Double-blind, randomized, multicentre study of the efficacy and safety of gliclazide-modified release in the treatment of Chinese type 2 diabetic patients

Comparison of gliclazide vs linagliptin on hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated cardiovascular safety of glimepiride (a sulfonylureas) against dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin. Gliclazide (another newer sulfonylureas) has shown similar glycemic efficacy and 50% decreased risk of hypoglycemia compared to glimepiride.

AIM

Considering the absence of cardiovascular outcome trials for gliclazide, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the car-diovascular (CV) safety by assessing the risk for major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide vs linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This systematic review followed the current Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to analyze all the clinical studies published from 2008 that compared the two drugs in patients with T2D with no risk of CV disease (CVD). We included only evidence designated high quality by the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

Eight clinical studies were included in the narrative descriptive analysis (gliclazide: 5 and linagliptin: 3). The CV safety of gliclazide in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation trial and of linagliptin in the Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin (CARMELINA) and CARdiovascular Outcome study of LINAgliptin vs glimepiride in patients with T2D (CAROLINA) trials were excluded from the comparative analysis as these trials demonstrated CV and hypoglycemia benefits in patients at high risk of CVD. However, since these are landmark trials, they were discussed in brief to show the CV benefits and low hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide and linagliptin. We did not find any study comparing gliclazide with linagliptin. Hence, direct comparison of their major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk could not be carried out. However, the literature meeting the inclusion criteria showed that both drugs were effective in achieving the desired glycemic control and had low major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk in adult patients with no history of CVD.

CONCLUSION

Gliclazide can be considered an effective and safe glucose-lowering drug in T2D patients with no established CVD but at high risk of CVD due to their T2D status. Future randomized controlled trials comparing gliclazide with linagliptin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors can confirm these findings.

Development and Bio-Predictive Evaluation of Biopharmaceutical Properties of Sustained-Release Tablets with a Novel GPR40 Agonist for a First-in-Human Clinical Trial

Sustained-release (SR) formulations may appear advantageous in first-in-human (FIH) study of innovative medicines. The newly developed SR matrix tablets require prolonged maintenance of API concentration in plasma and should be reliably assessed for the risk of uncontrolled release of the drug. In the present study, we describe the development of a robust SR matrix tablet with a novel G-protein-coupled receptor 40 (GPR40) agonist for first-in-human studies and introduce a general workflow for the successful development of SR formulations for innovative APIs. The hydrophilic matrix tablets containing the labeled API dose of 5, 30, or 120 mg were evaluated with several methods: standard USP II dissolution, bio-predictive dissolution tests, and the texture and matrix formation analysis. The standard dissolution tests allowed preselection of the prototypes with the targeted dissolution rate, while the subsequent studies in physiologically relevant conditions revealed unwanted and potentially harmful effects, such as dose dumping under an increased mechanical agitation. The developed formulations were exceptionally robust toward the mechanical and physicochemical conditions of the bio-predictive tests and assured a comparable drug delivery rate regardless of the prandial state and dose labeled. In conclusion, the introduced development strategy, when implemented into the development cycle of SR formulations with innovative APIs, may allow not only to reduce the risk of formulation-related failure of phase I clinical trial but also effectively and timely provide safe and reliable medicines for patients in the trial and their further therapy.

Glycemic control and antidiabetic drugs in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with renal complications

BACKGROUND

Good glycemic control can delay the progression of kidney diseases in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with renal complications. To date, the association between antidiabetic agents and glycemic control in this specific patient population is not well established.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify antidiabetic regimens as well as other factors that associated with glycemic control in T2DM patients with different stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective, cross-sectional study involved 242 T2DM inpatients and outpatients with renal complications from January 2009 to March 2014 and was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital in Malaysia. Glycated hemoglobin (A1C) was used as main parameter to assess patients' glycemic status. Patients were classified to have good (A1C <7%) or poor glycemic control (A1C ≥7%) based on the recommendations of the American Diabetes Association.

RESULTS

Majority of the patients presented with CKD stage 4 (43.4%). Approximately 55.4% of patients were categorized to have poor glycemic control. Insulin (57.9%) was the most commonly prescribed antidiabetic medication, followed by sulfonylureas (43%). Of all antidiabetic regimens, sulfonylureas monotherapy (P<0.001), insulin therapy (P=0.005), and combination of biguanides with insulin (P=0.038) were found to be significantly associated with glycemic control. Other factors including duration of T2DM (P=0.004), comorbidities such as anemia (P=0.024) and retinopathy (P=0.033), concurrent medications such as erythropoietin therapy (P=0.047), α-blockers (P=0.033), and antigouts (P=0.003) were also correlated with A1C.

CONCLUSION

Identification of factors that are associated with glycemic control is important to help in optimization of glucose control in T2DM patients with renal complication.

[The use of gliclazide in individualized sulfonylurea therapy]

In addition to the common blood glucose lowering effect, sulfonylurea compounds are different in many aspects from each other. Based on earlier findings the second generation gliclazide has special advantages within this group. Although the number of experimental and clinical observations on gliclazide is continuously increasing, these novel findings are not in the focus anymore due to the appearance of new antidiabetics. This article reviews recent experimental (effect on receptors, the absence of Epac2 activation, antioxidant properties, possible incentive of factors participating in beta-cell differentiation) and pharmacogenomic data, and compares them with clinical observations obtained from gliclazide treatment (hypoglycemias, parameters of cardiovascular outcome). The data underline the advantages of gliclazide, the highly pancreas-selective nature, preservation of the ischemic precondition, favourable hemodynamic properties and potential reduction of the beta-cell loss as compared to other compounds of the group. However, gliclazide is not free from disadvantages characteristic to sulfonylureas in general (blood glucose independent insulin stimulation, beta-cell depletion). Comparing gliclazide with other derivatives of the group, the above data indicate individual benefits for the application when sulfonylurea compound is the drug of choice.

The efficacy of self-monitoring of blood glucose in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with a gliclazide modified release-based regimen. A multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, 6-month evaluation (DINAMIC 1 study)

AIM

To determine if therapeutic management programmes for type 2 diabetes that include self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) result in greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) compared with programmes without SMBG in non-insulin requiring patients.

METHODS

Multicentre, randomized, parallel-group trial. A total of 610 patients were randomized to SMBG or non-SMBG groups. Patients in both groups received the same oral antidiabetic therapy using a gliclazide modified release (MR)-based regimen for 27 weeks. The primary efficacy end-point was the difference between groups in HbA1c at the end of observation.

RESULTS

A total of 610 patients were randomized: 311 to the SMBG group and 299 to the non-SMBG group. HbA1c decreased from 8.12 to 6.95% in the SMBG group and from 8.12 to 7.20% in the non-SMBG group; between-group difference was 0.25% (95% CI: 0.06, 1.03; p = 0.0097). Symptoms suggestive of mild to moderate hypoglycaemia was the most commonly reported adverse event, reported by 27 (8.7%) and 21 (7.0%) patients in the SMBG and non-SMBG groups, respectively; the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was lower in the SMBG group.

CONCLUSION

In patients with type 2 diabetes, the application of SMBG as an adjunct to oral antidiabetic agent therapy results in further reductions in HbA1c.