Fifty-two-week efficacy and safety of vildagliptin vs. glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy

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.

Comparative effectiveness of second line oral antidiabetic treatments among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: emulation of a target trial using routinely collected health data

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of three commonly prescribed oral antidiabetic drugs added to metformin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring second line treatment in routine clinical practice.

DESIGN

Cohort study emulating a comparative effectiveness trial (target trial).

SETTING

Linked primary care, hospital, and death data in England, 2015-21.

PARTICIPANTS

75 739 adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with a sulfonylurea, DPP-4 inhibitor, or SGLT-2 inhibitor added to metformin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was absolute change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between baseline and one year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were change in body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at one year and two years, change in HbA1c at two years, and time to ≥40% decline in eGFR, major adverse kidney event, hospital admission for heart failure, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and all cause mortality. Instrumental variable analysis was used to reduce the risk of confounding due to unobserved baseline measures.

RESULTS

75 739 people initiated second line oral antidiabetic treatment with sulfonylureas (n=25 693, 33.9%), DPP-4 inhibitors (n=34 464 ,45.5%), or SGLT-2 inhibitors (n=15 582, 20.6%). SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors or sulfonylureas in reducing mean HbA1c values between baseline and one year. After the instrumental variable analysis, the mean differences in HbA1c change between baseline and one year were -2.5 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.7 to -1.3) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas and -3.2 mmol/mol (-4.6 to -1.8) for SGLT-2 inhibitors versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in reducing BMI and systolic blood pressure. For some secondary endpoints, evidence for SGLT-2 inhibitors being more effective was lacking-the hazard ratio for MACE, for example, was 0.99 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.62) versus sulfonylureas and 0.91 (0.51 to 1.63) versus DPP-4 inhibitors. SGLT-2 inhibitors had reduced hazards of hospital admission for heart failure compared with DPP-4 inhibitors (0.32, 0.12 to 0.90) and sulfonylureas (0.46, 0.20 to 1.05). The hazard ratio for a ≥40% decline in eGFR indicated a protective effect versus sulfonylureas (0.42, 0.22 to 0.82), with high uncertainty in the estimated hazard ratio versus DPP-4 inhibitors (0.64, 0.29 to 1.43).

CONCLUSIONS

This emulation study of a target trial found that SGLT-2 inhibitors were more effective than sulfonylureas or DPP-4 inhibitors in lowering mean HbA1c, BMI, and systolic blood pressure and in reducing the hazards of hospital admission for heart failure (v DPP-4 inhibitors) and kidney disease progression (v sulfonylureas), with no evidence of differences in other clinical endpoints.

Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians

BACKGROUND

Newer diabetes medications may have beneficial effects on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, and renal outcomes.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins as monotherapy or combination therapy in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2010 through January 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs lasting at least 52 weeks that included at least 500 adults with T2DM receiving eligible medications and reported any outcomes of interest.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE) were done.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 130 publications from 84 RCTs were identified. CoE was appraised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria for direct, indirect, and network meta-analysis (NMA); the highest CoE was reported. Compared with usual care, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (high CoE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (moderate to high CoE), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure hospitalizations and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke (high CoE), and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia (high CoE). The threshold for minimally important differences, which was predefined with the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee, was not met for these outcomes. Compared with usual care, insulin, tirzepatide, and DPP4 inhibitors do not reduce all-cause mortality (low to high CoE). Compared with insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (low to moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 agonists reduce all-cause mortality (moderate CoE). Compared with DPP4 inhibitors and sulfonylurea (SU), SGLT2 inhibitors reduce MACE (moderate to high CoE). Compared with SU and insulin, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists reduce severe hypoglycemia (low to high CoE).

LIMITATIONS

Infrequent direct comparisons between drugs of interest; sparse data for NMA on most outcomes; possible incoherence due to differences in baseline patient characteristics and usual care; insufficient data on predefined subgroups, including demographic subgroups, patients with prior cardiovascular disease, and treatment-naive persons.

CONCLUSION

In adults with T2DM, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists (but not DPP4 inhibitors, insulin, or tirzepatide) reduce all-cause mortality and MACE compared with usual care. SGLT2 inhibitors reduce CKD progression and heart failure hospitalization and GLP1 agonists reduce stroke compared with usual care. Serious adverse events and severe hypoglycemia are less frequent with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists than with insulin or SU.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).

Sustained-Release Vildagliptin 100 mg in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) were introduced into the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as they are insulinotropic and have no inherent risk of hypoglycemia and no effect on body weight. Currently, 11 drugs in this class are available for the management of diabetes. Although they have a similar mechanism of action, they differ from one other in their binding mechanisms, which influences their therapeutic and pharmacological profiles. Vildagliptin's overall safety and tolerability profile was comparable to placebo throughout clinical studies, and real-world data in a large group of T2DM patients corroborated this finding. Therefore, DPP4Is like vildagliptin is a secure alternative for treating patients with T2DM. Vildagliptin treatment given as a once-daily (QD) 100 mg sustained release (SR) formulation fits the criteria of adherence and compliance. This SR formulation, given once daily has the potential to provide glycemic control like the vildagliptin 50 mg twice-daily (BD) formulation. This comprehensive review discusses the journey of vildagliptin as 50 mg BD therapy as well as 100 mg SR QD therapy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of teneligliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There are efficacy and safety concerns related to teneligliptin treatment. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken to comprehensively profile the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Thirteen studies were chosen from a search of scientific databases for RCTs using teneligliptin as a monotherapy or as an adjunct to other glycemic agents with pre-specified inclusion criteria. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in each included trial and pooled the data using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies enrolled 2853 patients were identified. Teneligliptin treatment was associated with weight gain (vs. placebo, weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.28 kg; 95% CI - 0.20-0.77 kg; I² = 86%; P = 0.25). Compared to monotherapy, add on therapy with teneligliptin showed significant improvement in FPG mg/dl levels (WMD - 16.75 mg/dl; 95% CI - 19.38 to - 14.13 mg/dl), HOMA-β (WMD 7.91; 95% CI 5.38-10.45) and HOMA-IR (WMD - 0.27; 95% CI - 0.46 to - 0.07). The improvement in HbA1c was greater with monotherapy (WMD - 8.88 mmol/mol; 95% CI - 9.59 to - 8.08 mmol/mol). There was no significant risk of any hypoglycemia with teneligliptin compared to placebo (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.44-1.60; I² = 0%; P = 0.60). However, the risk was 1.84 times high when combined with other glycemic agents. The risk of cardiovascular events was comparable, regardless of treatment duration when compared to placebo or any other active comparator (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.40-1.57; I² = 0%; P = 0.50). [PROSPERO, CRD42022360785].

CONCLUSIONS

Teneligliptin is an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with T2DM, both as monotherapy and as add-on therapy. However, additional large-scale, high-quality, long-term follow-up clinical trials with diverse ethnic populations are required to confirm its long-term efficacy and safety.

Pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes: An update and future directions

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a widely prevalent disease with substantial economic and social impact for which multiple conventional and novel pharmacotherapies are currently available; however, the landscape of T2D treatment is constantly changing as new therapies emerge and the understanding of currently available agents deepens. This review aims to provide an updated summary of the pharmacotherapeutic approach to T2D. Each class of agents is presented by mechanism of action, details of administration, side effect profile, cost, and use in certain populations including heart failure, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease, and older individuals. We also review targets of novel therapeutic T2D agent development. Finally, we outline an up-to-date treatment approach that starts with identification of an individualized goal for glycemic control then selection, initiation, and further intensification of a personalized therapeutic plan for T2D.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head trials comparing sulfonylureas and low hypoglycaemic risk antidiabetic drugs

BACKGROUND

Safety of sulfonylurea drugs in the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes is still under debate. The aim of this study was to compare the all-cause mortality and cardiovascular adverse events of sulfonylureas and drugs with a low risk for hypoglycaemia in adults with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (PubMed, OVID), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, WOS and Lilacs.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled head-to-head trials that compared sulfonylureas with active control with low hypoglycaemic potential in adults (≥ 18 years old) with type 2 diabetes published up to August 2015. The drug classes involved in the analysis were metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists.

OUTCOMES

The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were MACE, cardiovascular events and severe hypoglycaemia.

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

Two reviewers checked study eligibility, independently extracted data and assessed quality with disagreements resolved through discussion. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials v2. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were estimated by using fixed effects model. The study is registered on PROSPERO (26/05/2016 CRD42016038780).

