Efficacy and safety of alogliptin added to metformin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with an open-label, long-term extension study

Metformin-Associated Gastrointestinal Adverse Events Are Reduced by Probiotics: A Meta-Analysis

Metformin, one of the most frequently used oral glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs), is associated with the occurrence of gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events in approximately 20% of users. These unwanted actions result in non-compliance or even discontinuation of metformin therapy. The aim of the presented meta-analysis was to determine whether adding a drug from the group of sulfonylureas, glitazones, DPP-IV inhibitors, or probiotics to metformin monotherapy may affect the risk of GI side effects. The material for this meta-analysis comprised data from 26 randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) published in English. This meta-analysis included 41,048 patients. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials databases were thoroughly searched to find relevant RCTs. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study Type (PICOT) structure was used to formulate study selection criteria and the research question. Cochrane Review Manager Software 5.4 was used to carry out analysis of collected data. The results were presented as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for each group, and p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. As expected from clinical practice, metformin was associated with a markedly increased risk of abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting compared to placebo. In comparison to other GLDs, taking metformin was related to an elevated risk of diarrhea and abdominal pain and to a lowered risk of vomiting and bloating. In turn, adding other GLDs to metformin treatment was associated with an elevated risk of nausea and vomiting than treatment with metformin in monotherapy. However, adding probiotics to metformin therapy was related to a decreased risk of diarrhea, bloating, and constipation. The obtained results demonstrate that the combination of metformin with other GLDs may elevate the risk of nausea and vomiting, whereas combination with probiotics decreases the risk of diarrhea, bloating, and constipation. Thus, the results of our meta-analysis suggest that probiotics may reduce the risk of some GI side effects in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who started treatment with metformin.

Retagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of retagliptin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with metformin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicentre, phase 3 trial consisted of a 16-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled period, where patients with HbA1c levels between 7.5% and 11.0% were randomized to receive either once-daily (QD) retagliptin 100 mg (n = 87) or placebo (n = 87), both as an add-on to metformin. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 16.

RESULTS

At week 16, the least squares mean change in HbA1c from baseline, compared with placebo, was -0.82% (95% CI, -1.05% to -0.58%) for the retagliptin 100 mg QD group (P < .0001) per treatment policy estimand. Significantly higher proportions of patients in the retagliptin 100 mg QD group achieved HbA1c levels of less than 6.5% (11.5%) and less than 7.0% (26.4%) compared with those receiving placebo (0% and 4.6%; P = .0016 and P < .0001, respectively) at week 16. Retagliptin 100 mg QD also lowered fasting plasma glucose and 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose levels. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) during the treatment period was similar between the two groups. However, slightly higher proportions of increased lipase and increased amylase in the retagliptin 100 mg QD group were observed. No patients discontinued treatment permanently because of AEs, and no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Retagliptin 100 mg QD as an add-on therapy to metformin offers a new therapeutic option for treating Chinese patients with T2D inadequately controlled by metformin alone, and is generally well tolerated.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Once-Daily Alogliptin/Metformin and Twice-Daily Anagliptin/Metformin Combination Tablet in a Randomized, Parallel-Group, Open-Label Trial in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The combination tablets of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and metformin are used for both once-daily and twice-daily agents in Japan. If there is no difference in effectiveness between the once-daily and twice-daily DPP-4 inhibitor/metformin combination tablets, the once-daily agent is advantageous in terms of frequency of administration. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of once-daily alogliptin/metformin combination tablet (alogliptin 25 mg/metformin 500 mg) and twice-daily anagliptin/metformin combination tablet low dose (LD) (anagliptin 100 mg/metformin 250 mg).

METHODS

Forty-eight Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes whose metformin administration of 250 mg twice daily had remained unchanged for at least 8 weeks, except when using DPP-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, or insulin, were randomized to either the once-daily alogliptin/metformin combination tablet group or the twice-daily anagliptin/metformin combination tablet LD group. The primary endpoint was the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels from baseline to week 12 of administration, whereas the secondary endpoints were fasting blood glucose, body mass index (BMI), and adherence.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients completed the study, and intention-to-treat analyses were performed. The adjusted mean value (standard error) for the change in HbA1c from week 0 to 12, was - 0.75 (0.109)% for the once-daily alogliptin/metformin combination tablet group and - 0.65 (0.109)% for the twice-daily anagliptin/metformin combination tablet LD group, with an intergroup difference of - 0.10% (95% confidence interval, CI - 0.407, 0.215). The upper limit of the bilateral 95% CI was 0.215%, below the 0.40% pre-defined as the non-inferiority margin. Fasting blood glucose, BMI, and adherence were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The once-daily alogliptin/metformin combination tablet was non-inferior to the twice-daily anagliptin/metformin combination tablet LD in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN-CTR) (registration number: UMIN000034951).

