Nateglinide or gliclazide in combination with metformin for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on maximum doses of metformin alone: 1-year trial results

Efficacy and Safety of DPP-4 Inhibitors and Metformin Combinations in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

Several oral antidiabetic regimens are available for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) being one of them. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing DPP4i plus metformin (Met) combination with other Met-based oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) combinations used in treating patients with T2DM.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Embase from inception until 19th April, 2022 for phase II and phase III trials in patients with T2DM on Met-based traditional OADs. The primary outcome was assessed by change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-hour post-prandial blood glucose (2h-PPG). The secondary safety outcomes assessed were hypoglycemic events, serious adverse events (SAEs), cardiovascular (CV) events, and gastrointestinal (GI) events.

Results

Sixty-two trials were included in the analysis. The combination of DPP4i + Met revealed a comparable mean reduction in HbA1c levels to the glinides (Gli) + Met combination (mean difference [MD]: -0.03%, 95% CI: 0.69, -0.65), although the difference was not statistically significant. The mean HbA1c reduction with DPP4i + Met was greater than with sulfonylureas (SU) + Met (MD: -0.05, 95% CI: -0.29, 0.39), thiazolidinedione (TZD) + Met (MD: -0.69, 95% CI: -1.39, -0.02), and SU + TZD (MD: 0.21; 95% CI: -1.30, 1.71), with no statistical significance. DPP4i + Met demonstrated a non-significant lower incidence of CV events in comparison to TZD + Met (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.46, 2.45) and SU + Met (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.61, 2.06).

Conclusion

DPP4i in combination with Met was efficacious and had a well-tolerated safety profile compared with other traditional OADs. This combination can be considered as a suitable treatment option for patients with T2DM.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Rahim AA, Eliana F, Shrestha HK, Chaudhary S, Ngugi N, Mbanya JC, Aye TT, Latt TS, Akanov ZA, Syed AR, Tandon N, Unnikrishnan AG, Madhu SV, Jawa A, Chowdhury S, Bajaj S, Das AK. Consensus Recommendations on Sulfonylurea and Sulfonylurea Combinations in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus - International Task Force

For decades, sulfonylureas (SUs) have been important drugs in the antidiabetic therapeutic armamentarium. They have been used as monotherapy as well as combination therapy. Focus on newer drugs and concerns about the risk of severe hypoglycemia and weight gain with some SUs have led to discussion on their safety and utility. It has to be borne in mind that the adverse events associated with SUs should not be ascribed to the whole class, as many modern SUs, such as glimepiride and gliclazide modified release, are associated with better safety profiles. Furthermore, individualization of treatment, using SUs in combination with other drugs, backed with careful monitoring and patient education, ensures maximum benefits with minimal side effects. The current guidelines, developed by experts from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, promote the safe and smart use of SUs in combination with other glucose-lowering drugs.

Network meta-analysis of lorcaserin and oral hypoglycaemics for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity

In addition to weight loss, randomized controlled trials have shown improvement in glycaemic control in patients taking lorcaserin. The aim of this study aim was to compare adding lorcaserin or other glucose lowering medications to metformin on weight and glycaemic control. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were conducted. Included studies (published 1990-2014) were of lorcaserin or glucose lowering medications in type 2 diabetic patients compared to placebo or different active treatments. Studies had to report ≥1 key outcome (change in weight or HbA1c, % HbA1c <7, hypoglycaemia). Direct meta-analysis was performed using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models, and network meta-analysis with Bayesian Markov-chain Monte Carlo random effects models; 6552 articles were screened and 41 included. Lorcaserin reduced weight significantly more than thiazolidinediones, glinides, sulphonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, some of which may have led to weight gain. There were no significant differences in weight change between lorcaserin and alpha-glucoside inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Network meta-analysis showed lorcaserin was non-inferior to all other agents on HbA1c reduction and % achieving HbA1c of <7%. The risk of hypoglycaemia was not significantly different among studied agents except that sulphonylureas were associated with higher risk of hypoglycaemia than lorcaserin. Although additional studies are needed, this analysis suggests in a population of patients with a body mas index of ≥27 who do not achieve glycaemic control on a single agent, lorcaserin may be added as an alternative to an add-on glucose lowering medication.

