaemia, but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. DPP-4 inhibitors added to standard care may reduce mortality compared with sulfonylureas. DPP-4s probably reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia compared with sulfonylureas (magnitude of effect not quantifiable because of heterogeneity) but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. There is insufficient evidence on hospitalizations, falls, fractures, renal impairment and pancreatitis. Conclusion: There is no evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors in addition to standard care decrease mortality but DPP-4 inhibitors increase the risk that blood sugar falls below normal. Adding DPP-4 inhibitorss to standard care in older patients should be considered cautiously even in drugs with a good safety profile such as DPP-4 inhibitors. In case additional treatment is necessary, DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be preferable to sulfonylureas.

Pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes in elderly patients with heart failure: randomized trials and beyond

Heart failure (HF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) represent two important public health problems, and despite improvements in the management of both diseases, they are responsible for high rates of hospitalizations and mortality. T2DM accelerates physiological cardiac aging through hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. Thus, HF and T2DM are chronic diseases widely represented in elderly people who often are affected by numerous comorbidities with important functional limitations making it difficult to apply the current guidelines. Several antidiabetic drugs should be used with caution in elderly individuals with T2DM. For instance, sulfonylureas should be avoided due to the risk of hypoglycemia associated with its use. Insulin should be used with caution because it is associated with higher risk of hypoglycemia, and may determine fluid retention which can lead to worsening of HF. Thiazolindinediones should be avoided due to the increased risk of fluid retention and HF. Biguanides may lead to a slightly increased risk of lactic acidosis in particular in elderly individuals with impaired renal function. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are safe having few side effects, minimal risk of hypoglycemia, and a neutral effect on cardiovascular (CV) outcome, even if it has been reported that saxagliptin treatment is associated with increased risk of hospitalizations for HF (hHF). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have shown a CV protection without a significant reduction in hHF. On the other hand, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have shown a significant improvement in CV outcome, with a strong reduction of hHF and a positive impact on renal damage progression. However, it is necessary to consider the possible some side effects related to their use in elderly individuals including hypotension, bone fractures, and ketoacidosis.It is important to remark that elderly patients, in particular the very elderly, are not sufficiently represented in the trials; thus, the management and treatment of elderly diabetic patients with HF should be mainly based on the integration of scientific evidence with clinical judgment and patients' condition, with respect to the dignity and quality of life.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.

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.

CARDIOVASCULAR EFFECTS OF NON-INSULIN GLUCOSE-LOWERING AGENTS: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF TRIAL EVIDENCE AND POTENTIAL CARDIOPROTECTIVE MECHANISMS

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is highly prevalent and associated with a 2-fold increased mortality, mostly explained by cardiovascular diseases. Trial evidence on older glucose-lowering agents such as metformin and sulfonylureas is limited in terms of cardiovascular efficacy. Since 2008, after rosiglitazone was observed to increase the risk of myocardial infarction and heart failure (HF), cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOT) have been required by regulators for licensing new glucose-lowering agents. In the following CVOTs, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) have been shown to be safe but not to improve morbidity/mortality, except for saxagliptin which increased the risk of HF. Several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-Ra) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. SGLT2i have shown a class effect for the reduction in risk of HF events in patients with T2DM, leading to trials testing their efficacy/safety in HF regardless of T2DM. In the DAPA-HF and the EMPEROR-Reduced trials dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, respectively, improved cardiovascular mortality/morbidity in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with and without T2DM. Therefore, these drugs are now key part of HFrEF pharmacotherapy. In the SOLOIST-WHF, sotagliflozin reduced cardiovascular mortality/morbidity in patients with T2DM and a recent acute episode of HF regardless of EF. The DELIVER and the EMPEROR-Preserved are testing dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, respectively, in patients with HF with mildly reduced and preserved EF. A strong renal protective role of SGLT2i has also emerged in trials enrolling patients with and without T2DM.

Cardiovascular outcomes and safety with linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared with the sulphonylurea glimepiride in older people with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of the randomized CAROLINA trial

AIM

To compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of linagliptin with glimepiride in older and younger participants in the CAROLINA trial in both prespecified and post hoc analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

People aged 40 to 85 years with relatively early type 2 diabetes, inadequate glycaemic control and elevated CV risk were randomly assigned to linagliptin 5 mg or glimepiride 1 to 4 mg. The primary endpoint was time to first occurrence of three-point major adverse CV events (MACE: CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke). We evaluated clinical and safety outcomes across age groups.

RESULTS

Of 6033 participants, 50.7% were aged <65 years, 35.3% were aged 65 to 74 years, and 14.0% were aged ≥75 years. During the 6.3-year median follow-up, CV/mortality outcomes did not differ between linagliptin and glimepiride overall (hazard ratio [HR] for three-point MACE 0.98, 95.47% confidence interval [CI] 0.84, 1.14) or across age groups (interaction P >0.05). Between treatment groups, reductions in glycated haemoglobin were comparable across age groups but moderate-to-severe hypoglycaemia was markedly reduced with linagliptin (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.15, 0.21) with no differences among age groups (P = 0.23). Mean weight was -1.54 kg (95% CI -1.80, -1.28) lower for linagliptin versus glimepiride. Adverse events increased with age, but were generally balanced between treatment groups. Significantly fewer falls or fractures occurred with linagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin and glimepiride were comparable for CV/mortality outcomes across age groups. Linagliptin had significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia and falls or fractures than glimepiride, including in "older-old" individuals for whom these are particularly important treatment considerations.

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.

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.

Triple fixed-dose combination empagliflozin, linagliptin, and metformin for patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy can improve outcomes in type 2 diabetes (T2D). We evaluated the bioequivalence of 2 doses of an FDC of extended-release metformin (metformin XR), empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, and linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, versus corresponding free tablet combinations.

METHODS

Two randomized, open-label, two-way crossover studies in healthy adults compared: 2 FDC tablets of empagliflozin 5 mg/linagliptin 2.5 mg/metformin XR 1000 mg (Study 1; N = 30), 1 FDC tablet of empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg/metformin XR 1000 mg (Study 2; N = 30) versus corresponding dose of free combinations. Subjects received study medication under fed conditions; washout was ≥35 days between treatments. Primary endpoints: area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to last quantifiable data point for empagliflozin and metformin; AUC from time 0 to 72 hours for linagliptin, and peak plasma concentration (C_max) for empagliflozin, linagliptin, and metformin. Bioequivalence was defined as adjusted geometric mean ratios (FDC: free combination) and two-sided 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of AUC and C_max for each component within 80.00-125.00%.

RESULTS

Study 1: 27/29 and 28/30 treated participants were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis for the FDC and free combination periods, respectively. Study 2: 29/29 treated participants were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis for both periods. The adjusted geometric mean ratios of FDCs to their respective free tablet combinations and two-sided 90% CIs were all within the predefined range. The shapes of the mean plasma concentration-time profile of empagliflozin, linagliptin, and metformin XR were similar for subjects in the FDC and free combination groups in both studies. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

The evaluated doses of empagliflozin/linagliptin/metformin XR FDC tablets were bioequivalent to the corresponding free combinations. Based on these two bioequivalence studies and existing phase 3 data, the FDA has recently approved this triple FDC to improve glycemic control in adults with T2D.