Role of Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors in Antidiabetic Treatment

In recent years, important changes have occurred in the field of diabetes treatment. The focus of the treatment of diabetic patients has shifted from the control of blood glucose itself to the overall management of risk factors, while adjusting blood glucose goals according to individualization. In addition, regulators need to approve new antidiabetic drugs which have been tested for cardiovascular safety. Thus, the newest class of drugs has been shown to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events, including sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) and some glucagon like peptide 1 receptor (GLP1) analog. As such, they have a prominent place in the hyperglycemia treatment algorithms. In recent years, the role of DPP4 inhibitors (DPP4i) has been modified. DPP4i have a favorable safety profile and anti-inflammatory profile, do not cause hypoglycemia or weight gain, and do not require dose escalation. In addition, it can also be applied to some types of chronic kidney disease patients and elderly patients with diabetes. Overall, DPP4i, as a class of safe oral hypoglycemic agents, have a role in the management of diabetic patients, and there is extensive experience in their use.

Effects of Increasing Metformin Dose vs Adding/Switching to Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors on Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Metformin has dose-dependent hypoglycemic effects on patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). In Japan, metformin has been prescribed at lower doses than in Western countries. We analyzed the effect of increasing the metformin dose on glycemic control and compared it to a combination therapy with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and a replacement therapy with DPP-4i.

METHODS

This is a cohort study using a Japanese claims database. Patients with T2D who had been initially treated with low-dose metformin (≥ 500 mg/day and < 1000 mg/day) and then given a prescription change by increasing metformin to a higher dose (≥ 1000 mg/day) (increased-dose), adding DPP-4i (drug-added), or switching to DPP-4i (drug-switched) were included in this study. The primary outcome was the change in HbA1c levels at 12 months from the baseline period.

RESULTS

Among 2,726,437 patients with T2D, 494 were included. Of these patients, 226, 240, and 28 patients were classified as increased-dose, drug-added, and drug-switched groups, respectively. The HbA1c levels at 12 months from the index significantly decreased compared to that during the baseline period. The change was the highest in the drug-added group (- 1.06%), followed by the increased-dose (- 0.91%) and the drug-switched groups (- 0.37%). Among the subset of patients who did not receive any antidiabetic drugs other than metformin or DPP-4i, the highest change in HbA1c levels was observed in the increased-dose group (- 0.84%), followed by the drug-added (- 0.67%) and the drug-switched (- 0.42%) groups. The order of decrease from baseline remained the same for all the study groups after the propensity score weighting adjustment.

CONCLUSION

The effect on glycemic control when increasing the metformin dose was studied in patients who had been receiving low-dose metformin. Increasing metformin dosage shows effectiveness and could be one of the next treatment options in patients who were prescribed low-dose metformin as the first-line treatment.

Incretin mimetics and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors as monotherapy or add-on to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Although there are many different methods of treating type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is still difficult to draw coincident conclusions concerning the efficacy and safety of different classes of new drugs, and the recommendation level of them has still kept uncertain as second anti-diabetic agents. Therefore, the aim of this study was to summarize evidence on the efficacy and safety of DPP-4is, GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is as monotherapy or add-on to metformin (Met) for treatment of T2D.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant articles in keeping with established methods using terms associated with anti-diabetic agents up to February, 2020, with no start date restriction. Weighted mean difference and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated within traditional and network meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were the mean change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) change and the frequency of hypoglycemic events from baseline after 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 64 eligible studies comprising 37,780 patients and 7 treatment strategies were included. The results of primary outcomes showed that GLP-1RAs were significantly more effective than DPP-4is or SGLT-2is in reducing HbA1c when add-on to Met. For FPG, both GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is significantly reduced FPG compared with DPP-4is whether add-on to Met or not. For hypoglycemia, monotherapy has a lower risk than combination therapy except for SGLT-2is. Ranking probability analysis indicated that GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is, respectively, reduced HbA1c and FPG most when add-on to Met. Meanwhile, GLP-1RAs took the lowest risk to induce the hypoglycemia, whereas GLP-1RAs plus Met the highest.

CONCLUSIONS

Both GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is have their own advantages in efficacy and safety. Monotherapy is beneficial for reducing the risk of hypoglycemia. The recommendation should be a patient-centered approach when selecting treatment choices.

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.