The Association between Sulfonylurea Use and All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Sulfonylureas are an effective and inexpensive treatment for type 2 diabetes. There is conflicting data about the safety of these drugs regarding mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the safety of the sulfonylureas most frequently used and to use trial sequential analysis (TSA) to analyze whether the available sample was powered enough to support the results.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Electronic databases were reviewed from 1946 (Embase) or 1966 (MEDLINE) up to 31 December 2014. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of at least 52 wk in duration evaluating second- or third-generation sulfonylureas in the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes and reporting outcomes of interest were included. Primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Additionally, myocardial infarction and stroke events were evaluated. Data were summarized with Peto odds ratios (ORs), and the reliability of the results was evaluated with TSA. Forty-seven RCTs with 37,650 patients and 890 deaths in total were included. Sulfonylureas were not associated with all-cause (OR 1.12 [95% CI 0.96 to 1.30]) or cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.12 [95% CI 0.87 to 1.42]). Sulfonylureas were also not associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.92 [95% CI 0.76 to 1.12]) or stroke (OR 1.16 [95% CI 0.81 to 1.66]). TSA could discard an absolute difference of 0.5% between the treatments, which was considered the minimal clinically significant difference. The major limitation of this review was the inclusion of studies not designed to evaluate safety outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Sulfonylureas are not associated with increased risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Current evidence supports the safety of sulfonylureas; an absolute risk of 0.5% could be firmly discarded.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42014004330.

Co-extrusion as a processing technique to manufacture a dual sustained release fixed-dose combination product

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to design a fixed-dose combination dosage form which provides a sustained release profile for both the freely water-soluble metformin HCl and the poorly soluble gliclazide, two antidiabetic compounds used to treat diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Hot-melt co-extrusion was used as an innovative manufacturing technique for a pharmaceutical fixed-dose combination product. In this way, a matrix formulation that sustained metformin release could be developed, despite the high drug load in the formulation and the freely soluble nature of the drug.

KEY FINDINGS

It was clear that co-extrusion was perfectly suited to produce a fixed-dose combination product with adequate properties for each of the incorporated APIs. A coat layer, containing at least 30% CAPA(®) 6506 as a hydrophobic polymer, was necessary to adequately sustain the release of the highly dosed freely soluble drug from the 70% metformin HCl-loaded CAPA(®) 6506 core of the co-extrudate. To obtain a complete gliclazide release over 24-h solubilization in Kollidon(®) VA, added as a second polymer to the CAPA(®) 6506 in the coat, was needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Both active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), which have different physicochemical characteristics, were formulated in a single dosage form, using co-extrusion.

Four-Year Durability of Initial Combination Therapy with Sitagliptin and Metformin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Clinical Practice; COSMIC Study

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the efficacy of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes for 4 years in clinical practice.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2010, we reviewed 1,178 patients with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥7.5% or 58 mmol/mol) prescribed initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin. After excluding 288 patients without a second follow-up, 890 individuals (age, 58.0 ± 12.5 years; BMI, 25.4 ± 3.5 kg/m2; HbA1c, 8.6 ± 1.1%) were followed up with every 3-6 months for 4 years. Homeostasis model assessments for insulin resistance and β-cell function (HOMA-β) were recorded at baseline. The response criterion was HbA1c reduction by ≥0.8% from baseline or attainment of the target HbA1c (≤7.0% or 53 mmol/mol). At the end of every year of treatment, changes in HbA1c from the baseline were assessed.

RESULTS

After 1 year, 72.2% of patients with initial combination therapy had responded, defined as HbA1c reduction ≥0.8% or attainment of the target HbA1c ≤7.0%. After 4 years, 35.4% of the patients still showed a response, with an HbA1c level of 7.0 ± 0.9%. A high HbA1c level at baseline was the most significant independent predictor of the long-term response (P<0.001). In addition, low HOMA-β was a significant predictor of a greater reduction in HbA1c. This treatment was generally well tolerated over the 4-year follow-up period, without any serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world follow-up study shows a persistent glucose-reducing effect of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin for up to 4 years.

