Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin when added to insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes

Impact of concomitant oral glucose-lowering medications on the success of basal insulin titration in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic analysis

Basal insulin treatment for type 2 diabetes is usually initiated on a background of oral glucose-lowering medications (OGLM). We wanted to examine the influence of various OGLMs on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) values achieved after titration. A PubMed literature search retrieved 42 publications (clinical trials introducing basal insulin in 17 433 insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes on a defined background of OGLM) and reporting FPG, HbA_1c, target achievement, hypoglycemic events, and insulin doses. 60 individual study arms were grouped by OGLM (combinations) allowed during the titration process: (a) metformin only; (b) sulfonylureas only; (c) metformin and sulfonylureas; or (d) metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. For all OGLM categories, weighted means and SD were calculated for baseline and end-of-treatment FPG, HbA_1c, target achievement, incidence of hypoglycemic events, and insulin doses. Primary end point was a difference in FPG after titration between OGLM categories. Statistics: analysis of variance and post hoc comparisons. Sulfonylureas, alone or in combination with metformin, impair the titration of basal insulin (insulin doses 30%-40% lower, more hypoglycemic episodes), thus leading to poorer final glycemic control (p<0.05 for FPG and HbA_1c after titration). Conversely, adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to metformin is superior to metformin alone (p<0.05 for FPG and HbA_1c achieved) in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating basal insulin therapy. In conclusion, OGLM are a major determinant of the success of basal insulin therapy. Sulfonylureas impair, while DPP-4 inhibitors (added to metformin) may facilitate the achievement of ambitious fasting glucose targets. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019134821.

Structural characterization, α-glucosidase inhibitory activity and antioxidant activity of neutral polysaccharide from apricot (Armeniaca Sibirica L. Lam) kernels

Screening for α-glucosidase inhibitors and antioxidants from natural sources that could reduce postprandial glucose in diabetic patients and reduce oxidative stress had attracted considerable interest. In this study, a neutral polysaccharide (AP-1) with a triple helix structure was isolated and purified from the residue of apricot (Armeniaca sibirica L. Lam.) kernels by using DEAE-52 and Sephadex G-100 columns. The molecular weight of AP-1 was 23.408 kDa and consisted mainly of glucose with trace amounts of arabinose, galactose, and mannose, which had molar percentages of 98.48, 0.63, 0.62 and 0.27 %, respectively. The main chain of AP-1 was composed of →4)-α-D-Glcp-(1 → interlinked, and α-D-Glcp-(1 → was attached as a branched chain at the O-6 position of →4,6)-α-D-Glcp-(1→. In addition, AP-1 exhibited stronger α-glucosidase inhibition and free radical scavenging ability compared to crude polysaccharides. Therefore, AP-1 could be used as a potential natural hypoglycemic agent and antioxidant in the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin treatment in older adults with moderately controlled type 2 diabetes: the STREAM study

Sitagliptin has been suggested as a treatment option for older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, no randomized controlled trial has been performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin treatment in older Japanese patients with T2D. The STREAM study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. T2D outpatients aged 65-80 years with moderately controlled glycemic levels (HbA1c 7.4-10.4%) under lifestyle interventions without or with oral anti-diabetic drugs excluding DPP4 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists were recruited (n = 176). The participants were randomized into sitagliptin group (n = 88) who received sitagliptin as an initial or an additive anti-diabetic drug and control group (n = 88) who did not. The treatment goal was HbA1c level < 7.4%. Efficacy and safety during 12-month treatment period were investigated. The mean (± SD) ages were 70.6 ± 3.9 and 71.9 ± 4.4 years old in sitagliptin and control groups, respectively. According to a mixed-effects model analysis, average changes from baseline over the treatment period in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HbA1c, and glycated albumin (GA) were - 27.2 mg/dL, - 0.61%, and - 2.39%, respectively, in sitagliptin group, and 0.50 mg/dL, - 0.29%, and - 0.93%, respectively, in control group. The reductions in FPG, HbA1c, and GA were significantly greater in sitagliptin group (P < 0.0001, P < 0.01, and P < 0.0001, respectively). There were no differences in the incidence of adverse effects, except for cystatin C elevation and platelet count reduction in sitagliptin group. Sitagliptin treatment effectively improved the glycemic profile without any serious adverse effects in older T2D patients.Trial registration number: UMIN000010376.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: Developing a Diabetes Mellitus Comprehensive Care Plan-2022 Update

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

METHODS

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

RESULTS

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021271647.

Magnitude of Glycemic Improvement in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Treated with Basal Insulin: Subgroup Analyses from the MOBILE Study

Objective: To determine if type 2 diabetes patients using basal insulin without prandial insulin with worse glycemic control at baseline would have the greatest benefit from using real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). Methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis of the MOBILE Study, a multicenter trial examining the impact of CGM versus self-monitoring with a blood glucose meter (BGM) in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin without prandial insulin. Participants were divided into subgroups based on baseline hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and baseline time-in-range 70-180 mg/dL (TIR). Change in TIR from baseline was calculated within each subgroup. Results: In subgroups based on baseline HbA1c, compared with the BGM group, the CGM group had 14% greater increase in TIR for participants with baseline HbA1c ≥8.5%, 14% greater increase for baseline HbA1c ≥9.0%, 22% greater increase for baseline HbA1c ≥9.5%, and 32% greater increase for baseline HbA1c ≥10.0% (P-value for interaction = 0.27). The time spent with glucose >250 mg/dL was significantly lower with CGM compared with BGM among participants with higher HbA1c values (P for interaction = 0.004). Results in subgroups based on baseline TIR paralleled the results in subgroups based on baseline HbA1c. Conclusion: While the benefit of CGM on TIR among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin is apparent across the range of baseline glycemic control, the greatest impact of CGM is in those with the worst baseline glycemic control, particularly among those with HbA1c ≥10%. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT03566693.

Efficacy and safety of the addition of sitagliptin to treatment of youth with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control on metformin without or with insulin

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin in youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with metformin ± insulin.