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

AIMS

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Risk of any hypoglycaemia with newer antihyperglycaemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

For patients with type 2 diabetes, newer antihyperglycaemic agents (AHA), including the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) offer a lower risk of hypoglycaemia relative to sulfonylurea or insulin. However, it is not clear how AHA compare to placebo on risk of any hypoglycaemia. This study evaluates the risk of any and severe hypoglycaemia with AHA and metformin relative to placebo.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized, placebo-controlled trials ≥12 weeks in duration. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to April 16, 2019. Studies allowing use of other diabetes medications were excluded. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals were used to pool estimates based on class of AHA and number of concomitant therapies used.

PATIENTS

Eligible studies enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes ≥18 years of age.

RESULTS

144 studies met our inclusion criteria. Any hypoglycaemia was not increased with AHA when used as monotherapy (DPP4i (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.81-1.56), GLP1RA (1.77; 0.91-3.46), SGLT2i (1.34; 0.83-2.15)), or as add-on to metformin (DPP4i (0.95; 0.67-1.35), GLP1RA (1.24; 0.80-1.91), SGLT2i (1.29; 0.91-1.83)) or as triple therapy (1.13; 0.67-1.91). However, metformin monotherapy (1.73; 1.02-2.94) and dual therapy initiation (3.56; 1.79-7.10) was associated with an increased risk of any hypoglycaemia. Severe hypoglycaemia was rare not increased for any comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin and the simultaneous initiation of dual therapy, but not AHA used alone or as single add-on combination therapy, was associated with an increased risk of any hypoglycaemia relative to placebo.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Alogliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) alogliptin is an oral, antidiabetic treatment that is approved in many countries to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), including the USA, Europe, and Japan. Alogliptin is efficacious both as monotherapy and as add-on/combination therapy with other commonly prescribed T2DM treatments, such as metformin and pioglitazone. Overall, alogliptin is well-tolerated in patients with T2DM, including older patients, those with renal and/or hepatic impairment, and those at high risk of cardiovascular events. There is a low risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, acute pancreatitis, and gastrointestinal adverse events with alogliptin treatment, as demonstrated in long-term trials (lasting up to 4.5 years) and in a real-world setting. Additionally, alogliptin has a generally favorable or similar safety profile in comparison to other antidiabetic agents (metformin, thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, and insulin). However, further evaluation would be required to determine the mechanism and effect of alogliptin on heart failure, bullous pemphigoid, and inflammatory bowel disease. Of note, due to the ethnic diversity in the epidemiology of T2DM, alogliptin has been shown to be more efficacious in Asian patients than in non-Asian patients with T2DM, but with a similar tolerability profile. These data indicate that DPP-4is, including alogliptin, are important treatment options, especially for Asian patients with T2DM, for whom they have potential as a first-line therapy. This benefit-risk assessment aims to place alogliptin within the current armamentarium of T2DM and aid physicians when choosing optimal diabetes treatment for their patients.

An up-to-date evaluation of alogliptin benzoate for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Introduction: A growth in the market for anti-diabetic drugs, along with an ever-increasing population suffering from type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), requires a critical re-evaluation of anti-diabetic drugs used for a long time, in order to provide up-to-date practical prescribing information for clinicians. Alogliptin benzoate was firstly approved in 2010 in Japan for T2DM, both as a monotherapy or in combination with other anti-diabetic drugs. Areas covered: This article provides a comprehensive review of the latest data on alogliptin benzoate, including hypoglycemic activity and safety. Expert opinion: The cumulative evidence for alogliptin benzoate is robust with regards to glycemic efficacy and safety. Low hypoglycemia risks and weight changes support its consideration as a first-line medication for T2DM, either as a monotherapy or in combination therapy with other anti-diabetic drugs such as metformin. Ongoing trials will look to better analyze and address its safety and efficacy in pediatric patients and expand our clinical knowledge of this medication.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with an α-glucosidase inhibitor and a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review with meta-analysis

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

The combination of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors and α-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs) might provide an additive or synergistic glucose-lowering effect, as they have a complementary mode of action. In the present study, we examined the efficacy and safety of the addition of a DPP4 inhibitor to patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with an AGI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov through October 2016. Randomized controlled trials written in English that compared DPP4 inhibitors plus AGI (DPP4i/AGI) and placebo plus AGI (PCB/AGI) in patients with type 2 diabetes were selected. Data on the study characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted, and the risk of potential biases was assessed. The efficacy and safety of DPP4i/AGI and PCB/AGI were compared.