Combined use of basal insulin analog and acarbose reduces postprandial glucose in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes

Aims/Introduction

Early initiation of basal insulin therapy is recommended for normalizing fasting blood glucose in type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, basal insulin treatment might not adequately control postprandial glucose levels. The present study evaluated whether the combination of the α-glucosidase inhibitor, acarbose, and basal insulin improved blood glucose control under daily-life treatment conditions in a large sample of Korean patients.

Materials and Methods

The present study was a multicenter, prospective, observational study under daily-life treatment conditions. A total of 539 patients with type 2 diabetes who were treated with basal insulin and additional acarbose were enrolled and followed up for 20 weeks. Changes in hemoglobin A1c, fasting and postprandial blood glucose were evaluated at baseline and at the end of the observation period. The physician and patient satisfaction of the combination treatment and safety were assessed.

Results

Hemoglobin A1c decreased by 0.55 ± 1.05% from baseline (P < 0.0001). Fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels were reduced by 0.89 ± 3.79 and 2.59 ± 4.77 mmol/L (both P < 0.0001). The most frequently reported adverse drug reactions were flatulence (0.37%) and abnormal gastrointestinal sounds (0.37%), and all were mild in intensity and transient. In the satisfaction evaluation, 79.0% of physicians and 77.3% of patients were ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the combined basal insulin and acarbose therapy.

Conclusions

Combination therapy of basal insulin and acarbose in patients with type 2 diabetes improved glucose control, and had no drug-specific safety concerns, suggesting that the treatment might benefit individuals who cannot control blood glucose with basal insulin alone.

Observational and clinical trial findings on the comparative effectiveness of diabetes drugs showed agreement

OBJECTIVES

This study compares an observational study of diabetes treatment effectiveness to randomized controlled trials to assess their convergent validity.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Multivariate models were developed using observational data to describe change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c; % unit) and weight (kilograms) after addition of a second-line oral diabetes drug to metformin monotherapy. Randomized trials of these scenarios were systematically identified. The models were used to simulate each trial, and simulated and actual results were compared by linear regression and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-two randomized trials of second-line diabetes oral therapy were identified. For all outcomes and drugs studied, simulation and actual results correlated (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between meta-analyzed randomized and simulated results for effect on HbA1c. For effect on weight, results were qualitatively comparable, but for sulfonylureas, the simulated weight gain was nominally greater than seen in the randomized controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

An observational study of diabetes drug effectiveness showed convergent validity with randomized data. This supports cautious use of the observational research to draw conclusions about drug effectiveness in populations not studied in clinical trials. This approach may be useful in other situations where observational and randomized data need integration.

A meta-analysis of the hypoglycaemic risk in randomized controlled trials with sulphonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIM

To assess hypoglycaemic risk with sulphonylureas in comparison with other drugs in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Randomized trials with a duration ≥ 24 weeks, enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes, comparing sulphonylureas with placebo or active drugs different from other sulphonylureas. The principal outcome was the effect of sulphonylureas on the incidence of any or severe hypoglycaemia. Cumulative incidence of hypoglycaemia was estimated combining sulphonylurea groups of different trials with a random effect model and used for meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

The incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in patients treated with sulphonylureas was 1.2 [1.0-1.6]%. The overall risk of severe hypoglycaemia was increased more than threefold with sulphonylureas than with comparators. The proportion of patients with at least one hypoglycaemia while on sulphonylureas was 17.4 [14.5-20.8]%. The overall risk (Mantel-Haenszel Odds Ratio) of any hypoglycaemia with sulphonylureas versus comparators was 3.69 [3.47-3.93] (p < 0.001). Meta-regression analysis suggested that the incidence of any hypoglycaemia was higher in trials enrolling patients with higher body mass index (BMI) and lower haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, hypoglycaemia, including severe hypoglycaemia, is frequent in patients treated with sulphonylureas, particularly when baseline HbA1c levels are lower and BMI levels higher. Further studies are needed to characterize predictors for the identification of patients at higher risk.