RESULTS

Our final analysis comprised 31 studies (26,204 patients, 11,711 patients given sulfonylureas and 14,493 given comparator drugs). In comparison to drugs with low hypoglycaemic potential, sulfonylureas had higher odds for all-cause mortality (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00-1.75), MACE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07-1.61), myocardial infarction (fatal and non-fatal) (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.17-2.38) and hypoglycaemia (OR 5.24, 95% CI 4.20-6.55). Subsequent sensitivity analysis revealed differences in the effect of sulfonylureas, with an increased risk of all-cause mortality with glipizide but not the other molecules.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis raises concern about the safety of SUs compared to alternative drugs involved in current analysis. Important differences may exist within the drug class, and glimepiride seems to have best safety profile.

Bioequivalence Studies of New Generic Formulations of Vildagliptin and Fixed-Drug Combination of Vildagliptin and Metformin Versus Respective Originator Products in Healthy Volunteers

INTRODUCTION

Vildagliptin and metformin are two well-established oral antidiabetics with a complementary mechanism of action. Two new generic products, vildagliptin and its fixed-drug combination (FDC) with metformin, were tested for bioequivalence versus the approved originator reference products (Galvus® and Eucreas®).

METHODS

Three randomized studies with two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence crossover design were conducted in healthy adults. One study evaluated vildagliptin 50 mg tablets as single dose under fasting conditions. Vildagliptin-metformin FDC tablet strengths of 50/850 mg and 50/1000 mg were evaluated in separate studies as single dose under fed conditions, given 30 min after a standardized high-fat, high-calorie breakfast following 10 h overnight fasting. Blood samples for analysis were collected until 24 h after dosing in each study period. Bioequivalence between test (T) and reference (R) products required 90% confidence interval (CIs) for the geometric least square (LS) mean T/R ratio to be within 80-125% for the pharmacokinetic parameters, maximum plasma concentration (C_max), and area under the curve (AUC_0-t).

RESULTS

The 90% CIs of geometric LS means of T/R ratio for C_max and AUC_0-t with vildagliptin tablets of 50 mg were 92.22-103.94% and 99.00-102.66%, respectively; corresponding results with FDC tablets for 50/850 mg tablets were 94.81-115.41% and 95.28-106.00% for vildagliptin and 90.87-101.18% and 90.56-100.09% for metformin; for 50/1000 mg tablets C_max and AUC_0-t were 105.56-122.30% and 98.30-107.55%, respectively, for vildagliptin and 92.14-103.73% and 94.60-101.81%, respectively, for metformin. Other parameters such as AUC_0-∞, time to maximum concentration (T_max), and terminal half-life (t_1/2) were comparable between test and reference products. Adverse events (AEs), mainly vomiting, were reported without relevant difference between test and reference products in each study. AEs were generally mild and transient. No severe or serious AEs occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The new generic drug products of vildagliptin and the FDCs of vildagliptin and metformin demonstrated bioequivalence to the approved originator products and are therefore expected to provide similar therapeutic effects.

In Vitro Alpha-Amylase Enzyme Assay of Hydroalcoholic Polyherbal Extract: Proof of Concept for the Development of Polyherbal Teabag Formulation for the Treatment of Diabetes

For the treatment and maintenance of postprandial blood glucose increases (i.e., diabetes mellitus), alpha (α)-amylase is a well-known therapeutic target. In this paper, we report an initial exploration of the work, i.e., in vitro alpha-amylase activity of the hydroalcoholic polyherbal extract of the selected plants. After drying, the plant material is ground individually, and at least 100 gm of the crude powder is prepared from each plant. 100 gm of each plant was combined, and a total of 500 gm of the crude powder (Ichnocarpus frutescens (100 gm) + Ficus dalhousie (100 gm) + Crateva magna (100 gm) + Alpinia galangal (100 gm) + Swertia chirata (100 gm)) was prepared to carry out the extraction. This obtained extract was subjected to preliminary phytochemical screening and in vitro alpha-amylase activity. At 16 mg/mL, acarbose displayed 78.40 ± 0.36% inhibition, whereas the extract exhibited 72.96 ± 0.70% inhibition, which is significantly comparable. The IC₅₀ value of acarbose was 12.9 ± 1.12, whereas the extract exhibited 13.31 ± 1.12 mg/mL. The extract possesses numerous classes of chemicals such as alkaloids, glycosides, tannins, polyphenols, and terpenoids, which can contribute to the antidiabetic activity through alpha-amylase inhibition. This was an initial exploration of the work as a proof of concept for the development of polyherbal tea bag formulation for the treatment of diabetes. In the future, we are aiming to investigate the effectiveness of polyherbal tea bags in the treatment of diabetes using more in vitro and in vivo models. From the present investigation, we have concluded that this extract can be used for the treatment of diabetes.

Effect of berberine on hyperglycaemia and gut microbiota composition in type 2 diabetic Goto-Kakizaki rats

BACKGROUND

A recent investigation showed that the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is 12.8% among individuals of Han ethnicity. Gut microbiota has been reported to play a central role in T2DM. Goto-Kakizaki (GK) rats show differences in gut microbiota compared to non-diabetic rats. Previous studies have indicated that berberine could be successfully used to manage T2DM. We sought to understand its hypoglycaemic effect and role in the regulation of the gut microbiota.

AIM

To determine whether berberine can regulate glucose metabolism in GK rats via the gut microbiota.

METHODS

GK rats were acclimatized for 1 wk. The GK rats were randomly divided into three groups and administered saline (Mo), metformin (Me), or berberine (Be). The observation time was 8 wk, and weight, fasting blood glucose (FBG), insulin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) were measured. Pancreatic tissue was observed for pathological changes. Additionally, we sequenced the 16S rRNA V3-V4 region of the gut microbiota and analysed the structure.

RESULTS

Compared with the Mo group, the Me and Be groups displayed significant differences in FBG (P < 0.01) and GLP-1 (P < 0.05). A significant decrease in weight and homeostatic model assessment-insulin resistance was noted in the Be group compared with those in the Me group (P < 0.01). The pancreatic islets of the Me- and Be-treated rats showed improvement in number, shape, and necrosis compared with those of Mo-treated rats. A total of 580 operational taxonomic units were obtained in the three groups. Compared to the Mo group, the Me and Be groups showed a shift in the structure of the gut microbiota. Correlation analysis indicated that FBG was strongly positively correlated with Clostridia_UCG-014 (P < 0.01) and negatively correlated with Allobaculum (P < 0.01). Body weight showed a positive correlation with Desulfovibrionaceae (P < 0.01) and a negative correlation with Akkermansia (P < 0.01). Importantly, our results demonstrated that Me and Be could significantly decrease Bacteroidetes (P < 0.01) and the Bacteroidetes/Firmicutes ratio (P < 0.01). Furthermore, Muribaculaceae (P < 0.01; P < 0.05) was significantly decreased in the Me and Be groups, and Allobaculum (P < 0.01) was significantly increased.

CONCLUSION

Berberine has a substantial effect in improving metabolic parameters and modulating the gut microbiota composition in T2DM rats.

Cardiovascular Outcomes Comparison of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors versus Sulfonylurea as Add-on Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Meta-Analysis

Objective

Recent studies have raised concern about the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors. We performed a systematic review through meta-analysis to compare cardiovascular outcomes of sulfonylurea (SU) versus DPP4 inhibitors when used in combination with metformin.

Methods

After searching for trials using combination therapy of metformin with DPP4 inhibitor or SU in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, one prospective observation study and 15 randomized controlled studies were selected.

Results

Regarding the primary analysis endpoint, there were no significant differences in the risk of all-cause mortality between SU and DPP4 inhibitors as an add-on therapy to metformin (random-effect relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98–1.33; p=0.811; I²=0%). Cardiovascular death was also similar between the two drug classes in the five studies which reported outcomes (random-effect RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.83–1.27; p=0.517; I²=0%). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac events (MACE), coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke and heart failure. However, there were less hypoglycemic events and weight gain in the DPP4 inhibitor group as compared with the SU group (random-effect RR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.53–9.39; p<0.001; I²=98.2 and weighted mean difference, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.07–2.29; p<0.001; I²=94.7, respectively).

Conclusion

As add-on therapy to metformin, there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality between DPP4 inhibitors and SUs.

