Safety and efficacy of vildagliptin versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate or severe renal impairment: a prospective 24-week randomized placebo-controlled trial

Mechanistic Study on the Effect of Renal Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics of Vildagliptin and its Carboxylic Acid Metabolite

PURPOSE

To clarify the mechanism of renal impairment leading to different degrees of increased plasma exposure to dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor vildagliptin and its major metabolite, M20.7.

METHODS

The 5/6 nephrectomized (5/6 Nx) rat model, to simulate chronic renal failure (CRF) patients, combined with kidney slices and transporter studies in vitro were used to assess this pharmacokinetic differences.

RESULTS

After intragastric administration to 5/6 Nx rats, vildagliptin showed increased plasma levels by 45.8%, and M20.7 by 7.51 times, which was similar to patients with severe renal impairment. The recovery rate of M20.7 in urine and feces increased by less than 20%, showing limited effect of renal impairment on vildagliptin metabolism. In vitro studies found M20.7 to be the substrate for organic anion transporter 3 (OAT3). However, the active uptake of M20.7 in renal slices showed no difference between the 5/6 Nx and normal rats. In OAT3 overexpressed cells, the protein-bound uremic toxins, 3-carboxy-4-methyl-5propyl-2-furanpropionate (CMPF), hippuric acid (HA) and indoxyl sulfate (IS), which accumulate in CRF patients, inhibited M20.7 uptake with IC₅₀ values of 5.75, 29.0 and 69.5 μM respectively, far lower than plasma concentrations in CRF patients, and showed a mixed inhibition type.

CONCLUSIONS

The large increase in plasma exposure of M20.7 could be attributed to the accumulation of uremic toxins in CRF patients, which inhibited OAT3 activity and blocked renal excretion of M20.7, while vildagliptin, with high permeability, showed a slight increase in plasma exposure due to reduced glomerular filtration.

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

Registration:

PROSPERO: CRD42020210645

Introduction:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Plain language summary

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

Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review.

RESULTS

764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 3 to 40 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool (https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/) for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with some differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019153180.

Evidence-based treatment of hyperglycaemia with incretin therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes and advanced chronic kidney disease

Type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD). The prevalence of CKD is growing in parallel with the rising number of patients with type 2 diabetes globally. At present, the optimal approach to glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and advanced CKD (categories 4 and 5) remains uncertain, as these patients were largely excluded from clinical trials of glucose-lowering therapies. Nonetheless, clinical trial data are available for the use of incretin therapies, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, for patients with type 2 diabetes and advanced CKD. This review discusses the role of incretin therapies in the management of these patients. Because the presence of advanced CKD in patients with type 2 diabetes is associated with a markedly elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), treatment strategies must include the reduction of both CKD and CVD risks because death, particularly from cardiovascular causes, is more probable than progression to end-stage kidney disease. The management of hyperglycaemia is essential for good diabetes care even in advanced CKD. Current evidence supports an individualized approach to glycaemic management in patients with type 2 diabetes and advanced CKD, taking account of the needs of each patient, including the presence of co-morbidities and concomitant therapies. Although additional studies are needed to establish optimal strategies for glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes and advanced CKD, treatment regimens with currently available pharmacotherapy can be individually tailored to meet the needs of this growing patient population.

Effect of adding vildagliptin to insulin in haemodialysed patients with type 2 diabetes: The VILDDIAL study, a randomized, multicentre, prospective study

AIM

To evaluate the effect of adding the dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin to insulin on the glycaemic control of patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing haemodialysis.

METHODS

Overall, 65 insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing haemodialysis (HbA1c: 7.3% ± 1.1%; age: 70.5 ± 8.5 years) were randomized (1:1) either to receive vildagliptin 50 mg/day in addition to insulin (vildagliptin-insulin group) or to pursue their usual insulin regimen (insulin-only group). Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed for 48 ± 6 hours at baseline and at week 12. The primary study endpoint was change from baseline in mean interstitial glucose using CGM. The secondary endpoints included other CGM variables and glucose control markers.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks, a greater reduction in mean CGM glucose from baseline was observed in the vildagliptin-insulin group compared with the insulin-only group, although the between-treatment difference was not statistically significant (mean difference [CI 95%]: -0.96 mmol/L [-2.09; 0.18] vs. -0.29 mmol/L [-1.29; 0.76], P = 0.32). However, a significant decrease from baseline in HbA1c, glycated albumin and insulin daily doses was observed in the vildagliptin-insulin group versus the insulin-only group (-0.6% [-1.19; -0.1], P < 0.01), in the vildagliptin-insulin group versus no change in the insulin-only group (-130.6 μmol/L [-271; 10.7] vs. +36.2 μmol/L [-164.4; 236.9], P = 0.04 and - 5.9 IU/day [-1.8; 7.1] vs. +1.1 IU/day [-14.5; 16.6], P = 0.01, respectively). There was no significant difference in the percentage of time spent in hypoglycaemia using CGM, occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia or number of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

In this study, vildagliptin added to insulin improved glycaemic control with an associated insulin-sparing effect in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing haemodialysis and was well tolerated.

Effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of vildagliptin or vildagliptin/metformin combination in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on insulin therapy in a real-world setting in Egypt: The OMEGA study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin or vildagliptin/metformin combination among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on insulin in a real-world setting in Egypt.

METHODS

This 12-week, prospective, observational study enrolled T2DM patients. Primary endpoint was mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to Week 12. Secondary endpoints included mean change in body weight, insulin dosage and safety after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 90 patients enrolled, 88 (93.6%) completed the study. The mean age was 54.7 years; men, 51.1%; body mass index (BMI), 31.6 kg/m²; T2DM duration, 89.8 months; insulin dose, 55.14 IU/day. At 12 weeks, HbA1c decreased significantly with vildagliptin/metformin (-1.3 ± 0.9%, p < 0.0001) and vildagliptin (-1.1 ± 0.9%, p = 0.0001). 27.1% and 11.1% achieved HbA1c <7% in vildagliptin/metformin and vildagliptin groups, respectively. Significant mean (±standard deviation [SD]) reduction in body weight (-2.5 ± 7.3 kg, p = 0.0055) and insulin dose (-24.11 ± 22.3 IU, p < 0.0001) was observed in the vildagliptin/metformin group. Overall, 8 (8.9%) patients reported 11 (12.2%) adverse events (AEs) and no hypoglycemic events. AEs possibly related to the study drug (4.2%, in vildagliptin/metformin) were mild in severity.

CONCLUSION

Vildagliptin with/without metformin as an add-on to insulin resulted in good glycemic control and was well tolerated without any hypoglycemic events.

The efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 58 randomized controlled trials

AIMS

The aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-I: sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, vildagliptin and alogliptin) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang Database from inception to April, 2018. Randomized controlled trials were included if they compared the different versions of DPP4-I with each other or with placebo in treatment of type 2 diabetes. Bayesian network meta-analysis and pairwise meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the different kinds of DPP4-I and placebo. The data were analyzed using STATA 12.0 and WinBUGS1.4 software.