The role of nateglinide and repaglinide, derivatives of meglitinide, in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the most common chronic diseases worldwide, presenting a great challenge to the public health systems due to high morbidity and mortality, because of frequent micro-/macro-vascular complications. Many treatment options are now available, with different efficacy as well as mechanisms of action to improve deranged glucose metabolism. We review some of the available data on derivatives of meglitinide, namely nateglinide and repaglinide. These two compounds increase insulin secretion by a mechanism similar to the one of sulfonylureas, but with a shorter half-life. Nateglinide and repaglinide, derivatives of meglitinides, have characteristic pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties that, together with their proposed mechanism of action, make them useful for type 2 diabetes mellitus, especially when used in combination therapy.

Cardiovascular safety of sulfonylureas: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

AIM

Cardiovascular safety of sulfonylurea has been questioned by some authors. This article aims at collecting all available data on this issue from randomized trials.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed including all trials with a duration of at least 6 months, comparing a sulfonylurea with a non-sulfonylurea agent in type 2 diabetes. Major cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality were retrieved and combined to calculate Mantel-Haenzel odds ratio (MH-OR).

RESULTS

Of the 115 selected trials, 62 reported information on MACE, and 30 reported at least one event. MH-OR for sulfonylurea was 1.08 [0.86-1.36], p = 0.52 (1.85 [1.20-2.87], p = 0.005, in the five trials vs. DPP4 inhibitors, no significant differences vs. other comparators). The MH-OR for myocardial infarction and stroke was 0.88 [0.75-1.04], p = 0.13 and 1.28 [1.03-1.60], p = 0.026, respectively. Mortality was significantly increased with sulfonylureas (MH-OR: 1.22 [1.01-1.49], p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

In type 2 diabetes, the use of sulfonylureas is associated with increased mortality and a higher risk of stroke, whereas the overall incidence of MACE appears to be unaffected. Significant differences in cardiovascular risk could be present in direct comparisons with specific classes of glucose-lowering agents, such as DPP4 inhibitors, but this hypothesis needs to be confirmed in long-term cardiovascular outcomes trials. The results of this meta-analysis need to be interpreted with caution, mainly because of limitations in trial quality and under-reporting of information on cardiovascular events and mortality. However, the cardiovascular safety of sulfonylureas cannot be considered established unless it is evaluated in long-term cardiovascular outcomes trials.

Drug-induced hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Hypoglycaemia is a side effect caused by some therapies for type 2 diabetes, which can cause physical, social and psychological harm. Hypoglycaemia also prevents attainment of treatment goals and satisfactory glycaemic control.

AREAS COVERED

The risk of hypoglycaemia associated with commonly prescribed therapies, including metformin, sulphonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 enzyme (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists and thiazolidinediones, is reviewed in this paper (insulin-induced hypoglycaemia is not included). Other medications that are frequently co-prescribed in type 2 diabetes are also discussed, including anti-hypertensive drugs, antibiotics and fibrates, along with various important patient-related risk factors.

EXPERT OPINION

Hypoglycaemia is a common and potentially dangerous side effect of some medications used for type 2 diabetes. The risk of hypoglycaemia should always be considered when selecting and implementing a therapy, with a focus on the individual. Future research into new therapies should measure the frequency of hypoglycaemia prospectively and accurately. Hypoglycaemia has been shown to be a potentially life-threatening metabolic stress; therefore therapies that effectively manage diabetes without the risk of hypoglycaemia are likely to be favoured in the future.

Nateglinide and acarbose for postprandial glucose control after optimizing fasting glucose with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Basal insulin treatment is frequently used in type 2 diabetes, but the successful control of postprandial glucose is challenging. We compared the effect of preferential postprandial glucose targeting drugs for postprandial glucose control after optimizing fasting glucose with basal insulin.