Comparative clinical study evaluating the effect of adding Vildagliptin versus Glimepiride to ongoing Metformin therapy on diabetic patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remain the most identified cause of death in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of adding Vildagliptin versus Glimepiride to ongoing Metformin on the biomarkers of inflammation, thrombosis, and atherosclerosis in T2DM patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

This study included 80 patients with uncontrolled T2DM and symptomatic CAD who were randomized to add either Vildagliptin 50 mg/day "group I" or Glimepiride 4 mg/day "group II" to ongoing Metformin therapy (1000 mg/day). Blood samples were collected at baseline and 3 months after intervention for biochemical analysis of HbA1c %, IL-1β, adiponectin, hsCRP and lipid profile. Additionally atherogenic index (AI) and coronary risk index (CRI) were determined.

RESULTS

Three months after intervention and as compared to group II (Glimepiride/Metformin), group 1 (Vildagliptin/Metformin) showed significantly lower BMI (28.73 ± 3.48 versus 30.55 ± 3.15; p = 0.02), HbA1c (6.05 ± 0.72 versus 7.06 ± 0.89; p < 0.0001), hsCRP (0.96 ± 0.20 versus 1.72 ± 0.38; p < 0.0001), IL-1β (34.95 ± 10.01 versus 45.13 ± 10.26; p < 0.0001), TC (136 ± 23.45 versus 169 ± 35.72; p < 0.0001), TG (116 ± 29.10 versus 146 ± 56.58; p = 0.005), and CRI (2.47 ± 0.90 versus 3.65 ± 1.19; p < 0.0001) which was associated with significantly higher adiponectin and HDL-C (4.42 ± 1.29 versus 2.52 ± 1.86; p < 0.0001 and 61 ± 23.04 versus 48 ± 12.92; p = 0.003 respectively).

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM and symptomatic CAD, the addition of Vildagliptin to ongoing metformin showed better glycemic control, lower inflammatory markers (IL-1β and hsCRP), higher protective markers (adiponectin and HDL-C) and improved lipid profile compared to Glimepiride/metformin therapy.

Reduction in HbA1c with SGLT2 inhibitors vs. DPP-4 inhibitors as add-ons to metformin monotherapy according to baseline HbA1c: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

This study compared the reduction of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) with sodium-glucose cotransporter type-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) as add-ons to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with a specific focus on HbA1c changes according to baseline HbA1c.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were scrutinized for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the reduction of HbA1c from baseline (Δ HbA1c) with an SGLT2i or DPP-4i in patients with T2DM not well controlled by metformin monotherapy. The endpoint was Δ HbA1c using both indirect and direct comparisons.

RESULTS

Overall, Δ HbA1c was slightly greater with SGLT2is (-0.80±0.20% from 8.03±0.35%; 44 analyses, 29 RCTs, 15 with two doses, n=9321) than with DPP-4is (-0.71±0.23% from 8.05±0.43%; 61 analyses, 59 RCTs, n=17,914; P=0.0354). When the mean baseline HbA1c was<8% ([64mmol/mol] 7.79±0.15% vs. 7.71±0.23%), Δ HbA1c averaged -0.735±0.17% vs. -0.62±0.16% (P=0.0117) with SGLT2is vs. DPP-4is, respectively. However, this difference vanished when the mean baseline HbA1c was≥8% (-0.87±0.22% from 8.27±0.32% with SGLT2is vs. -0.80±0.24% from 8.35±0.33% with DPP-4is; P=0.2756). The relationship between Δ HbA1c and baseline HbA1c was only slightly stronger with SGLT2is (slope: -0.39, r²=-0.43; P<0.0001) than with DPP-4is (slope: -0.26, r²=-0.25; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Because of the small difference in Δ HbA1c whatever the baseline HbA1c level with SGLT2is vs. DPP-4is as add-ons to metformin, choosing between these glucose-lowering agents in clinical practice should be based on other efficacy criteria (such as weight and blood pressure changes, cardiovascular and renal protection) or on safety profiles rather than on HbA1c levels.

Vildagliptin Attenuates Huntington's Disease through Activation of GLP-1 Receptor/PI3K/Akt/BDNF Pathway in 3-Nitropropionic Acid Rat Model

Vildagliptin (Vilda), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, has been highlighted as a promising therapeutic agent for neurodegenerative diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. Vilda's effect is mostly linked to PI3K/Akt signaling in CNS. Moreover, PI3K/Akt activation reportedly enhanced survival and dampened progression of Huntington's disease (HD). However, Vilda's role in HD is yet to be elucidated. Thus, the aim of the study is to uncover the potentiality of Vilda in HD and unfold its link with PI3K/Akt pathway in 3-nitropropionic acid (3NP) rat model. Rats were randomly assigned into 4 groups; group 1 received saline, whereas, groups 2, 3 and 4 received 3NP (10 mg/kg/day; i.p.) for 14 days, concomitantly with Vilda (5 mg/kg/day; p.o.) in groups 3 and 4, and wortmannin (WM), a PI3K inhibitor, (15 μg/kg/day; i.v.) in group 4. Vilda improved cognitive and motor perturbations induced by 3NP, as confirmed by striatal histopathological specimens and immunohistochemical examination of GFAP. The molecular signaling of Vilda was estimated by elevation of GLP-1 level and protein expressions of survival proteins; p85/p55 (pY458/199)-PI3K, pS473-Akt. Together, it boosted striatal neurotrophic factors and receptor; pS133-CREB, BDNF, pY515-TrKB, which subsequently maintained mitochondrial integrity, as indicated by enhancing both SDH and COX activities, and the redox modulators; Sirt1, Nrf2. Such neuroprotection restored imbalance of neurotransmitters through increasing GABA and suppressing glutamate as well PDE10A. These effects were reversed by WM pre-administration. In conclusion, Vilda purveyed significant anti-Huntington effect which may be mediated, at least in part, via activation of GLP-1/PI3K/Akt pathway in 3NP rat model.

Descriptive Analysis of Long- and Intermediate-Acting Insulin and Key Safety Outcomes in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

As new biosimilar and follow-on insulins enter the market, more data are needed on safety, effectiveness, and patterns of use for these products to inform prescriber and patient decision-making regarding treatment. Additionally, data are needed regarding real-world patterns of use to inform future studies comparing the safety and effectiveness of bio-similars to already approved agents for diabetes treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the medication use patterns, adverse events, and availability of glycated hemoglobin (A1c) values for adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who use long-acting insulin (LAI) or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), an intermediate-acting insulin.

METHODS

We used the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium's (BBCIC) distributed research network (DRN) for this descriptive analysis. The analysis time frame was January 1, 2011, to September 30, 2015, and included patients continuously insured for at least 183 days before the first date of a filled prescription for LAI or NPH insulin alone or with rapid- or short-acting insulin or sulfonylureas, whether newly starting insulin or switching to a different product. Insulin exposure episodes were the unit of analysis, and patients were classified in cohorts according to treatment. We followed patients until end of health plan enrollment or the end of the study period. We used occurrence of a study outcome, switch to another medication regimen, discontinuation of the current medication, or study end date to mark the end of an insulin episode. We describe demographics and availability of A1c values for analysis. Study outcomes included severe hypoglycemic events and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

RESULTS

We identified 103,951 patients with T2DM from a database of 39.1 million patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage pharmacy and medical benefits, who contributed 279,533 unique insulin exposure episodes. Most episodes (89%) included patients using LAI, and 52% of patients contributed data to 2 or more exposure cohorts. Insulin episodes lasted an average of 3.5 months, and patients had an average follow-up of 8.6 months. The unadjusted rate of severe hypoglycemic events requiring medical attention was 96.9 per 10,000 patient-years at risk (10kPYR). The unadjusted incident MACE rate was 676.9 events per 10kPYR. 38,330 T2DM patients in the BBCIC DRN had a baseline A1c available, and of those, less than 50% had a follow-up A1c result.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with T2DM, our observed insulin patterns of use and rates of severe hypoglycemic outcomes and MACE are consistent with other studies. We noted a paucity of A1c results available, which implies that additional data sources may be needed to augment the BBCIC DRN.