STUDY DESIGN

Data were pooled from two 54-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of sitagliptin 100 mg daily or placebo added onto treatment of 10- to 17-year-old youth with T2D and inadequate glycemic control on metformin ± insulin. Participants (N = 220 randomized and treated) had HbA1c 6.5%-10% (7.0%-10% if on insulin), were overweight/obese at screening or diagnosis and negative for pancreatic autoantibodies. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20.

RESULTS

Treatment groups were well balanced at baseline (mean HbA1c = 8.0%, BMI = 30.9 kg/m² , age = 14.4 years [44.5% <15], 65.9% female). The dose of background metformin was >1500 mg/day for 71.8% of participants; 15.0% of participants were on insulin therapy. At Week 20, LS mean changes from baseline (95% CI) in HbA1c for sitagliptin/metformin and placebo/metformin were -0.58% (-0.94, -0.22) and -0.09% (-0.43, 0.26), respectively; difference = -0.49% (-0.90, -0.09), p = 0.018; at Week 54 the LS mean (95% CI) changes were 0.35% (-0.48, 1.19) and 0.73% (-0.08, 1.54), respectively. No meaningful differences between the adverse event profiles of the treatment groups emerged through Week 54.

CONCLUSIONS

These results do not suggest that addition of sitagliptin to metformin provides durable improvement in glycemic control in youth with T2D. In this study, sitagliptin was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to that reported in adults. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01472367, NCT01760447; EudraCT: 2011-002529-23/2014-003583-20, 2012-004035-23).

A randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin as initial oral therapy in youth with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of DPP-4 inhibition with sitagliptin in youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

STUDY DESIGN

This was a 54-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of DPP-4 inhibition with sitagliptin 100 mg once daily as initial oral therapy in youth with T2D. The 190 participants, aged 10-17 years, had HbA1c 6.5%-10% (7.0%-10% if on insulin). All were negative for pancreatic autoantibodies and overweight/obese at screening or diagnosis. The trial was placebo controlled for the first 20 weeks, after which metformin replaced placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 20.

RESULTS

Treatment groups were well balanced at baseline (mean ± SD HbA1c = 7.5% ± 1.0, BMI percentile = 97.1% ± 6.8, age = 14.0 years ± 2.0 [57.4% <15], 60.5% female). At Week 20, least squares mean changes from baseline in HbA1c were -0.01% (sitagliptin) and 0.18% (placebo); between-group difference (95% CI) = -0.19% (-0.68, 0.30), p = 0.448. At Week 54, the changes in HbA1c were 0.45% (sitagliptin) and -0.11 (placebo/metformin). There were no notable between-group differences in the adverse event profiles through Week 54.

CONCLUSIONS

DPP-4 inhibition with sitagliptin did not provide significant improvement in glycemic control. In this study, sitagliptin was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to that reported in adults. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01485614; EudraCT: 2011-002528-42).

Impact of the Fasting Plasma Glucose Titration Target on the Success of Basal Insulin Titration in Insulin-Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIM

We aimed to examine beneficial and adverse outcomes of basal insulin titration performed with different fasting plasma glucose (FPG) titration targets (TT).

METHODS

A PubMed literature search retrieved 43 reported prospective clinical trials introducing basal insulin in 17643 insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes reporting fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HbA_1c, target achievement, hypoglycemic events, and insulin doses. 61 individual study arms were grouped by fasting plasma glucose titration target (TT; 1: ≤5.0 mmol/l/90 mg/dl; 2: 5.01-5.6 mmol/l/90-100 mg/dl; and 3: ≥5.61 mmol/l/101 mg/dl). Weighted means and their standard deviations were calculated for baseline and end-of-treatment FPG (primary endpoint), HbA_1c, target achievement, hypoglycemic events, insulin doses, and body weight gain and compared over a duration of 31 ± 10 weeks.

RESULTS

Achieved FPG and HbA_1c at the end of the study were significantly lower (by up to 0.8 mmol/l or 0.23%, respectively) with more ambitious TTs (p < 0.0001), leading to better HbA_1c target achievement with more ambitious TTs (by up to 14.6% for HbA_1c ≤ 6.5%), without increasing the risk for hypoglycemic episodes.

CONCLUSIONS

Aiming for a lower FPG TT improves glycemic control without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia.

A randomized, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding omarigliptin to insulin therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding the once-weekly oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor omarigliptin to treatment of Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on insulin monotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a 52-week clinical trial, Japanese patients on insulin monotherapy were randomized to once-weekly omarigliptin 25 mg (N = 123) or placebo (N = 61) for a 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period. After Week 16, patients continued or switched to omarigliptin for a 36-week open-label period.

RESULTS

From a mean baseline of approximately 8.8%, the Week 16 least squares mean changes in HbA1c were -0.61% (omarigliptin) and 0.29% (placebo); the between-group difference was -0.90% (p < .001). At Week 52, the mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.57% in both the group on omarigliptin for 52 weeks and the group on omarigliptin for 36 weeks (switched from placebo at Week 16). During the first 16 weeks of treatment, the incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, drug-related AEs and discontinuation from trial medication because of an AE were similar in both groups. A slight increase in incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was observed in the omarigliptin group (n = 13 [10.6%]) compared with placebo (n = 4 [6.6%]). No severe hypoglycaemia was reported during the study. No new safety signals emerged with treatment beyond Week 16 through Week 52.

CONCLUSION

The addition of once-weekly omarigliptin to insulin therapy for up to 52 weeks was generally well tolerated and provided clinically meaningful improvement in glycaemic control throughout the trial period. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02906709.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Benefit of Early Add-on of Linagliptin to Insulin in Japanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Randomized-Controlled Open-Label Trial (TRUST2)

INTRODUCTION

This trial was conducted to assess the long-term safety, efficacy, and benefit of early add-on of linagliptin to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This trial enrolled 246 subjects. The subjects were randomized to the linagliptin group or the control group and were observed for 156 weeks. After week 16, subjects in the control group were also allowed to add linagliptin to evaluate the benefit of early add-on of linagliptin to insulin. The primary end point was a change in HbA1c from baseline to week 16. Secondary end points included fasting plasma glucose, daily insulin dose, and frequency of adverse events.