METHODS

This study was performed in 58, insulin naïve type 2 diabetes. After fasting glucose was optimized by insulin glargine, nateglinide or acarbose was initiated and then crossed over after second wash out period. 75 g oral glucose tolerance test and 7 point self monitoring blood glucose for 3 days at the end of each period was performed.

RESULTS

Both drugs effectively reduced postprandial glucose levels compared with the insulin glargine monotherapy. No significant differences were found between nateglinide and acarbose in terms of mean glucose level, standard deviation of glucose levels, mean average glucose excursion and average daily risk range. Homeostasis model analysis (HOMA)% β, corrected insulin response and insulin-to-glucose ratio were significantly higher in the responder group compared with the non-responder. There was no episode of severe hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Nateglinide and acarbose are equally effective in type 2 diabetes for postprandial glucose excursions during basal insulin treatment. The markers of beta cell function might be used for predicting response. (Clinical trial reg. no. NCT 00437918, clinicaltrial.gov.).

Second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: a systematic review and mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although there is general agreement that metformin should be used as first-line pharmacotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes, uncertainty remains regarding the choice of second-line therapy once metformin is no longer effective. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative safety and efficacy of all available classes of antihyperglycemic therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials published in English from 1980 to October 2009. Additional citations were obtained from grey literature and conference proceedings and through stakeholder feedback. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Key outcomes of interest were hemoglobin A1c, body weight, hypoglycemia, quality of life, long-term diabetes-related complications, serious adverse drug events and mortality. Mixed-treatment comparison and pairwise meta-analyses were conducted to pool trial results, when appropriate.

RESULTS

We identified 49 active and non-active controlled randomized trials that compared 2 or more of the following classes of antihyperglycemic agents and weight-loss agents: sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues, insulins, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, sibutramine and orlistat. All classes of second-line antihyperglycemic therapies achieved clinically meaningful reductions in hemoglobin A1c (0.6% to 1.0%). No significant differences were found between classes. Insulins and insulin secretagogues were associated with significantly more events of overall hypoglycemia than the other agents, but severe hypoglycemia was rarely observed. An increase in body weight was observed with the majority of second-line therapies (1.8 to 3.0 kg), the exceptions being DPP-4 inhibitors, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues (0.6 to -1.8 kg). There were insufficient data available for diabetes complications, mortality or quality of life.

INTERPRETATION

DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues achieved improvements in glycemic control similar to those of other second-line therapies, although they may have modest benefits in terms of weight gain and overall hypoglycemia. Further long-term trials of adequate power are required to determine whether newer drug classes differ from older agents in terms of clinically meaningful outcomes.

Add-on therapies to metformin for type 2 diabetes

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

As of 2010, approximately 285 million people worldwide have diabetes; that number is estimated to increase to 439 million by 2030. The majority of these individuals (> 90%) have type 2 diabetes, a chronic and progressive disease.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

Metformin monotherapy is a safe and effective option. However, its effects on glycemia are typically of limited durability. Progressive loss of β-cell function and failure of metformin monotherapy to control glucose adequately prompt the addition of other oral antidiabetic drugs, such as sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones, which have their own limitations. Evidence suggests that incretin-based agents can successfully achieve glycemic control while potentially providing cardiovascular and β-cell-function benefits.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

Knowledge of the available clinical evidence on the incretin-based therapies and other pharmacotherapeutic options for patients with type 2 diabetes who fail first-line therapy with metformin, through an analysis of improved glycemic parameters and overall risk:benefit profiles.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Traditional oral antidiabetic agents, recommended as first- and second-line therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with diet/exercise or monotherapy, have limited durability of effect and are associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors provide glycemic control and are promising additions to the pharmacotherapeutic armamentarium.

Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Metformin is an oral anti-hyperglycemic agent that has been shown to reduce total mortality compared to other anti-hyperglycemic agents, in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metformin, however, is thought to increase the risk of lactic acidosis, and has been considered to be contraindicated in many chronic hypoxemic conditions that may be associated with lactic acidosis, such as cardiovascular, renal, hepatic and pulmonary disease, and advancing age.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis, and to evaluate blood lactate levels, for those on metformin treatment compared to placebo or non-metformin therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search was performed of electronic databases to identify studies of metformin treatment. The search was augmented by scanning references of identified articles, and by contacting principal investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective trials and observational cohort studies in patients with type 2 diabetes of least one month duration were included if they evaluated metformin, alone or in combination with other treatments, compared to placebo or any other glucose-lowering therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis was recorded as cases per patient-years, for metformin treatment and for non-metformin treatments. The upper limit for the true incidence of cases was calculated using Poisson statistics. In a second analysis lactate levels were measured as a net change from baseline or as mean treatment values (basal and stimulated by food or exercise) for treatment and comparison groups. The pooled results were recorded as a weighted mean difference (WMD) in mmol/L, using the fixed-effect model for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Pooled data from 347 comparative trials and cohort studies revealed no cases of fatal or nonfatal lactic acidosis in 70,490 patient-years of metformin use or in 55,451 patients-years in the non-metformin group. Using Poisson statistics the upper limit for the true incidence of lactic acidosis per 100,000 patient-years was 4.3 cases in the metformin group and 5.4 cases in the non-metformin group. There was no difference in lactate levels, either as mean treatment levels or as a net change from baseline, for metformin compared to non-metformin therapies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from prospective comparative trials or from observational cohort studies that metformin is associated with an increased risk of lactic acidosis, or with increased levels of lactate, compared to other anti-hyperglycemic treatments.

A comparison of efficacy and safety of vildagliptin and gliclazide in combination with metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin alone: a 52-week, randomized study

AIM

To demonstrate non-inferiority of vildagliptin compared with gliclazide, as an add-on therapy, in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin in a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study.

METHODS

Patients receiving a stable dose of metformin (> or = 1500 mg) were randomized (1 : 1) to receive vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily; n = 513) or gliclazide (up to 320 mg/day; n = 494).

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of vildagliptin was demonstrated (95% confidence interval -0.11%, 0.20%) with a mean change (se) from baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) (approximately 8.5% in both groups) to a 52-week endpoint of -0.81% (0.06) with vildagliptin and -0.85% (0.06) with gliclazide. Although a similar proportion of patients reached HbA(1c) < 7.0%, the total number of hypoglycaemic events was lower in the vildagliptin group (6 vs. 11 events). Vildagliptin was non-inferior (margin 0.6 mmol/l) to gliclazide in reducing fasting plasma glucose (1.31 vs. 1.52 mmol/l, P = 0.257). The overall incidence of any adverse events was similar in both groups (approximately 61%), but the number of serious adverse events was higher in the gliclazide group (8.7 vs. 6.7%). The number of patients who discontinued as a result of an unsatisfactory effect was higher in the vildagliptin group (n = 22 vs. 13, respectively) compared with gliclazide, but vildagliptin did not induce weight gain.

CONCLUSION

In patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin, addition of vildagliptin provided similar HbA(1c)-lowering efficacy compared with gliclazide after 52 weeks of treatment. Although both treatments were well tolerated, vildagliptin-treated patients had fewer hypoglycaemic events and did not gain weight.