DISCLOSURES

This study was coordinated and funded by the Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) and represents the independent findings of the BBCIC Insulins Principal Investigator and the BBCIC Insulins Research Team. Lockhart is employed by the BBCIC and the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP). Eichelberger was employed by the BBCIC and AMCP at the time of this study. McMahill-Walraven is employed by Aetna, a CVS Health business. Panozzo, Marshall, and Brown are employed by Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute. Aetna was reimbursed for data and analytic support from Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute and the Reagan Udall Foundation for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Aetna receives external funding through research grants and subcontracts with Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, which are funded by the FDA, NIH, PCORI, BBCIC, Pfizer, and GSK; the Reagan-Udall Foundation for IMEDS; and PCORI for the ADAPTABLE Study. This work was previously presented as a poster at AMCP Nexus 2018; October 22-25, 2018; in Orlando, FL.

Incretin-based medications (GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors) as a means to avoid hypoglycaemic episodes

Hypoglycaemia is common in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes and has both acute and long-term consequences. Therefore, a key to proper glucose-lowering therapy in diabetes is to avoid or prevent hypoglycaemia. Incretin therapy (DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists) offers an advantage in this respect, because it reduces glucose with a low risk of hypoglycaemia, both in monotherapy and in combination with other therapies. The reason for this low risk of hypoglycaemia is the glucose dependency of action of incretin therapy and the sustainment of glucose counter-regulatory hormone responses to hypoglycaemia, in particular the glucagon response. Incretin therapy is also associated with a low risk of hypoglycaemia in patient groups which are especially vulnerable and susceptible for hypoglycaemia, e.g., subjects with renal impairment, elderly subjects and subjects with on-going insulin therapy. This review summarizes how incretin therapy may meet the challenges of hypoglycaemia and suggests that incretin therapy is a therapy of choice to avoid hypoglycaemia, both in the general diabetes population and in subjects with increased risk or vulnerability for hypoglycaemia.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Vildagliptin and the Single Pill Combination of Vildagliptin and Metformin in "Real-World" Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The G-FORCE Study

INTRODUCTION

Randomized clinical trials showed that vildagliptin is well tolerated and leads to clinically meaningful decreases in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) both in monotherapy and as add-on therapy in inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. Nevertheless, there is an increased interest for real-life studies to confirm the clinical trial findings in the setting of a daily clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of vildagliptin in a real-life clinical setting and to explore factors determining drug adherence and T2DM management.

METHODS

G-FORCE was a prospective, observational, open-label, multi-center study in which T2DM patients were prescribed de novo vildagliptin. Clinical effectiveness was determined by changes in HbA1c and FPG and by the proportion of patients reaching glycemic goal. Data were collected at baseline, after 105 ± 15 days and after 180 ± 15 days.

RESULTS

A total of 1230 patients were included in this analysis. Mean age was 63.9 ± 10.8 years, and mean HbA1c and FPG levels were 8.2 ± 1.3% and 171.0 ± 53.3 mg/dL, respectively. At 180 days of treatment, HbA1c and FPG levels decreased to 7.2 ± 1.0% and 141.1 ± 44.0 mg/dL, respectively, while the proportion of patients reaching HbA1c and FPG goals rose from 8.6 to 44.6% and from 14.2 to 42.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this real-world study, vildagliptin was an effective and safe treatment for T2DM patients already treated with metformin, while the single pill combination of vildagliptin and metformin provides a convenient alternative while ensuring comparable effectiveness and tolerability.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma.

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.

A safety and tolerability profile comparison between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sulfonylureas in diabetic patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The first treatment approach for type 2 diabetes mellitus is lifestyle change and metformin, but it is usually not sufficient. For some time, the anti-hyperglycemic classes of sulfonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors were considered second-line of treatment, since they show similar efficacy effect. However, the recent ADA-EASD consensus gives the preference to DPP-4 inhibitors compared to sulfonylureas, except if cost is a major problem. We performed a meta-analysis for safety and tolerability profile to comprehend which treatment has less adverse events.

METHODS

PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched from inception until July 2017 to retrieve RCT studies comparing DPP-4 inhibitors and sulfonylureas treatments in adult type 2 diabetes patients. There was no language restriction. We extracted and combined data from studies comparison that reported safety profile and weight change. A random effect, meta-analytic model was applied to all calculations. Cochrane collaboration tool was used to assess quality and bias of the included studies. Trial registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017075823).

FINDINGS

Out of 1472 articles identified in our search and screened for eligibility, 36 studies comparing DPP-4 inhibitors and sulfonylureas were identified. DPP-4 inhibitors in combination with metformin had less overall adverse events (RR: 0·90; 95% CI, 0·86-0·94; p < 0·0001; I² = 83%; 17 studies), cardiovascular events (RR: 0·54; 95% CI, 0·37-0·79; p = 0·002; I² = 0%; 6 studies), hypoglycemia (RR: 0·17; 95% CI, 0·13-0·22; p < 0·00001; I² = 76%; 17 studies) and severe hypoglycemic events (RR: 0·10; 95% CI, 0·05-0·19; p < 0·00001; I² = 0%; 12 studies). The mean difference of the weight change was 1·92 kg in favor of DPP-4 inhibitors in combination with metformin in relation to sulfonylureas in combination with metformin. Monotherapy with DPP-4 inhibitors also had less rates of hypoglycemia (RR: 0·31; 95% CI, 0·24-0·41; p < 0·00001; I² = 0%; 8 studies) and severe hypoglycemic events (RR: 0·26; 95% CI, 0·10-0·66; p = 0·004; I² = 0%; 8 studies) and patients did not gain 1·19 kg.

INTERPRETATION

These results suggest better safety profile for DPP-4 inhibitors than sulfonylureas for both comparisons, and it is more notable when the treatment regimen includes metformin.

FUNDING

This study was funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Brazil.

Genistein enhances the secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) via downregulation of inflammatory responses

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) an incretin hormone, is known to regulate the glucose-mediated insulin secretion. However, reduction in the level of GLP-1 is considered to be a major cause for the reduction of GLP-1-dependent insulin secretory response. Genistein an isoflavone, is an important polyphenol and has wide range of therapeutic potentials, but its therapeutic effects alone and/or in combination with metformin on GLP-1 secretion have not been investigated yet. Hence, we aimed to investigate the stimulatory action of genistein in combination with metformin on GLP-1 via downregulation of inflammatory mediators, hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia in alloxan-induced diabetic rats. Diabetes was induced in experimental rats by single administration of alloxan intraperitoneally. Metformin (50 mg/kg/day), genistein (20 mg/kg/day) and combination of genistein and metformin was administered in alloxan-induced diabetic rats. We found that genistein alone and/or in combination with metformin significantly increased the serum level (P < 0.01) and tissue content (P < 0.05) of GLP-1 in intestine when compared with that of metformin-treated animals. Similarly, genistein alone and/or in combination with metformin also resulted in normoglycemia (P < 0.001), glucose tolerance (P < 0.01), insulin sensitivity (P < 0.0001), hyperlipidemia (P < 0.01), liver and kidney function biomarkers (P < 0.01) as compared to that of metformin-treated experimental animals. Moreover, genistein alone and/or in combination with metformin also downregulated the inflammatory responses by decreasing the levels of interleuin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α and C-reactive protein in serum (P < 0.05) and intestine (P < 0.001) more efficiently as compared to that of metformin-treated experimental animals. The downregulation of inflammatory responses in intestine, was positively associated with increased secretion of GLP-1 from intestine. Histopathology of pancreas and intestine also showed that genistein significantly improved the deleterious effects of alloxan on pancreas and intestine. Hence, our work provides new insights on the synergistic effects of genistein and metformin on GLP-1 secretion. This may significantly improve the perception for proposing new GLP-1-based synergistic approaches for the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

DPP-4 Inhibition and the Path to Clinical Proof

In the 1990s it was discovered that the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inactivates the incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). DPP-4 inhibition results in raised levels of the two incretin hormones which in turn result in lowering of circulating glucose through stimulation of insulin secretion and inhibition of glucagon secretion. Since then, several small orally available molecules have been developed with DPP-4 inhibitory action. Early studies in the 1990s showed that the DPP-4 inhibitors improve glycemia in animals. Subsequent clinical studies during the 2000s showed a glucose-lowering action of DPP-4 inhibitors also in human subjects with type 2 diabetes. This action was seen when DPP-4 inhibitors were used both as monotherapy and as add-on to other therapies, i.e., metformin, sulfonylureas, tiazolidinediones or exogenous insulin. The DPP-4 inhibitors were also found to have a low risk of adverse events, including hypoglycemia. Five of the DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, alogliptin, saxagliptin and linagliptin) were approved by regulatory authorities and entered the market between 2006 and 2013. DPP-4 inhibitors have thereafter undergone long-term cardiovascular outcome trials, showing non-inferiority for risk of major acute cardiovascular endpoints. Also the risk of other potential adverse events is low in these long-term studies. DPP-4 inhibitors are at present included in guidelines as a glucose-lowering concept both as monotherapy and in combination therapies. This article summarizes the development of the DPP-4 inhibition concept from its early stages in the 1990s. The article underscores that the development has its basis in scientific studies on pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes and the importance of targeting the islet dysfunction, that the development has been made possible through academic science in collaboration with the research-oriented pharmaceutical industry, and that the development of a novel concept takes time and requires focused efforts, persistence and long-term perserverance.