RESULTS

HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels significantly decreased from baseline to week 16 in the linagliptin group compared with the control group. The significant improvement in HbA1c continued until week 52. The daily insulin dose significantly decreased in the linagliptin group compared with the control group. The frequency of hypoglycemia and adverse events was comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Add-on of linagliptin to insulin was tolerated, improved glycemic control, and reduced the daily insulin dose. This study demonstrates the long-term safety, efficacy and benefit of early add-on of linagliptin to insulin in Japanese T2DM patients.

Age, sex, disease severity, and disease duration difference in placebo response: implications from a meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The placebo response in patients with diabetes mellitus is very common. A systematic evaluation needs to be updated with the current evidence about the placebo response in diabetes mellitus and the associated factors in clinical trials of anti-diabetic medicine.

METHODS

Literature research was conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published between the date of inception and June 2019. Randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in type 1and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) were included. Random-effects model and meta-regression analysis were accordingly used. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42014009373.

RESULTS

Significantly weight elevation (effect size (ES) = 0.33 kg, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.61 kg) was observed in patients with placebo treatments in T1DM subgroup while significantly HbA1c reduction (ES = - 0.12%, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.07%) and weight reduction (ES = - 0.40 kg, 95% CI, - 0.50 to - 0.29 kg) were observed in patients with placebo treatments in T2DM subgroup. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in patients with injectable placebo treatments (ES = - 0.22%, 95% CI, - 0.32 to - 0.11%) versus oral types (ES = - 0.09%, 95% CI, - 0.14 to - 0.04%) in T2DM (P = 0.03). Older age (β = - 0.01, 95% CI, - 0.02 to - 0.01, P < 0.01) and longer diabetes duration (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.03 to - 0.21 × 10^-2, P = 0.03) was significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T1DM. However, younger age (β = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.01), lower male percentage (β = 0.01, 95% CI, 0.22 × 10^-2, 0.01, P < 0.01), higher baseline BMI (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.04 to - 0.26 × 10^-2, P = 0.02), and higher baseline HbA1c (β = - 0.09, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.01, P = 0.02) were significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T2DM. Shorter diabetes duration (β = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.10, P < 0.01) was significantly associated with more weight reduction by placebo in T2DM. However, the associations between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response were insignificant after the adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The placebo response in diabetes mellitus was systematically outlined. Age, sex, disease severity (indirectly reflected by baseline BMI and baseline HbA1c), and disease duration were associated with placebo response in diabetes mellitus. The association between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response may be the result of regression to the mean.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PERsistent Sitagliptin treatment & Outcomes (PERS&O 2.0) study, long-term results: a real-world observation on DPP4-inhibitor effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

Sitagliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Limited real-world data on its effectiveness and safety are available from an Italian population.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We evaluated long-term clinical data from the single-arm PERsistent Sitagliptin Treatment & Outcomes (PERS&O) study, which collected information on 440 patients with TD2 (275 men, 165 women; mean age 64.1 years; disease median duration: 12 years) treated with sitagliptin 'add-on'. For each patient, we estimated the 10-year cardiovascular (CV) risk using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Risk Engine (RE). Drug survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves; repeated measures mixed effects models were used to evaluate the evolution of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and CV risk during sitagliptin treatment.

RESULTS

At baseline, most patients were overweight or obese (median body mass index (BMI) (kg/m²) 30.2); median HbA1c was 8.4%; median fasting plasma glucose: 172 mg/dL; median UKPDS RE score: 24.8%, being higher in men (median 30.2%) than in women (median 17.0%) as expected. Median follow-up from starting sitagliptin treatment was 5.6 years. From Kaplan-Meier curves, the estimated median drug survival was 32.8 months when considering discontinuation for any cause and 58.4 months when considering discontinuation for loss of efficacy. A significant improvement in HbA1c was evident during treatment with sitagliptin (p<0.01): the reduction was rapid (median HbA1c after 4-6 months: 7.5%) and continued at longer follow-up. When comparing patients treated with sitagliptin versus those stopping sitagliptin and switching to another antihyperglycemic drug, we detected a significant difference in the evolution of HbA1c in favor of patients who continued sitagliptin treatment. The UKPDS RE score at 10 years and the BMI significantly improved during treatment with sitagliptin (p<0.001). Adverse events were relatively uncommon.

CONCLUSION

Patients with T2D treated with sitagliptin achieved an improvement in metabolic control and a reduction in CV risk and did not experience relevant adverse events.

Random-effects meta-analysis of combined outcomes based on reconstructions of individual patient data

Meta-analyses of clinical trials typically focus on one outcome at a time. However, treatment decision-making depends on an overall assessment of outcomes balancing benefit in various domains and potential risks. This calls for meta-analysis methods for combined outcomes that encompass information from different domains. When individual patient data (IPD) are available from all studies, combined outcomes can be calculated for each individual and standard meta-analysis methods would apply. However, IPD are usually difficult to obtain. We propose a method to estimate the overall treatment effect for combined outcomes based on first reconstructing pseudo IPD from available summary statistics and then pooling estimates from multiple reconstructed datasets. We focus on combined outcomes constructed from two continuous original outcomes. The reconstruction step requires the specification of the joint distribution of these two original outcomes, including the correlation which is often unknown. For outcomes that are combined in a linear fashion, misspecifications of this correlation affect efficiency, but not consistency, of the resulting treatment effect estimator. For other combined outcomes, an accurate estimate of the correlation is necessary to ensure the consistency of treatment effect estimates. To this end, we propose several ways to estimate this correlation under different data availability scenarios. We evaluate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies and apply these to two examples: (a) a meta-analysis of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors vs control on treating type 2 diabetes; and (b) a meta-analysis of positive airway pressure therapy vs control on lowering blood pressure among patients with obstructive sleep apnea.