Risk of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis with metformin use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Metformin is an oral anti-hyperglycemic agent that has been shown to reduce total mortality compared to other anti-hyperglycemic agents, in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metformin, however, is thought to increase the risk of lactic acidosis, and has been considered to be contraindicated in many chronic hypoxemic conditions that may be associated with lactic acidosis, such as cardiovascular, renal, hepatic and pulmonary disease, and advancing age.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis, and to evaluate blood lactate levels, for those on metformin treatment compared to placebo or non-metformin therapies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive search was performed of electronic databases to identify studies of metformin treatment. The search was augmented by scanning references of identified articles, and by contacting principal investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective trials and observational cohort studies in patients with type 2 diabetes of least one month duration were included if they evaluated metformin, alone or in combination with other treatments, compared to placebo or any other glucose-lowering therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The incidence of fatal and nonfatal lactic acidosis was recorded as cases per patient-years, for metformin treatment and for non-metformin treatments. The upper limit for the true incidence of cases was calculated using Poisson statistics. In a second analysis lactate levels were measured as a net change from baseline or as mean treatment values (basal and stimulated by food or exercise) for treatment and comparison groups. The pooled results were recorded as a weighted mean difference (WMD) in mmol/L, using the fixed-effect model for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Pooled data from 347 comparative trials and cohort studies revealed no cases of fatal or nonfatal lactic acidosis in 70,490 patient-years of metformin use or in 55,451 patients-years in the non-metformin group. Using Poisson statistics the upper limit for the true incidence of lactic acidosis per 100,000 patient-years was 4.3 cases in the metformin group and 5.4 cases in the non-metformin group. There was no difference in lactate levels, either as mean treatment levels or as a net change from baseline, for metformin compared to non-metformin therapies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from prospective comparative trials or from observational cohort studies that metformin is associated with an increased risk of lactic acidosis, or with increased levels of lactate, compared to other anti-hyperglycemic treatments.

Combination of nateglinide with thiazolidinediones in Type 2 diabetes

Insulin sensitivity and insulin secretion are reciprocally related such that insulin resistance is adapted by increased insulin secretion to maintain normal glucose and lipid homeostasis. Treatment of Type 2 diabetes should aim to restore and sustain the normal relationship between insulin sensitivity and secretion. Nateglinide is a rapid-onset, short-acting insulin-secretion enhancer that restores early-phase insulin secretion, reduces postprandial glucose excursions and prevents long-term hyperinsulinemia. Given its mechanism of action, it is evident that nateglinide would be more effective when used in combination with an insulin sensitizer, such as the thiazolidinediones. Thiazolidinediones do not stimulate insulin release and, therefore, are potentially suitable candidates for combination therapy with an insulin-secretion enhancer, such as nateglinide. Combination therapy of thiazolidinediones with nateglinide is effective, carries low risk of hypoglycemia and is suitable for patients with moderate renal impairment, although weight gain and edema are common side effects. Further studies are needed to determine whether nateglinide in combination with thiazolidinediones will help clinicians better achieve their treatment goals in targeting Type 2 diabetes. Moreover, comparative studies between nateglinide and medications targeting postprandial glycemia, such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, are necessary. This article summarizes data concerning the mechanism of action, efficacy and safety of therapy with nateglinide and thiazolidinediones as monotherapy and in combination treatment, and aims at a better understanding of the substrate defects their synergy hopes to defy.

Safety and efficacy of nateglinide/metformin combination therapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes provides impetus for both development of new drugs to improve glycemic control and for reconsideration of treatment strategies with existing agents. Combination therapy with complementary drug classes that act on different aspects of glycemic control has been a particularly effective strategy. This work reviews the published literature reporting efficacy and safety/tolerability of nateglinide, a rapid-onset insulinotropic agent with a predominant effect to reduce postprandial glucose, when combined with metformin, a first-line agent that suppresses hepatic glucose production and thereby reduces fasting plasma glucose. The nateglinide/metformin combination has consistently been found to be both efficacious and well tolerated, whether given as initial combination therapy in drug-naïve patients or when added to metformin monotherapy. Maximum efficacy (Δ glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA_1c]= −1.4% to −1.9%, sustained for up to 2 years of treatment) was seen in studies of drug-naïve patients in whom pharmacotherapy was initiated with the combination of nateglinide and metformin, and modest reductions in HbA_1c (Δ = −0.5% to −1.2%, sustained for up to 24 weeks) were found when nateglinide was added to ongoing metformin monotherapy.

Conclusion: the combination of nateglinide and metformin provides a sustained degree of glycemic control not achievable with either agent given as monotherapy.