Blood glucose reduction by diabetic drugs with minimal hypoglycaemia risk for cardiovascular outcomes: Evidence from meta-regression analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To investigate the effects of blood glucose control with antihyperglycaemic agents with minimal hypoglycaemia risk on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the relative efficacy and safety of antidiabetic drugs with less hypoglycaemia risk were comprehensively researched in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to January 27, 2018. Mixed-effects meta-regression analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reduction and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, all-cause death, and hospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs comprising 92 400 participants with T2D were included and provided information on 9773 MACE during a median follow-up of 2.6 years. The mean HbA1c concentration was 0.42% lower (range, 0.27%-0.86%) for participants given antihyperglycaemic agents than those given placebo. The meta-regression analysis demonstrated that HbA1c reduction was significantly associated with a decreased risk of MACE (β value, -0.39 to -0.55; P < 0.02) even after adjusting for possible confounding factors including age, sex, baseline HbA1c, duration of follow-up, difference in achieved systolic blood pressure, difference in achieved body weight, and risk difference in hypoglycaemia. Lowering HbA1c by 1% conferred a significant risk reduction of 30% (95% confidence interval, 17%-40%) for MACE. By contrast, the meta-regression analysis for trials using conventional agents failed to demonstrate a significant relationship between achieved HbA1c difference and MACE risk (P > 0.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, newer T2D agents with less hypoglycaemic hazard significantly reduced the risk of MACE. The MACE reduction appears to be associated with HbA1c reduction in a linear relationship.

Modern approaches to management of cardiovascular risk factors at patients with diabetes mellitus type 2

Diabetes mellitus (DM) type 2 is the serious progressing chronic disease representing independent risk factor of development of cardiovascular complications. The mortality from cardiovascular diseases at the persons suffering from DM type 2 continues to grow around the world, despite constant augmentation of expenses on treatment and prophylaxis. In this article factors of cardiovascular risk at DM are analyzed and possible ways of their correction are surveyed.

The Vildagliptin Experience - 25 Years Since the Initiation of the Novartis Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Based Therapy Programme and 10 Years Since the First Vildagliptin Registration

The discovery of the incretin hormone glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1), and its usefulness in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) followed by the finding that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition prevents GLP-1 inactivation, led to the discovery of DPP-728. In 1999, studies with DPP-728 established the first proof-of-concept that DPP-4 inhibition improves glycaemic control in patients with T2DM. Further efforts to improve the binding kinetics of DPP-728 resulted in the discovery of vildagliptin (LAF237). In the last 20 years, a plethora of studies conducted by Novartis in collaboration with external investigators has demonstrated the mechanism of action of vildagliptin and its efficacy as monotherapy and as an add-on therapy for patients with T2DM. The studies establish that vildagliptin is a selective DPP-4 inhibitor that blocks GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) inactivation, thereby prolonging their action, resulting in improved glycaemic control. This review aims to discuss the discovery and development of vildagliptin, with an emphasis on mechanism of action and clinical efficacy.

Pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes: An update

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and a major economic burden. The prevalence of T2DM is rising, suggesting more effective prevention and treatment strategies are necessary. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the pharmacologic treatment options available for patients with T2DM. Each therapeutic class is presented in detail, outlining medication effects, side effects, glycemic control, effect on weight, indications and contraindications, and use in selected populations (heart failure, renal insufficiency, obesity and the elderly). We also present representative cost for each antidiabetic category. Then, we provide an individualized guide for initiation and intensification of treatment and discuss the considerations and rationale for an individualized glycemic goal.

Effectiveness of vildagliptin as add-on to metformin monotherapy among uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in a real-world setting

BACKGROUND

Vildagliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor commonly used as a dual oral agent with metformin, thiazolidinediones, or sulfonylurea for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The efficacy of dual therapy with vildagliptin and metformin has been established in randomized controlled trials, but there is little evidence from observational studies. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the effectiveness of vildagliptin as an add-on therapy to metformin in reducing HbA1c and its affects on body weight and blood lipids in a real-life setting.

METHODS

Included in the present retrospective cohort were T2DM patients (n = 345) who were uncontrolled on metformin monotherapy and intensified treatment with vildagliptin. The efficacy of at least 90 days of dual therapy with vildagliptin and metformin in reducing HbA1c levels, as well as changes in blood lipids and body weight, were evaluated.

RESULTS

After 180 days (range 90-365 days) from the index date with a mean daily dose of 92 mg vildagliptin, HbA1c was significantly (P < 0.001) reduced by an average of 0.9% (95% confidence interval -1.0%, -0.7%). The absolute reduction in HbA1c was positively associated with baseline HbA1c levels. In addition to HbA1c, a modest but significant (P < 0.05) decrement was also calculated in the patients' body weight and blood lipids.

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis of real-world data corroborates the results of previous randomized controlled trials indicating that add-on therapy with vildagliptin in uncontrolled patients on metformin monotherapy is associated with a significant improvement in the control of HbA1c.

Cost-consequence analysis of sitagliptin versus sulfonylureas as add-on therapy for the treatment of diabetic patients in Italy

Objective

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease related to a significant impact in both epidemiologic and economic terms. In Italy, around 3.6 million people are affected by diabetes and this number is expected to increase significantly in the next few years. As recommended by current national and international guidelines, metformin (Met) is prescribed as first-line pharmacological treatment, and many pharmacological alternatives are available for patients uncontrolled with Met monotherapy. Despite the availability of many innovative oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), such as dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4-i) and its first-in-class sitagliptin (SITA), which entered the Italian market in the last 10 years, their usage is consistently lower than traditional drugs such as sulfonylureas (SUs). In fact, due to higher acquisition costs, the prescription of innovative OADs in Italy is restricted to specialist, resulting in a prominent usage of traditional OAD that can be prescribed also by general practitioners (GPs). A cost consequence analysis (CCA) was performed in order to compare SITA with SU, as second-line therapy in add-on to Met, in terms of costs and related clinical events over 36 months.

Methods

A CCA was conducted on a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients uncontrolled with Met monotherapy, from both the Italian National Health Service (INHS) and societal perspective. Therefore, both direct (drugs, self-monitoring, hypoglycemia, major cardiovascular events [MACEs], and switch to insulin) and indirect costs (expressed in terms of productivity losses) were evaluated. Clinical and economic data were collected through Italian national tariffs, literature, and experts' opinions. Three expert clinicians finally validated data inputs. To assess robustness of base case results, a one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA) and a conservative scenario analysis - excluding MACEs - were carried out.

Results

In the base case analysis, the higher drug costs related to SITA were offset by other management costs (ie, lower use of devices for glycemia self-monitoring, lower incidence of hypoglycemia and MACE, and delay to insulin switch). As a result, the economic evaluation showed that, compared to SU, SITA was cost saving from both societal (-€61,217,723) and INHS (-€51,846,442) perspectives over 3 years as add-on to Met. The base case results were also confirmed by the scenario analysis and by the OWSA performed on the key parameters. The adoption of SITA, in a cohort of 100,000 diabetes patients, would avoid 26,882 non-severe hypoglycemic events, 6,528 severe hypoglycemic events, and 1,562 MACEs.

Conclusion

This analysis suggests that, compared to SU, SITA could be a sustainable and cost-saving alternative for the management of T2DM patients uncontrolled with Met monotherapy from both clinical and economic perspectives.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors in the management of type 2 diabetes in older adults: a systematic review and development of recommendations to reduce inappropriate prescribing

Background

Preventable drug-related hospital admissions can be associated with drugs used in diabetes and the benefits of strict diabetes control may not outweigh the risks, especially in older populations. The aim of this study was to look for evidence on risks and benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors in older adults and to use this evidence to develop recommendations for the electronic decision support tool of the PRIMA-eDS project.