Efficacy and safety of gemigliptin as add-on therapy to insulin, with or without metformin, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (ZEUS II study)

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemigliptin added to a stable dose of insulin alone or of insulin in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. After a two-week run-in period, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive gemigliptin 50 mg or placebo once daily as add-on to background therapy with insulin or insulin plus metformin for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline at Week 24. Baseline characteristics were similar between the gemigliptin (n = 188) and placebo (n = 95) groups in terms of HbA1c (8.1%). At Week 24, the gemigliptin group showed a statistically significant reduction in mean HbA1c from baseline as compared with placebo (between-group mean difference, -0.7% [95% CI, -0.9% to -0.4%]; P-value < 0.0001). The incidence of overall adverse events and the number of hypoglycaemic adverse events were similar between the study groups. Gemigliptin added to insulin alone or to insulin in combination with metformin resulted in superior glycaemic control compared to that in the placebo group and was well tolerated for 24 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, without causing weight gain or increasing the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

Meta-Analysis of 11 Heterogeneous Studies regarding Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitor Add-On Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients Treated with Insulin

BACKGROUND

Several clinical trials have addressed the therapeutic strategy of adding dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors to the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) inadequately controlled by insulin therapy. However, there is a high degree of heterogeneity in these studies, and the cause of which has not been identified.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, which compared the efficacy and safety of adding DPP-4 inhibitors or placebo to insulin therapy; the level of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in the patients was >7.0%, and the duration of treatment was ≥8 weeks. We focused on the mean changes in HbA1c from the baseline (ΔHbA1c) and the incidence of hypoglycemia. We assumed that five baseline parameters (HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, body mass index (BMI), duration of type 2 DM, and duration of treatment) could affect ΔHbA1c. Regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia, we suspected that the heterogeneity was caused by differences in the definition of hypoglycemia among the studies.

RESULTS

Data obtained from 11 studies (n = 4654 patients) were included in the analysis. The mean ΔHbA1c between the DPP-4 inhibitor and placebo groups was -0.61% (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.74 to -0.48, I ² = 73.4%). There was substantial heterogeneity among the 11 studies, but 74.1% of this variability was explained by the difference in BMI. The odds ratio for the incidence of hypoglycemia was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.74 to 1.42, I ² = 63.8%), with substantial heterogeneity due to differences in the definition of hypoglycemia among the studies. There was no apparent effect of publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of DPP-4 inhibitors to insulin therapy for adult patients with type 2 DM can significantly reduce HbA1c levels without increasing the occurrence of hypoglycemia. BMI and hypoglycemia definition could explain the heterogeneity in the clinical trials. This trial is registered with PROSPERO #CRD42016035994.

Effectiveness and Safety of Adding Basal Insulin Glargine in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Exhibiting Inadequate Response to Metformin and DPP-4 Inhibitors with or without Sulfonylurea

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of adding basal insulin to initiating dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor and metformin and/or sulfonylurea (SU) in achieving the target glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This was a single-arm, multicenter, 24-week, open-label, phase 4 study in patients with inadequately controlled (HbA1c ≥7.5%) T2DM despite the use of DPP-4 inhibitor and metformin. A total of 108 patients received insulin glargine while continuing oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of subjects achieving HbA1c ≤7.0%. Other glycemic profiles were also evaluated, and the safety endpoints were adverse events (AEs) and hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

The median HbA1c at baseline (8.9%; range, 7.5% to 11.1%) decreased to 7.6% (5.5% to 11.7%) at 24 weeks. Overall, 31.7% subjects (n=33) achieved the target HbA1c level of ≤7.0%. The mean differences in body weight and fasting plasma glucose were 1.2±3.4 kg and 56.0±49.8 mg/dL, respectively. Hypoglycemia was reported in 36 subjects (33.3%, 112 episodes), all of which were fully recovered. There was no serious AE attributed to insulin glargine. Body weight change was significantly different between SU users and nonusers (1.5±2.5 kg vs. -0.9±6.0 kg, P=0.011).

CONCLUSION

The combination add-on therapy of insulin glargine, on metformin and DPP-4 inhibitors with or without SU was safe and efficient in reducing HbA1c levels and thus, is a preferable option in managing T2DM patients exhibiting dysglycemia despite the use of OADs.

Cardiovascular risk of sitagliptin in treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a very high risk of cardiovascular related events, and reducing complications is an important evaluation criterion of efficacy and safety of hypoglycemic drugs. Previous studies have shown that the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (DPP4i), such as sitagliptin, might reduce the incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACEs). However, the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin remains controversial, especially the safety for cardiovascular related events. Here, a systematic review was conducted to assess the cardiovascular safety of sitagliptin in T2DM patients. The literature research dating up to October 2018 was performed in the electronic database. The clinical trials about sitagliptin for T2DM patients were included. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was the MACE, and the secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Finally, 32 clinical trials composed of 16082 T2DM patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that: there was no significant difference between sitagliptin group and the control group on MACE (odds ratio (OR) = 0.85, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) = 0.63–1.15), myocardial infarction (MI) (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.38–1.16), stroke (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.44–1.54) and mortality (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.26–1.07). These results demonstrated that sitagliptin did not increase the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with T2DM.

Post-marketing Study of Linagliptin: A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Linagliptin is a high-cost oral antidiabetic that has been widely used, and studies on its effectiveness and safety for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) in the real world is rare and necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the values of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and adverse events before and after the use of linagliptin in the post-marketing context of a pilot study.

METHODS

This is a descriptive observational and exploratory study with a retrospective longitudinal approach, conducted between January 2014 and December 2016. All patients who participated in the study were over 18 years of age, with DM2, assisted by the Brazilian Public Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS) and had been indicated for use of linagliptin. The users were followed up and the variables of interest were collected from a computerized health information system (sistema informatizado de saúde - SIS) and patient records. For effectiveness analysis, HbA1c before (T0) and after (T1) the use of linagliptin was considered in patients registered as having collected linagliptin at the pharmacy for at least three consecutive months. For safety analysis, registered adverse events (AE) were verified in patients' records. The sample was stratified according to the pharmacotherapeutic scheme of the users. To compare the means before (T0) and after (T1), a paired t-test (data with normal distribution) and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test (non-normal distribution data) were performed.