RESULTS

We identified 58 eligible studies (with 31356 patients) involving 14 treatment arms. Indirect comparison results showed that except for alogliptin, a decrease was found for all DPP4-I versus the placebo for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) with vildagliptin50 twice daily (BID) showing the highest probability. Linagliptin5 once daily (QD) decreased the level of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) the most for all DPP4-I versus the placebo; when comparing them with each other, alogliptin25QD was more effective when compared with sitagliptin100QD and vildaglipti50BID; linagliptin5qd had the highest decrease impact on body mass index (BMI). Except for hypoglycemia and upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), there are no statistical significance on incidence of adverse events and the body weight when DPP4-I are compared with each other or with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Our network meta-analysis presents the associations of DPP4-I versus placebos on HbA1c, FPG, 2 h postprandial blood glucose (2HPPG), BMI, body weight and adverse events. DPP4-I have a lowering effect on the glycemic level (HbA1c, FPG), especially vildaglipti50BID and linagliptin10QD, respectively. Besides, linagliptin5QD has the greatest probabilities of reducing BMI. In addition, DPP4-I were associated with not increasing the incidence of adverse events. Among them, vildagliptin100QD and sitagliptin100QD have the lowest probability in reducing the incidence of hypoglycemia and URTI, respectively.

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.

Insulin and glucose-lowering agents for treating people with diabetes and chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Diabetes is the commonest cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Both conditions commonly co-exist. Glucometabolic changes and concurrent dialysis in diabetes and CKD make glucose-lowering challenging, increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Glucose-lowering agents have been mainly studied in people with near-normal kidney function. It is important to characterise existing knowledge of glucose-lowering agents in CKD to guide treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of insulin and other pharmacological interventions for lowering glucose levels in people with diabetes and CKD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 February 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at head-to-head comparisons of active regimens of glucose-lowering therapy or active regimen compared with placebo/standard care in people with diabetes and CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias, and quality of data and performed data extraction. Continuous outcomes were expressed as post-treatment mean differences (MD). Adverse events were expressed as post-treatment absolute risk differences (RD). Dichotomous clinical outcomes were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-four studies (128 records, 13,036 participants) were included. Nine studies compared sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to placebo; 13 studies compared dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors to placebo; 2 studies compared glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists to placebo; 8 studies compared glitazones to no glitazone treatment; 1 study compared glinide to no glinide treatment; and 4 studies compared different types, doses or modes of administration of insulin. In addition, 2 studies compared sitagliptin to glipizide; and 1 study compared each of sitagliptin to insulin, glitazars to pioglitazone, vildagliptin to sitagliptin, linagliptin to voglibose, and albiglutide to sitagliptin. Most studies had a high risk of bias due to funding and attrition bias, and an unclear risk of detection bias.Compared to placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors probably reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 1092 participants: MD -0.29%, -0.38 to -0.19 (-3.2 mmol/mol, -4.2 to -2.2); I2 = 0%), fasting blood glucose (FBG) (5 studies, 855 participants: MD -0.48 mmol/L, -0.78 to -0.19; I2 = 0%), systolic blood pressure (BP) (7 studies, 1198 participants: MD -4.68 mmHg, -6.69 to -2.68; I2 = 40%), diastolic BP (6 studies, 1142 participants: MD -1.72 mmHg, -2.77 to -0.66; I2 = 0%), heart failure (3 studies, 2519 participants: RR 0.59, 0.41 to 0.87; I2 = 0%), and hyperkalaemia (4 studies, 2788 participants: RR 0.58, 0.42 to 0.81; I2 = 0%); but probably increase genital infections (7 studies, 3086 participants: RR 2.50, 1.52 to 4.11; I2 = 0%), and creatinine (4 studies, 848 participants: MD 3.82 μmol/L, 1.45 to 6.19; I2 = 16%) (all effects of moderate certainty evidence). SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce weight (5 studies, 1029 participants: MD -1.41 kg, -1.8 to -1.02; I2 = 28%) and albuminuria (MD -8.14 mg/mmol creatinine, -14.51 to -1.77; I2 = 11%; low certainty evidence). SGLT2 inhibitors may have little or no effect on the risk of cardiovascular death, hypoglycaemia, acute kidney injury (AKI), and urinary tract infection (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether SGLT2 inhibitors have any effect on death, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), hypovolaemia, fractures, diabetic ketoacidosis, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 867 participants: MD -0.62%, -0.85 to -0.39 (-6.8 mmol/mol, -9.3 to -4.3); I2 = 59%) but may have little or no effect on FBG (low certainty evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular death (2 studies, 5897 participants: RR 0.93, 0.77 to 1.11; I2 = 0%) and weight (2 studies, 210 participants: MD 0.16 kg, -0.58 to 0.90; I2 = 29%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors may have little or no effect on heart failure, upper respiratory tract infections, and liver impairment (low certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, it is uncertain whether DPP-4 inhibitors have any effect on eGFR, hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, GLP-1 agonists probably reduce HbA1c (7 studies, 867 participants: MD -0.53%, -1.01 to -0.06 (-5.8 mmol/mol, -11.0 to -0.7); I2 = 41%; moderate certainty evidence) and may reduce weight (low certainty evidence). GLP-1 agonists may have little or no effect on eGFR, hypoglycaemia, or discontinuation due to adverse effects (low certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether GLP-1 agonists reduce FBG, increase gastrointestinal symptoms, or affect the risk of pancreatitis (very low certainty evidence).Compared to placebo, it is uncertain whether glitazones have any effect on HbA1c, FBG, death, weight, and risk of hypoglycaemia (very low certainty evidence).Compared to glipizide, sitagliptin probably reduces hypoglycaemia (2 studies, 551 participants: RR 0.40, 0.23 to 0.69; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Compared to glipizide, sitagliptin may have had little or no effect on HbA1c, FBG, weight, and eGFR (low certainty evidence). Compared to glipizide, it is uncertain if sitagliptin has any effect on death or discontinuation due to adverse effects (very low certainty).For types, dosages or modes of administration of insulin and other head-to-head comparisons only individual studies were available so no conclusions could be made.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering agents in diabetes and CKD is limited. SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists are probably efficacious for glucose-lowering and DPP-4 inhibitors may be efficacious for glucose-lowering. Additionally, SGLT2 inhibitors probably reduce BP, heart failure, and hyperkalaemia but increase genital infections, and slightly increase creatinine. The safety profile for GLP-1 agonists is uncertain. No further conclusions could be made for the other classes of glucose-lowering agents including insulin. More high quality studies are required to help guide therapeutic choice for glucose-lowering in diabetes and CKD.

Clinical assessment and treatment of diabetes in patients with chronic kidney disease

Diabetes mellitus type 2 is the main cause of chronic kidney disease. Patients with this disease have higher morbidity and mortality and risk of hypoglycaemia than those without this disease. In 2010, type 2 diabetes was the reason for starting renal replacement therapy in 24.7% of patients. The prevalence of microalbuminuria, proteinuria and a reduced glomerular filtration rate is 36%, 8% and 22%, respectively. The presence of albuminuria is a predictor of chronic kidney disease. Diabetic kidney disease, previously known as diabetic nephropathy, refers to kidney disease caused by diabetes. Renal hyperfiltration is a marker of intraglomerular hypertension and a risk factor for onset and progression. The new antidiabetic drugs, mainly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, have been shown to prevent or slow the progression of kidney disease.