Methods

Systematic review using a staged approach which searches for systematic reviews and meta-analyses first, then individual studies only if prior searches were inconclusive. The target population were older people (≥65 years old) with type 2 diabetes. We included studies reporting on the efficacy and/or safety of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of type 2 diabetes. Studies were included irrespective of DPP-4 inhibitors prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with any other drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The target intervention was DPP-4 inhibitors compared to placebo, no treatment, other drugs to treat type 2 diabetes or a non-pharmacological intervention.

Results

Thirty studies (reported in 33 publications) were included: 1 meta-analysis, 17 intervention studies and 12 observational studies. Sixteen studies were focused on older adults and 14 studies reported subgroup analyses in participants ≥65, ≥70, or ≥75 years. Comorbidities were reported by 26 studies and frailty or functional status by one study. There were conflicting findings regarding the effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors in older adults. In general, DPP-4 inhibitors showed similar or better safety than placebo and other antidiabetic drugs. However, these safety data are mainly based on short-term outcomes like hypoglycaemia in studies with HbA1c control levels recommended for younger people. One recommendation was developed advising clinicians to reconsider the use of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of type 2 diabetes in older adults with HbA1c <8.5% because of scarce data on clinically relevant benefits of their use. Twenty-two of the included studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies and authored or co-authored by employees of the sponsor.

Conclusions

Other than the surrogate endpoint of improved glycaemic control, data on clinically relevant benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in older adults is scarce. DPP-4 inhibitors might have a lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared to other antidiabetic drugs but data show conflicting findings for long-term benefits. Further studies are needed that evaluate the risks and benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in older adults, using clinically relevant outcomes and including representative samples of older adults with information on their frailty status and comorbidities. Studies are also needed that are independent of pharmaceutical company involvement.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0571-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost effectiveness of vildagliptin versus glimepiride as add-on treatment to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 patients in Greece

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in the Greek healthcare setting.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was designed, using MS Excel, to compare two treatment strategies. Strategy 1 consisted of first-line metformin, followed by metformin + vildagliptin in second-line, while strategy 2 consisted of first line metformin, followed by metformin + glimepiride in second line. Subsequent lines were the same in both strategies and consisted of metformin + basal insulin and metformin + basal + rapid insulin. Clinical data and utility decrements relating to diabetes complications were taken from the published literature. Only direct medical costs were included in the analysis (cost base year 2014), and consisted of drug, adverse events and comorbidity costs (taken from local officially published sources and the literature). The perspective adopted was that of the Social Insurance Fund. The time horizon was lifetime, and future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum.

RESULTS

Adding vildagliptin to metformin increased drug costs compared with adding glimepiride to metformin (€2853 vs. €2427, respectively). However, this increase was offset by a decrease in the costs of associated comorbidities (€4393 vs. €4539) and adverse events (€2757 vs. €3111), resulting in a lower total cost of €74 in strategy 1 compared with strategy 2. Comorbidities were the largest cost component in both strategies, accounting for 43.9 and 45.0% in strategies 1 and 2, respectively. Strategy 1 was also associated with increased life-years (LYs, 0.11) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs, 0.11) compared with strategy 2. Strategy 1 is therefore dominant, as it is associated with both lower overall costs and increased effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin as add-on treatment to metformin in the management of T2DM in Greece appears to be dominant versus. glimepiride in terms of both cost per LY and cost per QALY gained.

Relationship Between Duration of Type 2 Diabetes and Effectiveness of DPP-4 Inhibitor Versus Sulfonylurea as Add-on Therapy: A Post Hoc Analysis

INTRODUCTION

To assess the impact of duration of type 2 diabetes on glucose-lowering effectiveness of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor vildagliptin versus sulfonylureas (SUs) in a real-life setting.

METHODS

Data were extracted from the large 1-year, observational EDGE study (N = 45,868). Patients receiving either DPP-4 inhibitor or any SU as add-on to monotherapy were selected (N = 36,164). Impact of the disease duration on change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels was evaluated by using a linear multiple regression model. Descriptive statistics assessed the proportion of patients achieving the composite endpoint (HbA1c <7.0%; 53.0 mmol/mol without hypoglycemia or weight gain), stratified by diabetes duration.

RESULTS

At baseline, the overall mean (±SD) type 2 diabetes duration was 5.4 ± 5.24 years, and HbA1c was 8.2 ± 1.33% (66.0 ± 14.5 mmol/mol). HbA1c lowering was directly proportional to the baseline HbA1c (-0.69 per unit; 95% CI -0.696, -0.681; p < 0.0001) and inversely proportional to the disease duration (0.01 per year; 95% CI 0.01, 0.013). There was an increased loss of β-cell function (less pronounced HbA1c drop with increasing disease duration) in patients treated with SU-based regimens (0.025; 95% CI 0.022, 0.027) compared with vildagliptin-based regimens (0.005; 95% CI 0.003, 0.007), with the mean adjusted difference being 0.10 (95% CI -0.122, -0.092; p < 0.0001). Consistently, a higher proportion of patients achieved the composite endpoint with vildagliptin over the diabetes duration (less than 2 to more than 10 years).

CONCLUSION

Vildagliptin demonstrated less dependency on the duration of type 2 diabetes, whereas the effectiveness of SUs diminished faster with increasing duration of the disease in a real-life setting.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma AG.

The efficacy and safety of adding either vildagliptin or glimepiride to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of either vildagliptin or glimepiride on glycemic variability, oxidative stress, and endothelial parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin alone.

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, parallel study, 34 patients with T2DM being treated with metformin having an HbA1c of 7.0-10.0% were allocated into either the vildagliptin or glimepiride group. A mixed-meal tolerance test and 72-hour continuous glucose monitoring were conducted, and urinary 8-iso-prostaglandinF_2α (PGF_2α) and endothelial-dependent flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) were evaluated at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Similar significant improvements in HbA1c level were shown in both vildagliptin (-0.8%) and glimepiride (-0.9%) groups after treatment (Ps<0.001). The mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) and the mean of daily differences (MODD) were significantly decreased by vildagliptin (P = 0.044 and P = 0.031, respectively) but not by glimepiride. Glimepiride was significantly associated with a higher incidence of hypoglycemia than vildagliptin (P = 0.005). There were no significant differences in urinary 8-iso-PGF_2α or FMD between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin effectively improved glucose level with a significantly greater reduction in glycemic variability and hypoglycemia than glimepiride in patients with T2DM ongoing metformin therapy. The two drugs showed no significant differences in urinary 8-iso-PGF_2α and FMD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01404676.

Impact of health policy and practice on finding the best fit for patients with type 2 diabetes after metformin failure: Croatian pilot study

AIM

We assessed the impact of clinical practice and health policy on the choice and efficacy of different second-line therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) after failure of metformin.

METHODS

This retrospective database analysis included 200 patients with a follow-up period of 6 months. The primary end-point was achievement of HbA1c <7% and fasting (FBG) and postprandial glucose levels (PPG) <7.2mmol/L and <10mmol/L, respectively after three and six months of different add-on treatments. Secondary end-points were weight change during treatment and incidence of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

All second-line therapeutic options, except human basal insulin (BHI) and thiazolidendions (TZD) significantly increased the proportion of patients reaching target HbA1c after 6 months (p<0.01). Only sulfonylurea (SU) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors significantly reduced all monitored parameters of glucoregulation without changing body weight and BMI after 3 and 6 months as opposed to insulin agents. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups when adjusting for starting HbA1c, FBG and PPG (F=1.16, p=NS), although a statistically significant difference in HbA1c levels (F=3.35, p<0.01) persisted in DPP-4 inhibitor users. The incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly higher in patients treated with NPH insulin and premixed insulin than in patients treated with other agents.

CONCLUSION

A more aggressive approach is needed with early treatment intensification using available agents.

Cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Brazil; findings and implications

INTRODUCTION

Vildagliptin is an inhibitor of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase 4, indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, combined or not with metformin. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin in the Brazilian context. Areas covered: Using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Lilacs and CRD, six studies were selected for the economic models. This study utilised cost data in the Brazilian health system to provide the context. Expert commentary: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an epidemic disease and represents a challenge for all health care systems. Although guidelines clearly define first-line treatment, there are several other promising treatments. Vildagliptin is one of them, resulting in a mean lifetime increase of 0.31 years compared to metformin alone and 1.19 more life years compared to other metformin combinations. Considering observational data, life years with dual vildagliptin-containing treatments were 0.37 more compared to other dual treatments. However, its high cost versus generic metformin and its unclear safety profile weakens its subsequent cost-effectiveness. Consequently, the incorporation of vildagliptin or its combination with metformin is currently not recommended for the Brazilian Health Care System. This may change as more data becomes available.