RESULTS

Of 756 potentially relevant published articles and 40 registered trials, five studies including 845 patients randomized to DPP4i/AGI and 832 patients randomized to PCB/AGI were included for meta-analysis. Compared with PCB/AGI, DPP4i/AGI showed a greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin (weighted mean difference -1.2%, 95% confidence interval -1.6 to -0.8), fasting plasma glucose and 2-h postprandial plasma glucose levels, with no increase in bodyweight. The risks of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were similar between DPP4i/AGI and PCB/AGI.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of a DPP4 inhibitor to patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with an AGI achieved better glycemic control without further increasing the risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia.

Ethnic Differences in Efficacy and Safety of Alogliptin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Alogliptin is a highly selective, potent, and orally available dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. This study compared the glucose-lowering efficacy and safety of alogliptin between Asian and non-Asian patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science databases for articles published June 2017 and earlier in English. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with type 2 diabetes that compared alogliptin with placebo as either monotherapy or add-on therapy. We divided subgroups by ethnicity, and compared the results of alogliptin use in Asian and non-Asian-dominant studies.

RESULTS

A total of 15 RCTs with 4456 patients with type 2 diabetes were included in this study. Alogliptin lowered glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) to a much greater extent in Asian-dominant studies [- 0.75% (95% CI - 0.84 to - 0.65)] than in non-Asian-dominant studies [- 0.61% (95% CI - 0.68 to - 0.54)] (P = 0.02). The risk ratio of achieving HbA1c goal was larger in Asian-dominant studies [2.88 (95% CI 2.15-3.87)] than in non-Asian-dominant studies [1.93 (95% CI 1.55-2.41)] (P = 0.03). The postprandial blood glucose-lowering efficacy was higher in Asian-dominant studies [- 2.42 mmol/l (95% CI - 2.99 to - 1.85)] than in non-Asian-dominant studies [- 0.60 mmol/l (95% CI - 1.60 to 0.40)] (P = 0.002), while the fasting blood glucose and body weight changes were similar between the two subgroups. The incidence of adverse events, including hypoglycemia, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and diarrhea, were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin is more effective in improving glycemic levels in Asians than in other ethnic populations. Future studies are required to explore the potential mechanisms.

Network meta-analysis of liraglutide versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Japanese patients

AIMS

To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of liraglutide and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as antidiabetics for Japanese patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating outcomes among Japanese adults with uncontrolled T2DM and including liraglutide or DPP-4 inhibitors up to August 2016. We extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, and the following outcomes: HbA1c, weight, patients meeting HbA1c <7%, patients experiencing hypoglycemic events, microalbuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and creatinine. We synthesized data using network meta-analyses (NMA) using a Bayesian framework. Continuous outcomes were modeled using normal likelihoods and an identity link, while dichotomous outcomes were modeled using a binomial likelihood and a logit link.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review yielded 39 publications pertaining to 38 trials. A total of 27 trials (5032 patients) reported change in HbA1c at 12 weeks and at 24 weeks 9 trials (2091 patients). All treatments showed statistically significant reductions in HbA1c relative to placebo at 12 and 24 weeks. Liraglutide 0.9 mg was statistically superior to all DPP-4 interventions (vildagliptin, sitagliptin, linagliptin, alogliptin, teneligliptin, trelagliptin and omarigliptin) at 12 weeks and 24 weeks among those reporting. Treatments were not statistically differentiable with respect to weight change and risk of hypoglycemia. Finally, no comparisons of eGFR and microalbuminuria were conducted, as this data was reported in too few trials to conduct analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Some important outcomes were limited by poor reporting (eGFR and microalbuminuria) or low event rates (hypoglycemia). The follow-up time was relatively short. Clinically, the 24 week time point is more important as it demonstrates more sustained results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research suggests that liraglutide 0.9 mg offers a more efficacious treatment option for T2DM than the DPP-4 inhibitors among adult Japanese patients and that it is a viable option for this population.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Adding Omarigliptin to Antihyperglycemic Therapies in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Inadequate Glycemic Control

INTRODUCTION

Daily dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are commonly used with other orally administered antihyperglycemic agents (AHA), as combination therapy, to treat Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. When combination therapy is indicated, use of a once-weekly (q.w.) orally administered DPP-4 inhibitor might be an appropriate therapeutic option for some patients.

METHODS

A 52-week trial was conducted to assess the safety and tolerability (primary objectives) and glycemic efficacy (secondary objectives) of the q.w. DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin as add-on therapy to five different classes of orally administered AHA [sulfonylurea (SU), glinide (GL), biguanide (BG), thiazolidinedione (TZD), or α-glucosidase inhibitor (AGI)] commonly used in Japan and having different mechanisms of drug action from DPP-4 inhibitors. The trial consisted of an initial 24-week double-blind, placebo-controlled period during which patients (stratified by background AHA) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg q.w. or placebo, followed by a 28-week open-label period during which patients on placebo were switched to omarigliptin.