Comparative efficacy and safety of gemigliptin versus linagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients with renal impairment: A 40-week extension of the GUARD randomized study

AIMS

The long-term safety and efficacy of gemigliptin was evaluated in the present extension study after a 12-week study during a 40-week follow-up period.

METHODS

The main study was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, phase IIIb study in which 50 mg of gemigliptin (N = 66) or placebo (N = 66) was administered to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and moderate or severe renal impairment over a 12-week period. Patients with a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level of 7% to 11% and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 15 to 59 mL/min/1.73 m² were enrolled in the main study. After 12 weeks, patients in the gemigliptin group continued to receive gemigliptin (N = 50), whereas patients in the placebo group were transitioned from placebo to linagliptin (N = 52). Each group received the indicated treatment over the subsequent 40-week period. A total of 102 patients consented to participate in the extension study, and 79 patients ultimately completed the study.

RESULTS

The HbA1c levels of both groups were significantly reduced at week 52 compared with baseline. Specifically, the adjusted mean change ± standard error in HbA1c level in the gemigliptin and placebo/linagliptin groups was 1.00% ± 0.21% and 0.65% ± 0.22% lower at week 52 than at baseline (P < .001 and P = .003), respectively. No significant difference in the change in HbA1c level was found between the 2 groups (P = .148). Trends in fasting plasma glucose, fructosamine and glycated albumin levels in the 2 groups were similar to trends in HbA1c levels. The eGFR of both groups was also significantly lower at week 52 than at baseline, and no significant difference in change in eGFR was found between the 2 groups. In contrast, both drugs had little effect on urinary albumin excretion, although both drugs significantly reduced the urinary type IV collagen level. The overall rates of adverse events were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemigliptin and linagliptin did not differ with respect to safety and efficacy in patients with T2DM and renal impairment. The 2 drugs had similar glucose-lowering effects, and the changes in eGFR and albuminuria were also similar. Additionally, the risk of side effects, including hypoglycaemia, was similar between the 2 groups.

Management Strategies for Posttransplant Diabetes Mellitus after Heart Transplantation: A Review

Posttransplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is a well-recognized complication of heart transplantation and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Previous studies have yielded wide ranging estimates in the incidence of PTDM due in part to variable definitions applied. In addition, there is a limited published data on the management of PTDM after heart transplantation and a paucity of studies examining the effects of newer classes of hypoglycaemic drug therapies. In this review, we discuss the role of established glucose-lowering therapies and the rationale and emerging clinical evidence that supports the role of incretin-based therapies (glucagon like peptide- (GLP-) 1 agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase- (DPP-) 4 inhibitors) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in the management of PTDM after heart transplantation. Recently published Consensus Guidelines for the diagnosis of PTDM will hopefully lead to more consistent approaches to the diagnosis of PTDM and provide a platform for the larger-scale multicentre trials that will be needed to determine the role of these newer therapies in the management of PTDM.

Effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes patients with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials using unadjusted data

BACKGROUND

Three meta-analyses recently evaluated the effects of dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, the combination of adjusted and unadjusted data in these meta-analyses may be questionable. The present study performed a meta-analysis of the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors in T2D patients with moderate to severe CKD using unadjusted data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase (via Ovid), and Cochrane Central databases were searched for papers regarding the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors in CKD patients published before 1 August 2016. Data were independently extracted by two authors. A pooled analysis of unadjusted data was performed using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Twelve studies representing 10 RCTs were included in the present analysis. Comparing mean HbA1c change between placebo and treatment, DPP-4 inhibitors significantly improved HbA1c levels at 12 weeks (mean difference [MD] -0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.54, -0.29), but improvements in HbA1c were seen only in dialysis patients at 24 weeks (MD -0.52; 95% CI -0.72, -0.32)*. Improvements in HbA1c were equivalent between DPP-4 inhibitors and sulfonylureas at 52 or 54 weeks. There were no significant differences in the incidence of severe or any hypoglycemic events between DPP-4 inhibitors and control (placebo or sulfonylureas) at 12, 24, and 52 or 54 weeks. However, DPP-4 inhibitors induced fewer symptomatic hypoglycemic events compared with sulfonylureas at 52 or 54 weeks. *[Correction added on 30 October 2017, after first online publication: The value '0.32' has been corrected to '-0.32'.] CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis shows that DPP-4 inhibitors are effective and comparable with sulfonylureas in T2D patients with moderate to severe CKD.

The Role of Vildagliptin in the Therapy of Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Renal Dysfunction

Diabetes is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease, and even in the absence of albuminuria, decreased renal function in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients increases the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and death. The evidence derived from recent studies suggests that intensive glucose control not only reduces the risk for microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria but may also decrease the rate of decline of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Although insulin therapy is widely used in patients with T2DM and renal disease, metabolic control is particularly difficult to achieve and manage because of the limited therapeutic options and the frequent comorbidities seen in this population. Recent evidence suggests that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors may offer a better choice for improving glycemic control in T2DM patients with low GFR. This review will focus on vildagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor with a large body of evidence in patients with moderate to severe renal failure and a good clinical profile in terms of efficacy and safety. In particular, vildagliptin, with appropriate dose adjustment, provides clinically important reductions in glycated hemoglobin, without increasing weight and the risk of hypoglycemia even in patients with severe chronic kidney disease.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor Development and Post-authorisation Programme for Vildagliptin - Clinical Evidence for Optimised Management of Chronic Diseases Beyond Type 2 Diabetes

The last decade has witnessed the role of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in producing a conceptual change in early management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by shifting emphasis from a gluco-centric approach to holistically treating underlying pathophysiological processes. DPP-4 inhibitors highlighted the importance of acknowledging hypoglycaemia and weight gain as barriers to optimised care in T2DM. These complications were an integral part of diabetes management before the introduction of DPP-4 inhibitors. During the development of DPP-4 inhibitors, regulatory requirements for introducing new agents underwent substantial changes, with increased emphasis on safety. This led to the systematic collection of adjudicated cardiovascular (CV) safety data, and, where 95% confidence of a lack of harm could not be demonstrated, the standardised CV safety studies. Furthermore, the growing awareness of the worldwide extent of T2DM demanded a more diverse approach to recruitment and participation in clinical trials. Finally, the global financial crisis placed a new awareness on the health economics of diabetes, which rapidly became the most expensive disease in the world. This review encompasses unique developments in the global landscape, and the role DPP-4 inhibitors, specifically vildagliptin, have played in research advancement and optimisation of diabetes care in a diverse population with T2DM worldwide.

Cardiovascular Safety of Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Large randomized trials have shown conflicting evidence regarding the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Systematic reviews have been limited by incomplete data and inclusion of observational studies. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared DPP-4 inhibitors versus placebo and reported cardiovascular outcomes. The main outcome assessed in this analysis was heart failure. Other outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were primarily constructed using Peto's model.