A systematic literature review on the efficacy-effectiveness gap: comparison of randomized controlled trials and observational studies of glucose-lowering drugs

Aim

To identify a potential efficacy–effectiveness gap and possible explanations (drivers of effectiveness) for differences between results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating glucose-lowering drugs.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted in English language articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 31 January, 2015 describing either RCTs or observational studies comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs (GLP-1) with insulin or comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) with sulfonylurea, all with change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as outcome. Medline, Embase, Current Content, and Biosis were searched. Information on effect estimates, baseline characteristics of the study population, publication year, study duration, and number of patients, and for observational studies, characteristics related to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias were extracted.

Results

From 312 hits, 11 RCTs and 7 observational studies comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from 474 hits, 16 RCTs and 4 observational studies comparing DPP-4i with sulfonylurea were finally included. No differences were observed in baseline characteristics of the study populations (age, sex, body mass index, time since diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and HbA1c) or effect sizes across study designs. Mean effect sizes ranged from −0.43 to 0.91 and from −0.80 to 1.13 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from −0.13 to 2.70 and −0.20 to 0.30 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing DPP-4i and sulfonylurea. Generally, the identified observational studies held potential flaws with regard to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias.

Conclusions

Neither potential drivers of effectiveness nor an efficacy–effectiveness gap were identified. However, the limited number of studies and potential problems with confounding adjustment, selection- and information bias in the observational studies, may have hidden a true efficacy-effectiveness gap.

Patient engagement impacts glycemic management with vildagliptin and vildagliptin/metformin (single pill) regimens in type 2 diabetes mellitus (the GLORIOUS study)

AIMS

To evaluate the real-world effectiveness of vildagliptin and vildagliptin/metformin, combined with patient engagement, on glycemic outcomes. Patient engagement included both clinicians' engaging patients through education and counseling; and patients' self-engagement through disease awareness, lifestyle changes, and medication adherence.

METHODS

Prospective, observational, open-label, multi-center, pharmacoepidemiologic study of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients treated de novo with vildagliptin or vildagliptin/metformin. Data were collected at baseline (treatment initiation), 105±15d, and ≥145d.

RESULTS

The evaluable sample included 896 mainly male (58%), overweight (mean±SD BMI=30.3±5.4kg/m²), in later middle age (mean±SD age=64±11years) patients. Over the three visits, mean(±SD) HbA1c levels declined from 8.1%(±1.0) to 7.3%(±1.0) to 7.2%(±0.9); HbA1c control rates rose from 7% to 36% to 43%. Mean±SD FPG levels decreased from 170(±49) to 141(±41) to 139(±42)mg/dL; control rates increased from 12% to 39% to 43% (all p<0.0001). Weight decreased nominally by 2kg (p=0.0290) and BMI by 0.8kg/m² (p<0.0001). Modeling showed patient engagement activities by clinicians and by patients to be major determinants of glycemic outcomes. No unknown safety signals were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin and vildagliptin/metformin are effective and safe oral agents in the management of T2DM, especially if part of a treatment program with active patient engagement by clinicians and empowered patients.

Cardiovascular effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor in diabetic patients with and without established cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We aim to conduct a meta-analysis, by stratifying diabetic patients with or without clinical cardiovascular diseases (CVD), to explore whether there are different cardiovascular effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) on these two different classes of diabetic patients.

METHODS

We searchedMedline,Embase, theCochrane Libraryand ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The included trials are divided into CVD (+) trials (subjects with established CVD), and CVD (-) trials (subjects with no CVD). We use all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as primary endpoints.

RESULTS

(1) Three CVD (+) trials were included and 36,895 subjects were enrolled with a mean follow-up duration of 127.1 weeks. The pooled results showed that DPP-4is treatment, compared with the placebo, did not significantly affect all-cause mortality (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.11), cardiovascular death (1.01, 0.91 to 1.12), myocardial infarction (0.98, 0.88 to 1.08) or stroke (1.02, 0.88 to 1.18) in diabetic patients with coexisting CVD history; however, it significantly increased the risk of heart failure (1.14, 1.01 to 1.27) in this population. 2) Thirty-five CVD (-) trials were included, and 29,600 patients were enrolled with a mean follow-up duration of 77.8 weeks. The analysis comparing DPP-4is with the placebo control showed that DPP-4is treatment did not significantly affect the risk of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients free of CVD history. However, when compared with the active control, the pooling data showed that DPP-4is had a significant reduction on the risk of stroke (0.58, 0.34 to 0.99) but did not significantly affect the risk of all-cause mortality and other cardiovascular outcomes.

CONCLUSION

DPP-4is may have no cardiovascular protective effects in diabetic patients with coexisting CVD, while there is a lack of definitive evidence supporting the cardiovascular benefits of DPP-4is treatment among diabetic patients free of CVD history.

Adverse effects of incretin-based therapies on major cardiovascular and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Recent cardiovascular outcome trials of incretin-based therapies (IBT) in type 2 diabetes have not demonstrated either benefit or harm in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Earlier meta-analyses showed conflicting results but were limited in methodology. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of all available incretin therapies on the incidence of MACE plus arrhythmia and heart failure.

METHODS

We identified studies published through November 2014 by searching electronic databases and reference lists. We included RCTs in which the intervention group received incretin-based therapies and the control group received placebo or standard treatment; enrolled >100 participants in each group; interventions lasted >24 weeks; and reported data on one or more primary major adverse cardiovascular events endpoints plus terms for arrhythmia and heart failure. We used the Peto method for each CV event for individual IBT treatment.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis of 100 RCTs involving 54,758 incretin-based therapies users and 48,175 controls, exenatide was associated with increased risk of arrhythmia (OR 2.83; 95% CI, 1.06-7.57); saxagliptin was associated with an increased risk of heart failure (OR 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.46), and sitagliptin was associated with a significantly decreased risk of all cause death compared to active controls (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

In type 2 diabetes, exenatide may increase the risk of arrhythmia, and sitagliptin may reduce the risk of all cause death; however, the subgroup of patients most likely to experience harm or benefit is unclear. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cost-effectiveness of a risk-based secondary screening programme of type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to develop a long-term economic model for type 2 diabetes to describe the entire spectrum of the disease over a wide range of healthcare programmes. The model evaluates a public health, risk-based screening programme in a country specific setting.

METHODS

The lifespan of persons and important phases of the disease and related interventions are recorded in a Markov model, which first simulates the effect of screening, then replicates important complications of diabetes, follows the progression of individuals through physiological variables and finally calculates outcomes in monetary and naturalistic units.

RESULTS

The introduction of the screening programme nearly doubled the proportion of diagnosed patients at the age of 50 and prolonged life expectancy. Three-yearly screening gained 0.0229 quality adjusted life years for an additional €83 per person compared with no screening and resulted an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €3630/quality adjusted life years.

CONCLUSION

From the economic perspective introduction of the 3-yearly screening programme is justifiable and it provides a good value for money. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Addition of sulphonylurea to metformin does not relevantly change body weight: a prospective observational cohort study (ZODIAC-39)

AIM

To investigate changes in body weight trajectories after the addition of individual sulphonylureas (SUs) to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study, in a primary care setting in the Netherlands. Patients aged ≥18 years with type 2 diabetes who were included in the ZODIAC cohort between 1998 and 2012 and who received metformin monotherapy at inclusion (n = 29 195), and had used metformin as monotherapy for at least 1 year before receiving dual therapy through the addition of an SU for at least 1 year were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was within-drug yearly change in body weight after receiving add-on therapy with individual SUs during 5 years of follow-up. The secondary outcome was within-drug yearly change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Annual changes in weight and HbA1c were estimated with linear mixed models, adjusted for age, gender and diabetes duration.

RESULTS

A total of 2958 patients were included. No significant weight changes were observed within and between any of the individual SUs after treatment intensification (p = 0.24). In addition, no significant difference in weight between the add-on therapy combinations was observed (p = 0.26). The average HbA1c the year before intensification was 7.2% (55 mmol/mol) and dropped below 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) the year after.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes treated in primary care, strict glycaemic control can be maintained with SUs used as add-on therapy to metformin, without the offset of relevant weight changes.