RESULTS

Considering the total population of the study, in a different pharmacotherapeutic regimen, a median reduction in HbA1c of -0.86% (p < 0.05) was observed. After stratification by pharmacotherapeutic regimen, the most significant reduction of HbA1c was -1.07% (p = 0.014) for the linagliptin group associated with insulins and oral antidiabetic agents (n = 13). On the other hand, patients taking linagliptin in monotherapy had the lowest HbA1c reduction, -0.48% (p > 0.05). AE occurred in 12 (36.4%) patients, and 16.7% were in monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Linagliptin did not presented, in real world, the desired performance as showed in randomized premarketing clinical trials and it should be carefully evaluated in public health services.

Intensive monitoring for post-transplant diabetes mellitus and treatment with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor therapy

AIM

Current monitoring practices fail to diagnose patients with post-transplant hyperglycaemia and tend to delay initiation of treatment, which potentially results in adverse graft and morbidity outcomes. This real-world study set out to assess the impact on insulin resistance indices of a new clinical pathway for diagnosis and treatment of hyperglycaemia following renal transplantation.

METHODS

A hundred and forty-seven adult renal transplant recipients, without pre-existing diabetes, from a single centre were included. Patients transplanted between January 2008 to September 2015 formed the historical cohort. Patients transplanted between October 2015 and February 2018 were subject to a new clinical pathway - if they had fasting blood sugar levels more than 7 mmol/L or random blood glucose levels more than 11.1 mmol/L, they had early introduction of oral therapy, using the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin.

RESULTS

In the historical cohort, 19.8% were diagnosed with PTDM, compared to 46.3% in the protocol cohort. Amongst patients with PTDM, there was a significant difference in HOMA-IR (p = 0.02) between the historical cohort (median HOMA-IR 3.33) and the protocol cohort (median HOMA-IR 2.21). There was a significant difference at each time point (0,1,2-h measurements) of blood glucose levels form oral glucose tolerance testing between patients with and without PTDM in the historical cohort (p < 0.001), but no difference between patients in the protocol cohort.

CONCLUSION

Detection of PTDM was higher with the new clinical pathway. Early treatment of hyperglycaemia resulted in better insulin resistance scores. Larger prospective controlled studies focussing on early detection and management of PTDM with linagliptin are warranted.

Double-blind, randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of continuing or discontinuing the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin when initiating insulin glargine therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: The CompoSIT-I Study

AIMS

To compare the effects of continuing versus discontinuing sitagliptin when initiating and intensively titrating insulin glargine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible patients had inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on metformin (≥1500 mg/d) in combination with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor and/or a sulphonylurea. Those on metformin + sitagliptin were directly randomized; all others were switched to metformin + sitagliptin (discontinuing other DPP-4 inhibitors and sulphonylureas) and stabilized during a run-in period. At randomization, patients were allocated to continuing sitagliptin or discontinuing sitagliptin, with both groups initiating insulin glargine and titrating to a target fasting glucose of 4.0 to 5.6 mmol/L.

RESULTS

A total of 743 participants (mean glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 72.6 mmol/mol [8.8%], disease duration 10.8 years), were treated. After 30 weeks, the mean HbA1c and least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c were 51.4 mmol/mol (6.85%) and -20.5 mmol/mol (-1.88%) in the sitagliptin group and 56.4 mmol/mol (7.31%) and -15.5 mmol/mol (-1.42%) in the placebo group; the difference in LS mean changes from baseline HbA1c was -5.0 mmol/mol (-0.46%; P < 0.001). The percentage of participants with HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) was higher (54% vs. 35%) and the mean daily insulin dose was lower (53 vs. 61 units) in the sitagliptin group. Despite lower HbA1c, event rates and incidences of hypoglycaemia were not higher in the sitagliptin group. Adverse events overall and changes from baseline in body weight were similar between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

When initiating insulin glargine therapy, continuation of sitagliptin, compared with discontinuation, resulted in a clinically meaningful greater reduction in HbA1c without an increase in hypoglycaemia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738879.

Cost-effectiveness of intensification with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin and sitagliptin vs direct intensification with insulin in the United Kingdom

AIM

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of an intensification strategy with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (pathway 1) compared with NPH insulin (pathway 2) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the United Kingdom who were not at goal on metformin and sitagliptin.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the well-established, validated IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model from the payer perspective over a patient's lifetime. Randomized clinical trials informed treatment effect measures, while public or published sources informed economic inputs. Scenario analyses of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), hypoglycaemia rate, body mass index effects, SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular protective effects, and population characteristics were conducted to assess the robustness of results.

RESULTS

Pathway 1 increased life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with pathway 2 (13.49 vs. 13.37, and 9.40 vs. 9.22, respectively). Additional drug costs in pathway 1 were offset by diabetes-related complication decreases, leading to slightly lower direct medical costs for pathway 1 (£25747 vs £26095). Pathway 1 was therefore cost-neutral (no interpretable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), while improving clinical outcomes. Scenario analyses consistently showed cost-neutrality or cost-effectiveness of pathway 1. The highest result remained less than £3000/QALY, reflecting older patients (≥65 years) with lower baseline HbA1c (7%).

CONCLUSIONS

For UK patients with T2D not at goal on metformin and sitagliptin therapy, treatment intensification with SGLT2 inhibitors prior to NPH insulin is cost-neutral or cost-effective compared with immediate NPH insulin intensification.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin added to treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with premixed insulin

To improve understanding of the safety and efficacy of adding sitagliptin to treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes taking premixed insulin, data from patients using premixed insulin ± metformin (screening HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤11%) in either of two clinical trials in which sitagliptin 100 mg once-daily or placebo was added to various formulations of insulin treatment, were analysed. In both trials, insulin doses were to remain stable throughout the 24-week trial period. At week 24, the between-group difference (sitagliptin - placebo) in the least squares mean (95% confidence intervals) change from baseline in HbA1c in patients using premixed insulin was -0.43% (-0.58, -0.28), P <0.001. Adverse events were generally similar between the treatment groups. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was slightly higher with sitagliptin, and the incidence of hypoglycaemia requiring medical attention was slightly higher with placebo; in both cases the difference was not statistically significant. The data from this pooled analysis confirm the utility of sitagliptin used in combination with premixed insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

All-cause mortality of insulin plus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in persons with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors could effectively reduce HbA_1C and postprandial hyperglycemia and could incur only minimal danger of hypoglycemia. Patients with uncontrolled diabetes might be treated by the complementary action of insulin plus DPP-4 inhibitors. Here, we compared the all-cause mortality risk between DPP-4 inhibitor users and nonusers with underlying insulin therapy.