RESULTS

A total of 90 trials with 66,730 patients were included. Compared with placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a non-significant increased risk of heart failure [OR 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.25, P = 0.07] at a mean of 108 weeks. The risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12, P = 0.53), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.14, P = 0.72), myocardial infarction (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.09, P = 0.69), and ischemic stroke (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85-1.15, P = 0.92) was similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with type 2 diabetes, the safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors is similar to placebo. As a class, there is only weak evidence for an increased risk of heart failure.

Effect of race and ethnicity on vildagliptin efficacy: A pooled analysis of phase II and III studies

AIMS

To determine the impact of race and ethnicity on the efficacy, body weight and hypoglycaemia incidence with vildagliptin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using patient-level data from the vildagliptin clinical trial programme.

METHODS

Data from 22 randomized, placebo-controlled global and local (Japan, China) registration studies of vildagliptin (50 mg once-daily or twice-daily) of ≥12-week duration were analysed by race (Caucasian [n = 2764] and Asian [n = 2232]) and by ethnicity (Japanese, Chinese, and Indian). The placebo-subtracted differences in the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight from baseline to week 12 or week 24 were evaluated by race or ethnicity using repeated measure analysis of unstructured covariance. Hypoglycaemia incidences were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The HbA1c reduction from baseline with vildagliptin was similar across the racial/ethnic subgroups (-0.83% ± 0.02% to -1.01% ± 0.05%). Placebo-corrected HbA1c reduction was similar between Caucasian (-0.68% ± 0.03%) and Asian (-0.80% ± 0.03%) patients ( P value for interaction = .56); analysis by race and ethnicity showed better efficacy ( P < .02) in Japanese patients. Japanese patients were drug-naïve and treated with a single oral anti-diabetes drug only; they showed no response to placebo. Weight neutrality of vildagliptin was demonstrated in all groups (0.47 ± 0.11 kg to -0.29 ± 0.08 kg). Hypoglycaemic events (≥1) were infrequent in all ethnic subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The glycaemic efficacy of vildagliptin was similar in Caucasian and Asian patients. The slightly better efficacy observed in Japanese patients was driven by the absence of placebo effect and might be explained by their earlier stage of diabetes compared to other subgroups.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Given recent discrepant results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we examined the totality of RCT evidence assessing the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and heart failure.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched without language restrictions to August 2016 for RCTs comparing DPP-4 inhibitors to placebo or no therapy for a period of 24 weeks or more. We included all heart failure outcomes when listed either as a serious adverse event or adverse event. Pooled analyses used random-effects.

RESULTS

We identified 100 RCTs (n = 79 867) - 3 large cardiovascular-safety RCTs (SAVOR-TIMI 53[saxagliptin]/n = 16 492, EXAMINE[alogliptin]/n = 5380, and TECOS[sitagliptin]/n = 14 735), and 97 smaller RCTs with a primary outcome that was usually change in glycated hemoglobin. Virtually all RCTs were high-quality, multicentre, placebo-controlled trials. A total of 96% (1192/1244) of heart failure events were prespecified, blindly adjudicated and required hospital admission. Pooled results suggested a 13% increase in heart failure (relative risk [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.26, I2 = 0%; 32 RCTs, n = 54 640, 1244 events). When including only the 3 large RCTs, the increase was similar, but not significant (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97-1.32; 3 RCTs, n = 36 543, 1169 adjudicated events; number needed to harm 246) owing to heterogeneity (I2 = 42%), which lead to wider CIs, because SAVOR-TIMI 53 showed increased heart failure (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.49) and TECOS showed no effect (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83-1.19).

INTERPRETATION

Despite pooled data from 79 867 patients, whether DPP-4 inhibitors increase heart failure overall or exhibit within-class differences remains unresolved. Our results highlight the importance of ongoing trials that are comparing DPP-4 inhibitors to placebo, although no large cardiovascular-safety RCTs are comparing different DPP-4 inhibitors to each other; consequently, these will address the overall but not class-difference question.

Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in addition to insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on hemodialysis evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring

AIMS

Appropriate glycemic control without hypoglycemia is important in patients with type 2 diabetes on hemodialysis. Teneligliptin, a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, can be used without dose adjustment for these patients. Using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), we evaluated the efficacy and safety of adding teneligliptin to insulin therapy.

METHODS

Twenty-one type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on hemodialysis treated with insulin were enrolled. After the adjustment of insulin dose, their blood glucose level was monitored by CGM. Insulin dose was reduced after teneligliptin administration.

RESULTS

The median total daily insulin dose significantly reduced from 18 (9-24)U to 6 (0-14)U (p<0.0001). Maximum, mean, and standard deviation of blood glucose level on the hemodialysis and non-hemodialysis days did not change after teneligliptin administration. However, minimum blood glucose level was significantly elevated on the hemodialysis day after teneligliptin administration (from 3.9±1.0mmol/L to 4.4±0.9mmol/L, p=0.040). The incidence of asymptomatic hypoglycemia on the hemodialysis day detected by CGM significantly decreased from 38.1% to 19.0% (p=0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Teneligliptin may contribute toward reducing the total daily insulin dose and preventing hypoglycemic events on the hemodialysis day in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

Hepatic Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Controls Pharmacokinetics of Vildagliptin In Vivo

The main route of elimination of vildagliptin, which is an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), in humans is cyano group hydrolysis to produce a carboxylic acid metabolite M20.7. Our in vitro study previously demonstrated that DPP-4 itself greatly contributed to the hydrolysis of vildagliptin in mouse, rat, and human livers. To investigate whether hepatic DPP-4 contributes to the hydrolysis of vildagliptin in vivo, in the present study, we conducted in vivo pharmacokinetics studies of vildagliptin in mice coadministered with vildagliptin and sitagliptin, which is another DPP-4 inhibitor, and also in streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic mice. The area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) value of M20.7 in mice coadministered with vildagliptin and sitagliptin was significantly lower than that in mice administered vildagliptin alone (P < 0.01). Although plasma DPP-4 expression level was increased 1.9-fold, hepatic DPP-4 activity was decreased in STZ-induced diabetic mice. The AUC values of M20.7 in STZ-induced diabetic mice were lower than those in control mice (P < 0.01). Additionally, the AUC values of M20.7 significantly positively correlated with hepatic DPP-4 activities in the individual mice (Rs = 0.943, P < 0.05). These findings indicated that DPP-4 greatly contributed to the hydrolysis of vildagliptin in vivo and that not plasma, but hepatic DPP-4 controlled pharmacokinetics of vildagliptin. Furthermore, enzyme assays of 23 individual human liver samples showed that there was a 3.6-fold interindividual variability in vildagliptin-hydrolyzing activities. Predetermination of the interindividual variability of hepatic vildagliptin-hydrolyzing activity might be useful for the prediction of blood vildagliptin concentrations in vivo.