RESULTS

After 24 weeks, the percentages of patients with adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, drug-related AEs, AEs of symptomatic hypoglycemia, or who discontinued from trial medication because of an AE were generally similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups, in all background AHA strata and in the overall population. From a mean baseline HbA1c of approximately 8.0%, the placebo-adjusted least-squares mean changes from baseline ranged from -0.80% (AGI stratum) to -1.16% (TZD stratum); p < 0.001 for all background AHA strata. During the open-label period, no safety signals emerged with longer-term treatment. At week 52, the change from baseline in HbA1c in the omarigliptin/omarigliptin group was similar to that of the placebo/omarigliptin group.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of once-weekly omarigliptin to AHA therapy with an SU, GL, BG, TZD, or AGI for up to 52 weeks was generally safe and well tolerated, and provided persistent efficacy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01697592.

FUNDING

MSD K.K., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination therapy, alogliptin plus metformin, in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes: A phase 3 trial

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of 26 weeks of twice-daily (BID) alogliptin + metformin fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients aged 18 to 75 years with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7.5% to 10.0% after ≥2 months of diet and exercise and a 4-week placebo run-in were enrolled. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to placebo, alogliptin 12.5 mg BID, metformin 500 mg BID or alogliptin 12.5 mg plus metformin 500 mg FDC BID. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to end of treatment (Week 26). In total, 647 patients were randomized. The least-squares mean change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 was -0.19% with placebo, -0.86% with alogliptin, -1.04% with metformin and -1.53% with alogliptin + metformin FDC. Alogliptin + metformin FDC was significantly more effective ( P  < .0001) in lowering HbA1c than either alogliptin or metformin alone. The safety profile of alogliptin + metformin FDC was similar to that of the individual components alogliptin and metformin. The study demonstrated that treatment with alogliptin + metformin FDC BID resulted in better glycaemic control than either monotherapy and was well tolerated in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes.

Efficacy and safety of alogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A multicentre randomized double-blind placebo-controlled Phase 3 study in mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

This study determined the efficacy and safety of once-daily oral alogliptin in patients from mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

In this Phase 3 multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled 16-week trial, 506 patients were randomized to receive once-daily alogliptin 25 mg or placebo: 185 in the monotherapy group, 197 in the add-on to metformin group, and 124 in the add-on to pioglitazone group. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline (CFB) in HbA1c at Week 16; other efficacy measures included CFB to Week 16 in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), incidence of marked hyperglycemia (FPG ≥11.1 mmol/L), and the incidence of clinical HbA1c ≤6.5 % (48 mmol/mol) and ≤7.0 % (53 mmol/mol) at Week 16. Safety was assessed throughout the trial.

RESULTS

Alogliptin monotherapy provided a significantly greater decrease in HbA1c from baseline to Week 16 compared with placebo (-0.58 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.78 %, -0.37 %; P < 0.001). As an add-on to metformin or pioglitazone, alogliptin also significantly decreased HbA1c compared with placebo (-0.69 % [95 % CI -0.87 %, -0.51 %; P < 0.001] and -0.52 % [95 % CI -0.75 %, -0.28 %; P < 0.001], respectively). In any treatment group versus placebo, alogliptin led to greater decreases in FPG (P ≤ 0.004) and a higher percentage of patients who achieved an HbA1c target of ≤6.5 % and ≤7.0 % (P ≤ 0.003). No weight gain was observed in any treatment group. A similar percentage of patients experienced drug-related, treatment-emergent adverse events in the alogliptin and placebo arms. Four and two patients in the alogliptin and placebo arms, respectively, experienced mild or moderate hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin 25 mg once daily reduced HbA1c and FPG and enhanced clinical response compared with placebo when used as monotherapy or as an add-on to metformin or pioglitazone. Therapy with alogliptin was well tolerated.

Effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on beta-cell function and insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a novel family of glucose-lowering agents. Accumulating evidence suggests that DPP-4 inhibitors preserve pancreatic beta-cell function, but results in previous studies have been inconsistent. We assessed the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on the homoeostasis model assessment beta-cell function (HOMA-B) or insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index in patients with type 2 diabetes through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Relevant articles were identified from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to December 27, 2016. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in each included trial and pooled the data using a random-effects model. Fifty-two trials were included in the present analysis. Compared with placebo control, DPP-4 inhibitors as monotherapy significantly improved HOMA-B (WMD 9.15; 95% CI 7.48, 10.81). Similarly, DPP-4 inhibitors as add-on therapy in combination with other drugs showed significant improvement in HOMA-B (WMD 9.04; 95% CI 5.72, 12.37). However, we found no significant improvement in HOMA-IR following treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors as mono-therapy or as add-on therapy. In conclusion, DPP-4 inhibitors as monotherapy or as add-on therapy significantly improved beta-cell function but had no significant effect on insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes.

Alogliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a drug safety evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors such as alogliptin are becoming more widely established as treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) because of their ability to improve glycemic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain. New therapies with improved safety profiles are needed, especially because of the chronic and progressive nature of T2DM.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, the overall safety and tolerability of alogliptin are evaluated based upon a review of the literature. In particular, adverse events (AEs) that have been of interest for the DPP-4 class of drugs, such as the risk of major cardiovascular (CV) events and acute pancreatitis, will be investigated in detail.

EXPERT OPINION

Alogliptin is generally well-tolerated in a broad range of patient populations including different ethnic groups and the elderly. In the pivotal EXAMINE clinical trial, alogliptin was found not to be associated with an increased risk of major CV events or acute pancreatitis/pancreatic cancer.

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.

Differential HbA1c response in the placebo arm of DPP-4 inhibitor clinical trials conducted in China compared to other countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It has been observed that the efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as compared to the placebo groups in some clinical trials conducted in China is weaker than that in trials conducted outside China, leading to the suspicion that this may be caused by differential Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) response in the placebo arm of DPP-4 inhibitor clinical trials conducted in China compared to other countries.

METHODS

We searched published articles and other documents related to phase III placebo-control trials of DPP-4 inhibitors in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We included studies from different countries and compared those conducted in China to those conducted in other countries. Meta-regression analysis was used to analyze the HbA1c response in the placebo arms.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies met the inclusion criteria and 10 were conducted within China. There were a total of 8303 participants (mean age 56, male 57 %) in placebo groups. The pooled change in HbA1c for the placebo groups of 10 trials conducted in patients with T2DM in China was 0.26 % (95 % CI [-0.36 %, -0.16 %], p-value < 0.001), compared to 0.015 % (95 % CI [-0.05 %, 0.08 %], p-value is 0.637) for 56 trials conducted outside of China. The difference of placebo effect between trials conducted in and outside China is -0.273 % (95 % CI [-0.42 %, -0.13 %], p-value is less than 0.001) while after excluding trials conducted in Japan, the difference is -0.203 % (95 % CI [-0.35 %, -0.06 %], p-value is 0.005). They are both statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis in the article demonstrates that there is statistically significant difference in the HbA1c response in the placebo arm of DPP-4 inhibitor clinical trials conducted in China compared to other countries. This differential HbA1c response in the placebo arm should be taken into consideration by both experimenters and medical decision makers when future DPP-4 studies are conducted in China.

Efficacy, safety and impact on β-cell function of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and the difference between Asians and Caucasians: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the efficacy, safety and impact on β-cell function of DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin in T2DM patients and their difference between Asians and Caucasians.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search (from 1 January 2000 to 14 April 2015) for RCTs of DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy in T2DM.

RESULTS

A total of 27 RCTs were included. Compared with metformin, DPP-4 inhibitor plus metformin therapy was associated with higher reduction in HbA1c [-0.61 %, -0.69 to -0.52], FPG [-1.10 mmol/l, -1.29 to -0.92], TC [-0.11 mmol/l, -0.20 to -0.02], TG [-0.21 mmol/l, -0.33 to -0.10], HOMA-IR [-0.19, -0.36 to -0.02], gastrointestinal adverse events [OR 0.86, 0.77-0.97] and higher increment in HOMA-β [10.21, 7.73-12.69]. Comparison of HbA1c, FPG, body weight and HOMA-IR changes between Asian and Caucasian patients did not show a significant between-group difference of -0.05 % (-0.30, 0.20; P = 0.69), 0.17 mmol/l (-0.52, 0.85; P = 0.62), -0.15 kg (-0.64, 0.35; P = 0.53) and 0.27 (-0.98, 1.53; P = 0.64) compared with metformin. Comparisons of HOMA-β between Asian and Caucasian patients showed a significant between-group difference of -7.68 (-14.95, -0.42; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin therapy was effective and safe for T2DM patients. The glucose-lowering efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors was same in Asian and Caucasian patients, although the effect on HOMA-β was inferior in Asian patients. The effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on HOMA-IR and body weight in Asian patients was comparable with that observed in Caucasian patients.

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.

Cardiovascular Effect of Incretin-Based Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the cardiovascular (CV) risk associated with the use of incretin-based therapy in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) primary prevention group with low CV risks.