METHODS

Using the population-based National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan, we conducted an 11-year retrospective cohort study. A total of 3120 patients undergoing insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) during 2000-2010 were enrolled. The overall incidence rates for all-cause mortality of 1560 DPP-4 inhibitor users and 1560 matched DPP-4 inhibitor nonusers were compared.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the baseline demographic and clinical variables of the two groups of patients. Median follow-up period for the matched cohort was 1.67 years. All-cause mortality was observed in 93 (6.0%) of 1560 DPP-4 inhibitor nonusers and 36 (2.3%) of 1560 DPP-4 users. The incidence rate of mortality was 11.72 for DPP-4 inhibitor users and 38.16 per 1000 person-years for DPP-4 inhibitor nonusers. After multivariate adjustment, DPP-4 inhibitor users ran a reduced mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio 0.32, 95% CI 0.22-0.47; p < 0.0001) than did the nonusers.

CONCLUSION

Risk of all-cause mortality may be reduced when using insulin plus DPP-4 inhibitors than when using insulin plus non-DPP-4 inhibitors.

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.

Progression of glucose-lowering diabetes therapy in TECOS

AIMS

TECOS was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the impact of sitagliptin vs. placebo on cardiovascular outcomes when added to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes. We report the use of concomitant diabetes medications and the risk for progression to insulin during follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

TECOS enrolled 14 671 participants with HbA1c 6.5%-8.0% on monotherapy with metformin, pioglitazone, sulfonylurea (SU), or dual therapy with two oral agents or insulin with or without metformin. Subsequent diabetes management was by the participant's usual care physician. Time to initiation of insulin and risk of hypoglycaemia were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

The most common glucose-lowering regimens at baseline were metformin monotherapy (30.2%), SU monotherapy (8.5%), metformin/SU therapy (35.1%), and insulin with or without metformin (13.9% and 8.6%, respectively). Over a median 3.0 years' follow-up, diabetes therapy was intensified in 25.2% of participants (sitagliptin 22.0%, placebo 28.3%). Medications most commonly added were SU (8.3%) or insulin (8.8%). Insulin initiation in the usual care setting occurred at mean (standard deviation) HbA1c of 8.5 (1.5)%. Sitagliptin did not impact rates of severe hypoglycaemia, but delayed progression to insulin when added to metformin or metformin/SU regimens.

CONCLUSION

Consistent with the trial's pragmatic design, TECOS participants underwent typical progression of diabetes medications. Sitagliptin was associated with lower HbA1c, without increased risk for severe hypoglycaemia and was associated with delayed progression to insulin when added to metformin with or without SU.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors as add-on therapy to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Addition of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may achieve better glycemic control. However, results of pilot randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are inconsistent. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of RCTs to evaluate efficacy and safety of DPP4 inhibitors compared with placebo/no treatment as add-on therapy to insulin in T2DM patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant studies were identified via a search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. A fixed or random effect model was applied according to the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Overall, 22 RCTs with 6,957 T2DM patients were included. Addition of DPP4 inhibitors to insulin was associated with significantly reduced HbA1c as compared with controls (weighed mean difference [WMD]: -0.54%, p<0.001). The benefits of DPP4 inhibitors as add-on therapy on HbA1c were independent of study design, follow-up duration, categories of DPP4 inhibitors used, and using of fixed/adjustable insulin doses as indicated by predefined subgroup analyses. Moreover, addition of DPP4 inhibitors to insulin was associated with significantly reduced fasting blood glucose (WMD: -0.47mmol/L, p<0.001), postprandial glucose at 2 hrs (WMD: -2.03 mmol/L, p<0.001), and daily dose of insulin (WMD: -2.73U/d, p<0.001), while body weight (WMD: 0.02 g, p=0.81) or risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia (risk ratio: 0.92, p=0.37) were not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of DPP4 inhibitors to insulin significantly improved the glycemic control in T2DM patients without further increasing the risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia.

Safety and Efficacy of DPP4 Inhibitor and Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes: An Updated Review and Challenging Clinical Scenarios

The safety and efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors as monotherapy or in combination with other oral antidiabetic agents or basal insulin are well established. DPP4 inhibitors stimulate glucose-dependent insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon production. As monotherapy, they reduce the hemoglobin A1c level by about 0.6-0.8%. The addition of a DPP4 inhibitor to basal insulin is an attractive option, because they lower both postprandial and fasting plasma glucose concentrations without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain. The present review summarizes the extensive evidence on the combination therapy of DPP4 inhibitors and insulin-based regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes. We focus our discussion on challenging clinical scenarios including patients with chronic renal impairment, elderly persons and hospitalized patients. The evidence indicates that these drugs are highly effective and safe in the elderly and in the presence of mild, moderate and severe renal failure improving glycemic control with low risk of hypoglycemia. In addition, several randomized-controlled trials have shown that the use of DPP4 inhibitors in combination with basal insulin represents an alternative to the basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.

A practical approach and algorithm for intensifying beyond basal insulin in type 2 diabetes

Despite the availability of long-term data demonstrating the benefits of timely and aggressive intensification of antihyperglycaemic regimens among individuals with type 2 diabetes, intensification beyond basal insulin continues to be suboptimal and a global challenge. This review summarizes the evidence surrounding the various options of advancing glucose-lowering management beyond basal insulin and provides a practical algorithm to assist in optimizing patient care and enhancing glycaemic target achievements.