Update on the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

To achieve good metabolic control in diabetes and keep long term, a combination of changes in lifestyle and pharmacological treatment is necessary. Achieving near-normal glycated hemoglobin significantly, decreases risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications. At present there are different treatments, both oral and injectable, available for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Treatment algorithms designed to reduce the development or progression of the complications of diabetes emphasizes the need for good glycaemic control. The aim of this review is to perform an update on the benefits and limitations of different drugs, both current and future, for the treatment of T2DM. Initial intervention should focus on lifestyle changes. Moreover, changes in lifestyle have proven to be beneficial, but for many patients is a complication keep long term. Physicians should be familiar with the different types of existing drugs for the treatment of diabetes and select the most effective, safe and better tolerated by patients. Metformin remains the first choice of treatment for most patients. Other alternative or second-line treatment options should be individualized depending on the characteristics of each patient. This article reviews the treatments available for patients with T2DM, with an emphasis on agents introduced within the last decade.

Systematic Literature Review of DPP-4 Inhibitors in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Renal Impairment

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are widely used in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and renal impairment (RI). A systematic literature review was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with T2DM and RI.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (cut-off, June 2015) to identify ≥12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trials on DPP-4 inhibitors in ≥50 patients with T2DM and RI. Outcomes of interest included change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), overall safety, and incidence of hypoglycemic events (HEs).

RESULTS

Seven trials of ≤52-54 weeks duration were retrieved, which included one study each on vildagliptin, saxagliptin, and sitagliptin, two on linagliptin, and the remaining two were extension studies of vildagliptin and saxagliptin. Majority of patients were on insulin at baseline (53-86%), except in the sitagliptin study, where approximately 11% received insulin during the placebo-controlled phase. After 52 weeks, vildagliptin and saxagliptin reduced HbA1c levels by 0.6-0.7% (baseline 7.8-8.4%) versus placebo in the overall population. HbA1c reductions were similar at weeks 12 and 52. In the 12-week, placebo-controlled phase, sitagliptin and linagliptin reduced mean HbA1c by approximately 0.4% (baseline 7.7-8.1%) versus placebo. Rates of HEs with DPP-4 inhibitors were not significantly different versus placebo in any study. Rates of adverse events (AEs) and changes involving renal function were similar in the active- and placebo-treated groups.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that DPP-4 inhibitors have the potential to improve glycemic control in patients with RI without increasing the risk of HEs or overall AEs.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma AG.

Short-term and long-term effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with renal impairment: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

To assess the short-term and long-term effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with renal impairment, a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of DPP-4 inhibitor interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with renal impairment was performed. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through the end of March 2015. Randomized clinical trials were selected if (1) DPP-4 inhibitors were compared with a placebo or other active-comparators, (2) the treatment duration was ≥12 weeks and (3) data regarding changes in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c ), changes in fasting plasma glucose or hypoglycaemia and other adverse events were reported. Of 790 studies, ten studies on eight randomized clinical trials were included. Compared with the control group, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a greater HbA1c reduction in both the short-term [mean differences (MD) = -0.45, 95% confidence intervals (-0.57, -0.33), p < 0.0001] and long-term [MD = -0.33, 95% confidence intervals (-0.63, -0.03), p = 0.03] treatments. However, the long-term greater reduction in HbA1c with DPP-4 inhibitor treatment was only significant when the control treatment comprised placebo plus stable background treatment, but not glipizide plus stable background treatment. DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a greater fasting plasma glucose reduction [MD = -12.59, 95% confidence intervals (-22.01, -3.17), p = 0.009] over the short-term; however, this effect was not present over the long-term. Regarding the hypoglycaemia adverse events assessment, the long-term treatment data indicated there was no increased risk of hypoglycaemia compared with placebo or active-controlled anti-diabetic drugs. The present meta-analysis confirms that DPP-4 inhibitors are effective and equivalent to other agents in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with renal impairment. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Interactions between kidney disease and diabetes: dangerous liaisons

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) globally affects 18-20 % of adults over the age of 65 years. Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is one of the most frequent and dangerous complications of DM2, affecting about one-third of the patients with DM2. In addition to the pancreas, adipocytes, liver, and intestines, the kidneys also play an important role in glycemic control, particularly due to renal contribution to gluconeogenesis and tubular reabsorption of glucose.

METHODS

In this review article, based on a report of discussions from an interdisciplinary group of experts in the areas of endocrinology, diabetology and nephrology, we detail the relationship between diabetes and kidney disease, addressing the care in the diagnosis, the difficulties in achieving glycemic control and possible treatments that can be applied according to the different degrees of impairment.

DISCUSSION

Glucose homeostasis is extremely altered in patients with DKD, who are exposed to a high risk of both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Both high and low glycemic levels are associated with increased morbidity and shortened survival in this group of patients. Factors that are associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia in DKD patients include decreased renal gluconeogenesis, deranged metabolic pathways (including altered metabolism of medications) and decreased insulin clearance. On the other hand, decrease glucose filtration and excretion, and inflammation-induce insulin resistance are predisposing factors to hyperglycemic episodes.

CONCLUSION

Appropriate glycaemic monitoring and control tailored for diabetic patients is required to avoid hypoglycaemia and other glycaemic disarrays in patients with DM2 and kidney disease. Understanding the renal physiology and pathophysiology of DKD has become essential to all specialties treating diabetic patients. Disseminating this knowledge and detailing the evidence will be important to initiate breakthrough research and to encourage proper treatment of this group of patients.

An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVE

This updated meta-analysis determines the effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on glycemic and tolerability outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease with glomerular filtration rate of ⩽60 mL/min or on dialysis.

METHODS

In all, 14 citations were identified from multiple databases. Qualitative assessments and quantitative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

There were 2261 participants, 49-79 years of age, 49% men and 44% Caucasians. In seven placebo-comparator studies, reduction in hemoglobin A1c at weeks 12-24 was 0.55% (95% confidence interval: -0.68 to -0.43), P < 0.00001). In three sulfonylurea-comparator studies, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors did not significantly reduce hemoglobin A1c at weeks 52-54 (-0.15% (95% confidence interval: -0.32 to 0.02)). In one sitagliptin versus albiglutide study, albiglutide significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c in patients with moderate renal impairment (-0.51%). A similar reduction in hemoglobin A1c was seen with sitagliptin versus vildagliptin (-0.56% vs -0.54%). Compared with placebo or sulfonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors did not significantly reduce hemoglobin A1c after 12 and 54 weeks in patients on dialysis. Hypoglycemia was reported by ~30% of patients in both dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and placebo groups over 24-52 weeks. While hypoglycemia was more common with a sulfonylurea at 52-54 weeks (risk ratio: 0.46 (95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 1.18)), there was significant heterogeneity (I (2) = 87%). Limitations included high drop-out rate from most studies and small number of active-comparator studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with chronic kidney disease caused a modest reduction in hemoglobin A1c versus placebo, but not when compared with sulfonylureas or albiglutide, or when used in patients on dialysis. Additional active-comparator studies are needed to further elucidate the role of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with chronic kidney disease stages 3-5 or on dialysis.