METHODS

The clinical studies on incretin-based therapy published in medical journals until August 2014 were comprehensively searched using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL with no language restriction. The studies were systemically reviewed and evaluated for CV risks using a meta-analysis approach and where they meet the following criteria: clinical trial, incidence of predefined CV disease, T2DM with no comorbidities, age > 18 years old, duration of at least 12 weeks, incretin-based therapy compared with other antihyperglycaemic agents or placebo. Statistical analyses were performed using a Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) test. The odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated and displayed for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 75 studies comprising 45,648 patients with T2DM were selected. The pooled estimate demonstrated no significance in decreased CV risk with incretin-based therapy versus control (M-H OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that incretin-based therapy show no significant protective effect on CV events in T2DM primary prevention group with low CV risks. Prospective randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the results of this analysis.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and risk of heart failure in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the risk of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov searched up to 25 June 2015, and communication with experts.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared DPP-4 inhibitors against placebo, lifestyle modification, or active antidiabetic drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes, and explicitly reported the outcome of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Teams of paired reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data using standardised, pilot tested forms. Data from trials and observational studies were pooled separately; quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Eligible studies included 43 trials (n=68,775) and 12 observational studies (nine cohort studies, three nested case-control studies; n=1,777,358). Pooling of 38 trials reporting heart failure provided low quality evidence for a possible similar risk of heart failure between DPP-4 inhibitor use versus control (42/15,701 v 33/12,591; odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.56); risk difference 2 fewer (19 fewer to 28 more) events per 1000 patients with type 2 diabetes over five years). The observational studies provided effect estimates generally consistent with trial findings, but with very low quality evidence. Pooling of the five trials reporting admission for heart failure provided moderate quality evidence for an increased risk in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors versus control (622/18,554 v 552/18,474; 1.13 (1.00 to 1.26); 8 more (0 more to 16 more)). The pooling of adjusted estimates from observational studies similarly suggested (with very low quality evidence) a possible increased risk of admission for heart failure (adjusted odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.09) in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors (exclusively sitagliptin) versus no use.

CONCLUSIONS

The relative effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on the risk of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes is uncertain, given the relatively short follow-up and low quality of evidence. Both randomised controlled trials and observational studies, however, suggest that these drugs may increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure in those patients with existing cardiovascular diseases or multiple risk factors for vascular diseases, compared with no use.

Alogliptin + metformin combination for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

The impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus continues to grow worldwide, with appropriate glycemic management being a cornerstone of treatment to minimize the risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications. While metformin is widely utilized as a first-line agent for patients without a contraindication to therapy, treatment guidelines recommend a variety of options for second-line dual therapy with patient-specific choices depending on assessment of hypoglycemia risk, weight effects, tolerability, cost and other considerations. Incretin-based therapies, inclusive of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, have become a widely utilized group of medications due to their potentially advantageous effects, such as a low risk of hypoglycemia and overall favorable tolerability profile. Accordingly, fixed-dose combination products containing metformin in combination with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor have been developed by several manufacturers. This article summarizes the current evidence for the safety and efficacy of alogliptin and metformin used in combination for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Analyzing the Factors Contributing to Withdrawal from Insulin Therapy Following Additional Administration of Alogliptin: Retrospective Study after Removing Glucotoxicity with Insulin

We attempted to examine whether withdrawal from insulin therapy is or is not possible with administration of additional alogliptin and identify the contributing factors. The subjects were 43 adult patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing insulin therapy after admission. After glucotoxicity was removed, 25 mg alogliptin was additionally administered. Insulin was reduced by 15.6 ± 13.0 units (mean ± SD), and 17 patients (39.5%) completely withdrew from insulin therapy. Several factors were compared between the two groups of patients: those who could withdraw from insulin therapy and those who could not. The former group showed lower HbA1c levels on admission, a lower insulin dose before adding alogliptin, lower injection frequencies, and longer treatment histories prior to admission. Logistic regression analysis showed that lower insulin dose contributed significantly to withdrawal. These results suggest that a lower insulin dose is the best predictor for withdrawal from insulin therapy after adding alogliptin.

Efficacy of dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors and impact on β-cell function in Asian and Caucasian type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This work aimed to compare the efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitors and their impact on β-cell function in Asian and Caucasian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Databases were systematically searched and qualifying studies that compared DPP-4 inhibitors with other antidiabetic medications in type 2 diabetes were included.