Baseline Glycated Hemoglobin Values Predict the Magnitude of Glycemic Improvement in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Subgroup Analyses from the DIAMOND Study Program

The DIAMOND study demonstrated that the addition of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) effectively lowers glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) in patients with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), treated with multiple daily injections (MDI). This post hoc analysis investigated whether DIAMOND study participants at progressively higher baseline HbA_1c levels benefit from using rtCGM. We examined outcomes data from a large, randomized, controlled trial of MDI-treated participants with T1D (N = 158) and T2D (N = 158), comparing monitoring by rtCGM versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). The primary outcome was the magnitude of HbA_1c reductions among study participants within elevated baseline HbA_1c levels (≥8.0%-10.0%, ≥8.5%-10.0%, and ≥9.0%-10.0%). Analyses were performed on three subgroups: T1D, T2D, and combined T1D/T2D. The full T1D analysis population had a mean baseline HbA_1c value of 8.6 ± 0.6% (range 7.5%-9.9%), randomized to rtCGM (n = 105) or control (n = 53). The full T2D analysis population had a mean baseline HbA_1c value of 8.5 ± 0.6% (range 7.5%-9.9%), randomized to rtCGM (n = 79) or control (n = 79). Participants had improvements in glycemic status regardless of monitoring method. In the three subgroups, the change in HbA_1c was significantly greater in rtCGM participants compared to SMBG at all predefined baseline HbA_1c levels at 12 and 24 weeks. Among the rtCGM participants, the change in HbA_1c was numerically greatest at the highest baseline HbA_1c subgroup (≥9.0%). Participants with elevated baseline HbA_1c had improvements in glycemic status regardless of monitoring method. However, the magnitudes of improvements appeared greater among participants using rtCGM.

Efficacy and Safety of Sitagliptin in Hispanic/Latino Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Pooled Analysis from Ten Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

To assess the efficacy and safety profile of the dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin in a population of self-identified Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Data were pooled from ten randomized, double-blind studies in which subjects were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg/day (as mono- or combination therapy) or placebo, and used to evaluate the glycemic efficacy, safety, and tolerability of sitagliptin compared with placebo after 24 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 804 Hispanic/Latino patients were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics in the treatment groups were similar (mean baseline HbA1c of approximately 8.5%). The LS mean HbA1c changes from baseline were - 0.94% with sitagliptin and - 0.32% with placebo, and the between-group difference was - 0.62%, p < 0.001. After 24 weeks of treatment, 35% and 18% of subjects were at the HbA1c goal of < 7% in the sitagliptin and placebo groups, respectively. Body weight increased slightly in both treatment groups. Incidences of adverse events of hypoglycemia were similar and low (1.9% and 1.4% for sitagliptin and placebo, respectively) in both groups in studies in which insulin or sulfonylurea were not used and were similar (9% and 11% for sitagliptin and placebo, respectively) when all studies were included. Overall safety and tolerability of treatment with sitagliptin and placebo were similar. No clinically meaningful differences between the safety profile of sitagliptin in the Hispanic/Latino population analyzed here and broader populations previously evaluated were observed.

CONCLUSION

In this pooled analysis of sitagliptin therapy vs placebo in Hispanic/Latino patients, sitagliptin provided significant improvement in glycemic control and was generally well tolerated.

FUNDING

Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Addition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors to insulin treatment in type 2 diabetes patients: A meta-analysis

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combining insulin therapy with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors compared with combining insulin therapy with a placebo or other antihyperglycemic agents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was carried out via electronic databases. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing the addition of DPP-4 inhibitors to insulin with the addition of a placebo or other active hypoglycemic agents to insulin therapy, study duration of no less than 12 weeks carried out in type 2 diabetes patients and the availability of outcome data to evaluate a change in the glycated hemoglobin.

RESULTS

The glycated hemoglobin-lowering efficacy was significantly greater with DPP-4 inhibitor/insulin (DPP-4i/INS) than with placebo/insulin (weighted mean difference -0.53%, 95% confidence interval -0.63, -0.43, P < 0.01). The postprandial plasma glucose-lowering efficacies was also significantly greater with DPP-4i/INS than with placebo/insulin (weighted mean difference -1.65 mmol/L, 95% CI: -2.34, -0.96, P < 0.05). The risk of hypoglycemia or severe hypoglycemia was similar for DPP4i/INS and placebo/insulin treatments. There was no significant difference in the glycemia-lowering efficacy between DPP-4i/INS and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors/insulin, thiazolidinedione/insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist/insulin. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor/insulin treatment achieved better placebo-corrected efficacy in lowering postprandial plasma glucose, with less weight gain and no higher risk of hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors combined with insulin improved glycemic control without an increased risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain compared with insulin treatment alone.

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

This prospective, multicentre, phase III study (NCT02104804) evaluated the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin add-on therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin ± metformin. Patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5% to 10.5% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <15 mmol/L (270 mg/dL) on stable insulin therapy (20-150 U/d) were randomized (1:1) to saxagliptin 5 mg once daily (N = 232) or placebo (N = 230) for 24 weeks, stratified by metformin use. The primary efficacy measure was change in HbA1c. Saxagliptin treatment resulted in a greater adjusted mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 than placebo (-0.58%; P < .001), irrespective of metformin use, and a greater mean change in FPG (0.9 mmol/L [-15.9 mg/dL]; P < .001). More patients achieved HbA1c <7% with saxagliptin (11.4%) than with placebo (3.5%, P = .002). Adverse events and incidence of hypoglycaemia were similar in both groups. Overall, add-on saxagliptin 5 mg once daily significantly improved glycaemic control without increasing hypoglycaemia risk and was well tolerated in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin (± metformin).

Comparison of non-insulin antidiabetic agents as an add-on drug to insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis

We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), or thiazolidinedione (TZD) as an adjunctive treatment in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on insulin therapy. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through April 2016. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed with covariate adjustment. The primary outcome was the change in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline. Fifty randomized controlled trials covering 15,494 patients were included. GLP-1RA showed the greatest HbA1c-lowering effect compared to the control (−0.84%; 95% credible interval, −1.00% to −0.69%), followed by TZD (−0.73%; −0.93 to −0.52%), SGLT2i (−0.66%; −0.84% to −0.48%), and DPP4i (−0.54%; −0.68% to −0.39%). SGLT2i showed the greatest fasting plasma glucose reduction. GLP-1RA and SGLT2i showed greater body weight reduction, whereas TZD increased body weight. TZD was ranked the highest in terms of insulin dose reduction. The risk of hypoglycemia was increased with TZD or GLP-1RA. The study provides the best available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of non-insulin anti-diabetic agents on top of pre-existing insulin therapy for inadequately controlled T2DM patients.