Clinical pharmacology of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of oral antidiabetic drugs that improve glycaemic control without causing weight gain or increasing hypoglycaemic risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The eight available DPP-4 inhibitors, including alogliptin, anagliptin, gemigliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, teneligliptin, and vildagliptin, are small molecules used orally with identical mechanism of action and similar safety profiles in patients with T2DM. DPP-4 inhibitors may be used as monotherapy or in double or triple combination with other oral glucose-lowering agents such as metformin, thiazolidinediones, or sulfonylureas. Although DPP-4 inhibitors have the same mode of action, they differ by some important pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties that may be clinically relevant in some patients. The main differences between the eight gliptins include: potency, target selectivity, oral bioavailability, elimination half-life, binding to plasma proteins, metabolic pathways, formation of active metabolite(s), main excretion routes, dosage adjustment for renal and liver insufficiency, and potential drug-drug interactions. The off-target inhibition of selective DPP-4 inhibitors is responsible for multiorgan toxicities such as immune dysfunction, impaired healing, and skin reactions. As a drug class, the DPP-4 inhibitors have become accepted in clinical practice due to their excellent tolerability profile, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia, a neutral effect on body weight, and once-daily dosing. It is unknown if DPP-4 inhibitors can prevent disease progression. More clinical studies are needed to validate the optimal regimens of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of T2DM when their potential toxicities are closely monitored.

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.

Addition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors to sulphonylureas and risk of hypoglycaemia: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the risk of hypoglycaemia associated with the concomitant use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sulphonylureas compared with placebo and sulphonylureas.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, ISI Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrial.gov were searched without any language restriction.

STUDY SELECTION

Placebo controlled randomised trials comprising at least 50 participants with type 2 diabetes treated with DPP-4 inhibitors and sulphonylureas.

REVIEW METHODS

Risk of bias in each trial was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The risk ratio of hypoglycaemia with 95% confidence intervals was computed for each study and then pooled using fixed effect models (Mantel Haenszel method) or random effect models, when appropriate. Subgroup analyses were also performed (eg, dose of DPP-4 inhibitors). The number needed to harm (NNH) was estimated according to treatment duration.

RESULTS

10 studies were included, representing a total of 6546 participants (4020 received DPP-4 inhibitors plus sulphonylureas, 2526 placebo plus sulphonylureas). The risk ratio of hypoglycaemia was 1.52 (95% confidence interval 1.29 to 1.80). The NNH was 17 (95% confidence interval 11 to 30) for a treatment duration of six months or less, 15 (9 to 26) for 6.1 to 12 months, and 8 (5 to 15) for more than one year. In subgroup analysis, no difference was found between full and low doses of DPP-4 inhibitors: the risk ratio related to full dose DPP-4 inhibitors was 1.66 (1.34 to 2.06), whereas the increased risk ratio related to low dose DPP-4 inhibitors did not reach statistical significance (1.33, 0.92 to 1.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of DPP-4 inhibitors to sulphonylurea to treat people with type 2 diabetes is associated with a 50% increased risk of hypoglycaemia and to one excess case of hypoglycaemia for every 17 patients in the first six months of treatment. This highlights the need to respect recommendations for a decrease in sulphonylureas dose when initiating DPP-4 inhibitors and to assess the effectiveness of this risk minimisation strategy.

Oral antidiabetics use among diabetic type 2 patients with chronic kidney disease. Do nephrologists take account of recommendations?

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing prevalence of diabetes type 2 and chronic kidney disease, challenging appropriate prescribing of oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

We have described the practice patterns of 13 nephrologists in 4 centers, in a cohort of 301 consecutive adult type 2 diabetic patients. Among oral anti-diabetic prescriptions, we have detailed drugs dosage for each subject, with 3 different formulae for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and its adequation according to the latest ERBP recommendations (2015). As individuals were mostly obese in this work, we also compare adequacy rates using both standard indexed CKD-EPI formula and CKD-EPI formula de-indexed from body surface area.

RESULTS

Using the CKD-EPI formula as the reference method for estimating GFR, 53.5% of patients were outside the recommendations, mostly for metformin (30% of the whole cohort) and for sitagliptin (17.9% of the whole cohort). With Cockcroft and Gault formula, 38.2% of persons were outside recommendations and 45.9% (p<0.001) with CKD-EPI de-indexed. Among individuals consulting a nephrologist for the first time (n=90), 61.1% were outside recommendations (p=0.1). Among those persons under diabetologist supervision (n=103), 63.1% were outside recommendations (p=0.09), and were taking significantly more often metformin and insulin.

CONCLUSION

We have found a substantial number of inadequate OAD prescriptions in type 2 diabetic patients with chronic kidney disease. The proportion of individuals outside guidelines was strongly affected by the method used for estimating GFR and by the type of practice, i.e., specialists versus general practitioners.

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.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibition in chronic kidney disease and potential for protection against diabetes-related renal injury

AIMS

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with a high risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD). About 20% of patients with T2DM have CKD of stage ≥ 3; up to 40% have some degree of CKD. Beyond targeting all renal risk factors together, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers are to date the only effective mainstay for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). Indeed, several potentially nephroprotective agents have been in use, which have been unsuccessful. Some glucose-lowering agents, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), have shown promising results. Here, we discuss the evidence that glucose lowering with DPP-4i may be an option for protecting against diabetes-related renal injury.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A comprehensive search was performed of the literature using the terms "alogliptin," "linagliptin," "saxagliptin," "sitagliptin," and "vildagliptin" for original articles and reviews addressing this topic. DPP-4i are an effective, well-tolerated treatment option for T2DM with any degree of renal impairment. Preclinical observations and clinical studies suggest that DPP-4i might also be a promising strategy for the treatment of DKD. The available data are in favor of saxagliptin and linagliptin, but the consistency of results points to the possible nephroprotective effect of DPP-4i. This property appears to be independent of glucose lowering and can potentially complement other therapies that preserve renal function. Larger prospective clinical trials are ongoing, which might strengthen these hypothesis-generating findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The improvement in albuminuria associated with DPP-4i suggests that these agents may provide renal benefits beyond their glucose-lowering effects, thus offering direct protection from DKD. These promising results must be interpreted with caution and need to be confirmed in forthcoming studies.

A systematic review of the safety of incretin-based therapies in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that incretin-based therapies provide effective glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Long-term safety assessments are ongoing.

METHODS

This systematic review of incretin-based therapy safety is based on 112 randomized clinical trials of duration ≥26 weeks published between January 2000 and February 2015 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

As expected, hypoglycemia rates were lower with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) versus other oral antidiabetic drugs and insulin. The most common adverse events were infection and infestation (DPP-4is) and gastrointestinal (GLP-1 RAs). Pancreatitis cases were rare across all studies and, in the SAVOR-TIMI and EXAMINE trials, pancreatitis rates were similar in DPP-4i- and placebo-treated patients. No thyroid tumors were reported, and increased risk of cardiovascular events was not associated with DPP-4is in SAVOR-TIMI and EXAMINE, albeit over a short follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, incretin-based therapies were well tolerated; however, their long-term safety profile should continue to be periodically assessed.

Linagliptin monotherapy compared with voglibose monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing hemodialysis: a 12-week randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Focusing on efficacy and tolerability, we compared linagliptin monotherapy with voglibose monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing hemodialysis (HD).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, active-controlled study, 78 patients were randomized (1:1) to receive a 12-week treatment with 5 mg linagliptin once daily or 0.2 mg voglibose three times a day. To assess whether linagliptin was superior to voglibose, the primary efficacy end point was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level between baseline and week 12. Secondary efficacy end points included changes between baseline and week 12 in glycated albumin (GA) and casual plasma glucose (PG) levels.