Cerebrovascular Safety of Sulfonylureas: The Role of KATP Channels in Neuroprotection and the Risk of Stroke in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

Sulfonylureas are ATP-sensitive potassium (KATP) channel blockers commonly used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Activation of KATP channels plays a neuroprotective role in ischemia; thus, whether sulfonylureas affect the outcomes of stroke in patients with T2DM needs to be further studied. In our study, streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic mice subjected to transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) showed larger areas of brain damage and poorer behavioral outcomes. Blocking the KATP channel by tolbutamide increased neuronal injury induced by oxygen-glucose deprivation (OGD) in vitro and permanent MCAO (pMCAO) in vivo. Activating the KATP channel by diazoxide reduced the effects of both the OGD and pMCAO. Western blot analysis in STZ mouse brains indicated an early increase in protein levels of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor 2B and postsynaptic density protein-95, followed by a decrease in phosphorylation of glycogen synthase kinase 3β. Our systematic meta-analysis indicated that patients with T2DM treated with sulfonylureas had a higher odds ratio for stroke morbidity than those who received comparator drugs. Taken together, these results suggest that sulfonylurea treatment in patients with T2DM may inhibit the neuroprotective effects of KATP channels and increase the risk of stroke.

Hypoglycaemia when adding sulphonylurea to metformin: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIMS

The risk of hypoglycaemia may differ among sulphonylureas (SUs), but evidence from head-to-head comparisons is sparse. Performing a network meta-analysis to use indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we compared the relative risk of hypoglycaemia with newer generation SUs when added to metformin.

METHODS

A systematic review identified RCTs lasting 12-52 weeks and evaluating SUs added to inadequate metformin monotherapy (≥1000 mg/day) in type 2 diabetes. Adding RCTs investigating the active comparators from the identified SU trials, we established a coherent network. Hypoglycaemia of any severity was the primary end point.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials of SUs and 14 of oral non-SU antihyperglycaemic agents (16 260 patients) were included. All reported hypoglycaemia only as adverse events. Producing comparable reductions in HbA_1C of -0.66 to -0.84% (-7 to -9 mmol/mol), the risk of hypoglycaemia was lowest with gliclazide compared to glipizide (OR 0.22, CrI: 0.05 to 0.96), glimepiride (OR 0.40, CrI: 0.13 to 1.27), and glibenclamide (OR 0.21, CrI: 0.03 to 1.48). A major limitation is varying definitions of hypoglycaemia across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

When added to metformin, gliclazide was associated with the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia between the newer generation SUs. Clinicians should consider the risk of hypoglycaemia agent-specific when selecting an SU agent.

Positioning SGLT2 Inhibitors/Incretin-Based Therapies in the Treatment Algorithm

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are the most recent addition to the therapeutic options available for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and became available after the introduction of incretin-based therapies, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs). These agents have potential advantages with regard to their weight loss-promoting effect, low risk of hypoglycemia, reduction in blood pressure, and reduction in cardiovascular events in high-risk patients (with empagliflozin). Apart from these clinically important outcomes, they may also correct core defects present in type 2 diabetes (i.e., improvement in β-cell function and insulin sensitivity). They do, however, have some adverse effects, notably, nausea with GLP-1 RAs and genital tract infections and potential for volume depletion with SGLT2i. Whether incretin-based therapies are associated with an increased risk of pancreatitis is unclear. Most recently, diabetic ketoacidosis has been reported with SGLT2i. Therefore, a key clinical question in relation to guidelines is whether these clinical advantages, in the context of the adverse effect profile, outweigh the additional cost compared with older, more established therapies. This article reviews the therapeutic rationale for the use of these newer drugs for diabetes treatment, considers their place in current guidelines, and discusses how this may change as new data emerge about their long-term efficacy and safety from ongoing outcome trials.

Differences in glycemic control across world regions: a post-hoc analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on dual antidiabetes drug therapy

Objective:

This post-hoc analysis of the EDGE (Effectiveness of Diabetes control with vildaGliptin and vildagliptin/mEtformin) study assessed inter-regional differences in baseline characteristics and response to treatment intensification with dual oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods:

Patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with first-line monotherapy were assigned to receive a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, vildagliptin, or comparator OADs as add-on dual therapy. The primary effectiveness end point (PEP) was achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction >0.3% without hypoglycemia, peripheral edema, discontinuation owing to gastrointestinal events or weight gain ⩾5% at 12 months. The secondary effectiveness end point (SEP) was achieving HbA1c of <7% without hypoglycemia or weight gain ⩾3% at 12 months.

Results:

Baseline characteristics of patients (N=43 791), including mean HbA1c (8.2%), varied across regions. Baseline age (62.3 years) and T2DM duration (6.3 years) were greater in patients from Europe than those from India and the Middle East (age: 51.8 and 52.1 years; T2DM duration: 4.3 and 4.2 years, respectively). The probability of achieving PEP with dual therapy was higher in India (odds ratio (OR): 1.5), Latin America (OR: 1.2) and Middle East (OR: 2.0) than in Europe (OR: 0.8) and East Asia (OR: 0.3). Achievement of SEP in patients receiving dual therapy was greater in Latin America (OR: 1.7) and Middle East (OR: 1.7). Vildagliptin add-on therapy allowed more patients to achieve SEP across regions. Women aged ⩾45 years less often attained glycemic target (HbA1c<7%) without significant weight gain ⩾5% compared with women aged <45 years (OR: 0.876, 95% confidence interval: 0.774, 0.992; P=0.037).

Conclusions:

Baseline HbA1c and T2DM duration differed considerably across all regions. Treatment intensification with second OAD, particularly with a DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin, resulted in good treatment response without tolerability issues despite delayed intensification of failing monotherapy across regions.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of vildagliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an update on the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We searched MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE and the drug manufacturer's website for randomised controlled trials of vildagliptin in patients with T2DM. Sixty-nine studies (28,006 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo vildagliptin reduced HbA1c (weighted mean difference WMD -0.69 %; 95 % CI -0.83 to -0.56 %; I (2) = 82 %), and it was as effective as other antidiabetic agents (WMD -0.01 %; 95 % CI -0.16 to 0.14 %; I (2) = 93 %), without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia (OR 0.83; 95 % CI 0.59 to 1.16; I (2) = 0 % vs. placebo, and OR 0.19; 95 % CI 0.15 to 0.24; I (2) = 78 % versus active comparators). However, it was associated with an increase in the incidence of arthralgia compared with other comparators (OR 1.23; 95 % CI 1.02 to 1.48; I (2) = 0 %). On the contrary, vildagliptin did not increase the incidence of pancreatitis (OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.37 to 2.53; I (2) = 0 %), serious adverse events (OR 0.98; 95 % CI 0.88 to 1.09; I (2) = 0 %) or death (OR 1.10, 95 % CI 0.75 to 1.61; I (2) = 0 %). Finally, odds ratio (OR) for heart failure, and overall cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 0.77 (95 % CI 0.46 to 1.30; I (2) = 0 %) and 0.91 (95 % CI 0.73 to 1.14; I (2) = 0 %), respectively. Vildagliptin is an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with T2DM, both as monotherapy and as add-on treatment.

DPP-4 inhibitors and risk of infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the risk of infections in the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients with dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through electronic databases. The inclusion criteria included study duration of no less than 12 weeks developed in type 2 diabetes patients, the use of a randomized control group receiving a DPP-4 inhibitor and the availability of outcome data for infections. Out of 2181 studies, 74 studies were finally included.

RESULTS

The risk of overall infection for DPP-4 inhibitors treatment was comparable to placebo (odds ratio (OR) = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91 to 1.04, p = 0.40), metformin treatment (OR = 1.22, 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.56, p = 0.12), sulphonylurea treatment (OR = 1.09, 0.93 to 1.29, p = 0.29), thiazolidinedione treatment (OR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.14, p = 0.29) and alpha glucosidase inhibitor treatment (OR = 1.03, 95% CI, 0.33 to 3.22, p = 0.96). When compared different DPP-4 inhibitors with placebo treatment, risks of infections were comparable for alogliptin, linagliptin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin and vildagliptin. Compared with placebo or active comparator treatment, risks of infection in different systems for DPP-4 inhibitors were all comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk of infections of DPP-4 inhibitor was not increased compared with control groups.

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.