A review of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Hot topics from randomized controlled trials

The first clinical study to investigate effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition was published in 2002, and since then, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that DPP-4 inhibitors are efficacious, safe and well-tolerated. This review will focus upon RCTs which have investigated DPP-4 inhibitors in patient groups which are often under-represented or excluded from typical phase 3 clinical trials. Large cardiovascular (CV) safety outcome trials in patients with established CV disease have confirmed that DPP-4 inhibitors are not associated with any additional CV risk in these already-at-high-risk individuals, while raising awareness of any uncommon adverse events, such as heart failure hospitalization seen in one of the trials. Studies in patients with kidney disease have shown DPP-4 inhibitors to be efficacious without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia, irrespective of the degree of renal impairment, while data from the large CV trials as well as smaller RCTs have even pointed towards potential renoprotective effects such individuals. The use of DPP-4 inhibitors with insulin when therapy requires intensification may be beneficial without affecting the incidence or severity of hypoglycaemia, with these effects also being replicated in patients with chronic kidney disease, for whom other agents may not be suitable. Attention is now turning towards exploring the potential utility of DPP-4 inhibitors in other circumstances, including for in-hospital management of hyperglycaemia and in other metabolic disorders. Together, these RCTs raise the possibility that in the future, DPP-4 inhibitors may have a broader use which may extend beyond glycaemic control in the typical type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patient seen in general practice and may encompass conditions other than T2DM.

The effect of concomitant DPPIVi use on glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in people with type 2 diabetes: A patient-level meta-analysis of EDITION 2 and 3

AIMS

To evaluate the effect of concomitant dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor (DPPIVi) use on efficacy and safety of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) in people with type 2 diabetes on oral antihyperglycaemic drugs.

METHODS

A post hoc patient-level meta-analysis was performed using data from EDITION 2 (basal insulin [N = 811]) and EDITION 3 (insulin-naïve [N = 878]), multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trials of similar design. Endpoints analysed included HbA1c, hypoglycaemia and adverse events, investigated in subgroups of participants with and without concomitant DPPIVi use.

RESULTS

Of 1689 participants randomised, 107 (13%, Gla-300) and 133 (16%, Gla-100) received DPPIVi therapy. The least squares mean change in HbA1c (baseline to month 6) was comparable between treatment groups, irrespective of DPPIVi use (no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effect across subgroups, p = 0.753), although group sizes were unbalanced. The cumulative mean number of confirmed (≤3.9 mmol/L [≤70 mg/dL]) or severe hypoglycaemic events, and the risk and annualised rate of such events, were consistently lower for Gla-300 than Gla-100 during the night (between 00:00 and 05:59 h) or at any time of day (24 h period), irrespective of DPPIVi use. Severe hypoglycaemia occurred in 8/838 and 10/844 participants in the Gla-300 and Gla-100 groups, respectively, and was not affected by DPPIVi use. The adverse event profile was similar between treatment groups and DPPIVi subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Glycaemic control with Gla-300 was comparable to Gla-100, with less hypoglycaemia during the night and at any time of day (24 h), irrespective of concomitant DPPIVi use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01499095; NCT01676220.

Coadministration of DPP-4 inhibitor and insulin therapy does not further reduce the risk of cardiovascular events compared with DPP-4 inhibitor therapy in diabetic foot patients: a nationwide population-based study

BACKGROUND

The effect of combined insulin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) therapy on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with diabetic foot is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted this nationwide cohort study using longitudinal claims data obtained from the Taiwan National Health Insurance program and included 19,791 patients with diabetic foot from 2007 to 2014. Patients receiving DPP4i-based therapy and/or insulin-based therapy after a diagnosis of diabetic foot were categorized into combined, DPP4i- or insulin-based groups, respectively. The risk of MACEs including nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, cardiac death, and heart failure was assessed using Cox proportional hazards analysis and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Among the 19,791 patients with diabetic foot (mean age, 58.8 years [SD, 12.5]; men, 51.2%), 6466 received DPP4i-based therapy, 1925 received insulin-based therapy, and 11,400 received combined DPP4i and insulin therapy. The DPP4i-based and insulin-based groups had a lower risk of MACEs (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.50-0.57 DPP4i only; HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.97 insulin only) than the combined group. After propensity score matching, the incidence of all complications in the DPP4i-based group was still significantly lower than that in the combined group (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51-0.59 for MACEs; HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.24-0.42 for nonfatal myocardial infarction; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.63-0.78 for nonfatal stroke; HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13-0.38 for cardiac death; HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.19-0.25 for any death; HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.13-0.20 for amputation). In the diabetic foot patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), the benefit of a lower incidence of MACEs in the DPP4i-based group disappeared (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58-1.08).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the patients with diabetic foot receiving DPP4i-based therapy had a lower risk of MACEs than those receiving combined therapy with DPP4i and insulin, but that the effect disappeared in those with concurrent ESRD.

Incretin-based therapy in type 2 diabetes: An evidence based systematic review and meta-analysis

Incretin based therapies such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) are increasingly used for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. In clinical practice and in previously performed clinical trials, these agents are often used in combination with other oral anti-diabetic agents (OADs) and Insulin. Prior meta-analytic reviews however do not adequately address the impact of background therapy and active comparator arms. Accordingly, we aimed to further investigate the efficacy of incretin based therapies by updating existing reviews by including clinical trial evidence after 2008; estimating the pooled effect of incretin therapies on glycemic efficacy and weight-loss, stratified by comparator therapy (placebo, mono-therapy, etc.), estimating the impact of background OADs and within class (GLP-1Ra or DPP-4i) comparative efficacy, on glycemia control. 82 randomized controlled trials after 2008 with glycemic control and weight loss as primary end-points were included. Both DPP-4i and GLP-1Ra reduced HbA1c, but only GLP-1Ra caused weight loss when compared to either active comparator drugs or placebo. GLP-1Ra were more effective than DPP-4i in glycemia lowering. Long acting GLP-1Ra were more effective in HbA1c lowering than short-acting agents but with similar weight loss effect. The effect of DPP-4i incretin glycemic efficacy was not modified by background therapy used in the study.