RESULTS

At week 12, the adjusted mean HbA1c levels had decreased by -0.60% after treatment with linagliptin and by -0.20% after treatment with voglibose (treatment difference: -0.40%, 95% CI -0.74% to -0.06%, p=0.022). A significant reduction in casual PG level was also observed after treatment with linagliptin compared with treatment with voglibose. Relative to voglibose, linagliptin tended to elicit reductions in GA, although without statistical significance. No hypoglycemic symptoms or severe hypoglycemia occurred during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing HD, linagliptin monotherapy provided significantly better glycemic control without severe hypoglycemia than voglibose monotherapy. Linagliptin represents a promising agent for glycemic management in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing HD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000007635; results.

Risk of pancreatic adverse events associated with the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor drugs: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

AIM: To systematically assess risk of pancreatic adverse events with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor drugs.

METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane review of clinical trials, pharmaceutical company clinical trials register, United States Food and Drug Administration website, European Medicines Agency website and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials from inception to October 2013. Randomized control trial studies were selected for inclusion if they reported on pancreatic complication events and/or changes in pancreatic enzyme levels (serum amylase and serum lipase) as adverse events or as serious adverse events for patients who were on GLP-1 receptor agonist and DPP-4 inhibitor drugs. Two independent reviewers extracted data directly. We performed Peto odds ratio (OR) fixed effect meta-analysis of pancreatic adverse events a, and assessed heterogeneity with the I² statistic.

RESULTS: Sixty-eight randomized controlled trials were eligible. A total of 60720 patients were included in our analysis of the association of risk of pancreatic complication events with GLP-1 agents. A total of 89 pancreatic related adverse events occurred among the GLP-1 agents compared to 74 events among the controls. There was a statistically significant increased risk of elevation of pancreatic enzymes associated with GLP-1 agents compared with control (Peto OR = 3.15, 95%CI: 1.56-6.39, P = 0.001, I² = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of pancreatic adverse event associated with GLP-1 agent compared with controls (Peto OR = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.73-1.37, P = 1.00, I² = 0%). There were a total of 71 pancreatitis events in patients on GLP-1 agents and 56 pancreatitis events occurred in the control patients. There were 36 reports of pancreatic cancer in these studies. Of these cases, 2 used linagliptin, 2 used alogliptin, 1 used vildagliptin, 7 used saxagliptin while 6 used sitagliptin. The remaining 18 cases occurred among controls.

CONCLUSION: Although GLP-1 based agents are associated with pancreatic enzyme elevation, we were unable to confirm a significant risk of pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer.

Cardiovascular and heart failure safety profile of vildagliptin: a meta-analysis of 17 000 patients

AIMS

To report the cardiovascular (CV) safety profile and heart failure (HF) risk of vildagliptin from a large pool of studies, including trials in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), such as those with congestive HF and/or moderate/severe renal impairment.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective meta-analysis of prospectively adjudicated CV events. Patient-level data were pooled from 40 double-blind, randomized controlled phase III and IV vildagliptin studies. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major adverse CV events (MACEs; myocardial infarction, stroke and CV death). Assessments of the individual MACE components and HF events (requiring hospitalization or new onset) were secondary endpoints. The risk ratio (RR) of vildagliptin (50 mg once- and twice-daily combined) versus comparators (placebo and all non-vildagliptin treatments) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) method.

RESULTS

Of the 17 446 patients, 9599 received vildagliptin (9251.4 subject-years of exposure) and 7847 received comparators (7317.0 subject-years of exposure). The mean age of the patients was 57 years, body mass index 30.5 kg/m(2) (nearly 50% obese), glycated haemoglobin concentration 8.1% and T2DM duration 5.5 years. A MACE occurred in 83 (0.86%) vildagliptin-treated patients and 85 (1.20%) comparator-treated patients, with an M-H RR of 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-1.11]. Similar RRs were observed for the individual events. Confirmed HF events were reported in 41 (0.43%) vildagliptin-treated patients and 32 (0.45%) comparator-treated patients, with an M-H RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.68-1.70).

CONCLUSIONS

This large meta-analysis indicates that vildagliptin is not associated with an increased risk of adjudicated MACEs relative to comparators. Moreover, this analysis did not find a significant increased risk of HF in vildagliptin-treated patients.

Overview of Data Concerning the Safe Use of Antihyperglycemic Medications in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease

INTRODUCTION

It can be a challenge to manage glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), due to both patient and medication issues. Although most antihyperglycemic medications can be used in mild kidney disease, many medications are either not advised or require dose adjustments in more advanced CKD. This review summarizes product label information, pharmacokinetic and clinical studies, and clinical guidelines relevant to use of antihyperglycemic medications in CKD.

METHODS

Product labels and guidelines from North America and Europe, as well as pharmacokinetic and clinical studies of diabetes medication use in CKD were identified through Medline and PubMed searches, up to February 2015. Available data are summarized and correlations between treatment recommendations and available research are discussed, as are glycemic targets for patients with CKD.

RESULTS

Newer medications have significantly more data available than older medications regarding use in CKD, although larger clinical studies are still lacking for some drugs. As CKD advances, dose adjustment is needed for many medications [numerous dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, some insulins, sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors], although not for others (thiazolidinediones, meglitinides). Some medications are not recommended for use in more advanced CKD (metformin, SGLT2 inhibitors, some glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists) for safety or efficacy reasons. There is not always good alignment between label recommendations, pharmacokinetic or clinical studies, and guideline recommendations for use of these drugs in CKD. In particular, controversy remains about the use of metformin in moderate CKD and appropriate use of liraglutide and sulfonylureas in advanced CKD.

CONCLUSION

Considerable variability exists with respect to recommendations and clinical data for the many antihyperglycemic drugs used in patients with T2DM and CKD.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Comparison of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment: a randomised clinical trial

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

There are limited data comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors directly. We compared the safety and efficacy of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and severe renal impairment (RI).

METHODS

This study was a parallel-arm, randomised, multicentre, double-blind, 24 week study conducted in 87 centres across Brazil and the USA. Patients with type 2 diabetes, either drug naive or treated with any glucose-lowering agents, who had inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c 6.5-10.0% [48-86 mmol/mol]) and an estimated GFR <30 ml min(-1) [1.73 m](-2) were randomised (via interactive voice response technology) to vildagliptin 50 mg once daily or sitagliptin 25 mg once daily. These doses are recommended in this patient population and considered maximally effective. Participants, investigators and the sponsor were blinded to group assignment. Efficacy endpoints included change in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at all visits and the primary safety endpoint was assessment of treatment-emergent adverse events.

RESULTS

In total, 148 patients were randomised, 83 to vildagliptin and 65 to sitagliptin. All patients were analysed. After 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change in HbA1c was -0.54% (5.9 mmol/mol) from a baseline of 7.52% (59 mmol/mol) with vildagliptin and -0.56% (6.1 mmol/mol) from a baseline of 7.80% (62 mmol/mol) with sitagliptin (p = 0.874). FPG decreased by 0.47 ± 0.37 mmol/l with vildagliptin and increased by 0.16 ± 0.43 mmol/l with sitagliptin (p = 0.185). Both treatments were well tolerated with overall similar safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

At their recommended doses for severe RI, vildagliptin (50 mg once daily) compared with sitagliptin (25 mg once daily) demonstrated similar efficacy and both drugs were well tolerated. This study provides further support for the use of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with severe RI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00616811 (completed)

FUNDING

This study was planned and conducted by Novartis.

Pharmacokinetics and clinical use of incretin-based therapies in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes

The prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) of stages 3-5 (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] <60 mL/min) is about 25-30 % in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). While most oral antidiabetic agents have limitations in patients with CKD, incretin-based therapies are increasingly used for the management of T2DM. This review analyses (1) the influence of CKD on the pharmacokinetics of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists; and (2) the efficacy/safety profile of these agents in clinical practice when prescribed in patients with both T2DM and CKD. Most DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin) are predominantly excreted by the kidneys. Thereby, pharmacokinetic studies showed that total exposure to the drug is increased in proportion to the decline of GFR, leading to recommendations for appropriate dose reductions according to the severity of CKD. In these conditions, clinical studies reported a good efficacy and safety profile in patients with CKD. In contrast, linagliptin is eliminated by a predominantly hepatobiliary route. As a pharmacokinetic study showed only minimal influence of decreased GFR on total exposure, no dose adjustment of linagliptin is required in the case of CKD. The experience with GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with CKD is more limited. Exenatide is eliminated by renal mechanisms and should not be given in patients with severe CKD. Liraglutide is not eliminated by the kidney, but it should be used with caution because of the limited experience in patients with CKD. Only limited pharmacokinetic data are also available for lixisenatide, exenatide long-acting release (LAR) and other once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists in current development. Several case reports of acute renal failure have been described with GLP-1 receptor agonists, probably triggered by dehydration resulting from gastrointestinal adverse events. However, increasing GLP-1 may also exert favourable renal effects that could contribute to reducing the risk of diabetic nephropathy. In conclusion, the already large reassuring experience with DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with CKD offers new opportunities to the clinician, whereas more caution is required with GLP-1 receptor agonists because of the limited experience in this population.

Observational study on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: a real-life analysis on 360 patients from the ASL VCO territory in Italy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Diabetes mellitus is a complex, progressive disease that can lead to complications if it is not strictly controlled. The literature suggests that only 50 % of Italian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) achieve guideline-recommended levels of glycaemic control, suggesting that treatment regimens need to be improved. The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in terms of glycaemic control, body weight and lipid profile in a series of patients with T2DM attending a diabetes outpatient facility.

METHODS

This was an observational retrospective study performed on a series of patients with T2DM attending our three outpatient clinics. The study included 360 patients with T2DM of both sexes, aged between 30 and 85 years, with a body mass index (BMI) of 22-45 kg/m(2) who were uncontrolled [glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) 7.1-10 %] despite dietary restrictions or treatment with pharmacological therapy. Patients included in the analysis received therapy with a DPP-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin, n = 244; vildagliptin, n = 97; saxagliptin, n = 19).

RESULTS

Vildagliptin reduced HbA(1c) by 1.2 % compared with sitagliptin and saxagliptin (-0.9 %) from a baseline of 8 % (similar in all groups). The greatest decrease in fasting plasma glucose was seen with vildagliptin (-37 mg/dL) compared with sitagliptin and saxagliptin (-20 and -29 mg/dL, respectively). A greater reduction in total cholesterol was achieved with vildagliptin (-24 mg/dL) than with sitagliptin (-11 mg/dL) and saxagliptin (-3.6 mg/dL). Effectiveness was maintained in all age groups, provided disease duration was short (~5 to 6 years). Adverse effects were mild and transient and did not require treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

DPP-4 inhibitors are a viable option in patients with T2DM not adequately controlled by existing therapy. They demonstrate comparable efficacy to other antidiabetic medicines with regard to HbA(1c) reduction. The positive changes in the lipid profile make DPP-4 inhibitors a particularly interesting class of drugs; however, further studies are needed to confirm their true impact on cardiovascular risk in a real-world setting.

DPP-4 inhibitors: pharmacological differences and their clinical implications

INTRODUCTION

Recently, incretin-based therapy was introduced for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). In particular, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin and alogliptin) play an increasing role in the management of T2D.

AREAS COVERED

An extensive literature search was performed to analyze the pharmacological characteristics of DPP-4i and their clinical implications.

EXPERT OPINION

DPP-4i present significant pharmacokinetic differences. They also differ in chemical structure, in the interaction with distinct subsites of the enzyme and in different levels of selectivity and potency of enzyme inhibition. Moreover, disparities in the effects on glycated hemoglobin, glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucagon levels and on glucose variability have been observed. However, indirect comparisons indicate that all DPP-4i have a similar safety and efficacy profiles. DPP-4i are preferred in overweight/obese and elderly patients because of the advantages of minimal or no influence on weight gain and low risk of hypoglycemia. For the same reasons, DPP-4i can be safely combined with insulin. However, currently cardiovascular outcomes related to DPP-4i are widely debated and the available evidence is controversial. Today, long-term studies are still in progress and upcoming results will allow us to better define the strengths and limits of this therapeutic class.

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for treating type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (gliptins) occupy a growing place in the armamentarium of drugs used for the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, although some safety concerns have been raised in recent years.

AREAS COVERED

An updated review providing an analysis of available safety data (meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, observational cohort and case-control studies and pharmacovigilance reports) with five commercialized DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, linagliptin). A special focus is given to overall safety profile; pancreatic adverse events (AEs) (acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer); overall cardiovascular safety (myocardial infarction and stroke); congestive heart failure concern and finally, safety in special populations (elderly, renal impairment).

EXPERT OPINION

The good tolerance/safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors has been largely confirmed, including in more fragile populations (elderly, renal impairment) with almost no increased risk of infection or gastrointestinal AEs, no weight gain and a minimal risk of hypoglycemia. Although an increased risk of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer was suspected, the complete set of available data appears reassuring so far. Cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors has been proven but an unexpected increased risk of heart failure has been reported which should be confirmed in ongoing trials and better understood. Further postmarketing surveillance is recommended.

Antidiabetic therapy in post kidney transplantation diabetes mellitus

Post-transplantation diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is a common complication after kidney transplantation that affects up to 40% of kidney transplant recipients. By pathogenesis, PTDM is a diabetes form of its own, and may be characterised by a sudden, drug-induced deficiency in insulin secretion rather than worsening of insulin resistance over time. In the context of deteriorating allograft function leading to a re-occurrence of chronic kidney disease after transplantation, pharmacological interventions in PTDM patients deserve special attention. In the present review, we aim at presenting the current evidence regarding efficacy and safety of the modern antidiabetic armamentarium. Specifically, we focus on incretin-based therapies and insulin treatment, besides metformin and glitazones, and discuss their respective advantages and pitfalls. Although recent pilot trials are available in both prediabetes and PTDM, further studies are warranted to elucidate the ideal timing of various antidiabetics as well as its long-term impact on safety, glucose metabolism and cardiovascular outcomes in kidney transplant recipients.