RESULTS

A total of 68 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison of DPP-4 inhibitors with placebo in Asian patients showed a decrease in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c ) favoring DPP-4 inhibitors (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.81%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.95% to -0.68%; P < 0.001). Comparison of HbA1c changes between Asian and Caucasian patients showed a significant between-group difference of -0.18% (95% CI, -0.32% to -0.04%; P = 0.011) when compared with placebo. In Asian patients, the homeostatic model assessment for β-cell function (HOMA-β) was increased with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with placebo (WMD, 7.90; 95% CI, 4.29 to 11.51; P < 0.001), although to a lesser extent in Caucasian patients. Comparisons between Asian and Caucasian patients showed a significant between-group difference of -4.97 (95% CI, -9.86 to -0.09; P = 0.046) compared with placebo. Body weight increase with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with placebo was comparable in Asian and Caucasian studies (WMD, 0.37 kg and 0.45 kg and 95% CI, 0.04-0.69 and 0.27-0.62, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The glucose-lowering efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors was greater in Asian patients than in Caucasian patients, although the effect on β-cell function was inferior in Asian patients. The effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on insulin resistance and body weight in Asian patients was comparable with that observed in Caucasian patients.

Alogliptin benzoate for management of type 2 diabetes

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, a new class of oral hypoglycemic agents, augment glucose-dependent insulin secretion and suppress glucagon levels through enhancement of the action of endogenous incretin by inhibiting DPP-4, an incretin-degrading enzyme. DPP-4 inhibitors are generally well tolerated because of their low risk of hypoglycemia and other adverse events. Moreover, with their potential to improve beta cell function, a core defect of type 2 diabetes, DPP-4 inhibitors are becoming a major component of treatment of type 2 diabetes. Alogliptin benzoate is a newly developed, highly selective DPP-4 inhibitor which has been approved in many countries throughout the world. Once-daily administration of alogliptin as either monotherapy or combination therapy with other oral antidiabetic drugs or insulin has a potent glucose-lowering effect which is similar to that of other DPP-4 inhibitors, with a low risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. The cardiovascular safety of this drug has been confirmed in a recent randomized controlled trial. This review summarizes the efficacy and safety of alogliptin, and discusses the role of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Emerging options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Chinese patients: focus on arterial function and alogliptin

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has become a worldwide health problem, and the rate of it is growing greatly in the People’s Republic of China every year. T2DM could cause macrovascular and microvascular complications that lead to an increase in arterial wall thickness, endothelial dysfunction, calcification, and – finally – to an increase in arterial stiffness and arterial dysfunction. Alogliptin, a new selective inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase 4, has shown its great antihyperglycemia effect in T2DM patients. The clinical trial data from the People’s Republic of China was similar to other global and Asian trials. This could provide some choice for clinical physicians to the treatment of T2DM.

Incretin-based therapies

Incretin-based therapies are steadily gaining clinical popularity, with many more products in the developmental pipeline. Current treatment recommendations incorporate GLP-1 RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors as important agents for consideration in the treatment of T2DM owing to their low hypoglycemia risk, ability to address postprandial hyperglycemia (DPP-4 inhibitors and short-acting GLP-1 RAs), and potential for weight reduction (GLP-1 RAs). These properties may likewise prove advantageous in older adults in whom hypoglycemia is particularly undesirable, although older adults may be more prone to the nausea and vomiting associated with GLP-1 RA therapy. Other safety issues for incretin-based therapies, such as pancreatitis, C-cell hyperplasia, and renal failure, should be considered when choosing an appropriate patient to receive such therapies. Ongoing CV outcome studies will further inform the health care community regarding the CV safety of incretin-based therapies. The availability of both short-acting and long-acting GLP-1 RAs currently allows practitioners to consider individualized blood glucose trends and therapeutic needs when choosing an optimal agent.

Alogliptin benzoate for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus continues to be a global problem, placing an enormous burden on healthcare systems and resources. Effective treatment options to minimize the effects of hyperglycemia are essential. Most patients eventually need to take multiple drugs to maintain glycemic control, and many antidiabetic drugs are associated with adverse effects, such as hypoglycemia, weight gain or gastrointestinal effects. Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor is one of the newer classes of oral antidiabetic drug, and alogliptin is the most recently approved drug in this class.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of alogliptin and the results of clinical trials evaluating its efficacy at improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes both as monotherapy and in combination with other antidiabetic drugs. The drug's tolerability and safety profiles are also considered.

EXPERT OPINION

Alogliptin is a DPP-4 inhibitor that can help in improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, including the elderly. It is generally well tolerated and does not increase the risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain.

Alogliptin: a new dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor for type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE (1946-August 2013) and Embase (1974-August 2013) for English language articles using key words alogliptin, SYR-332, Nesina, Oseni, and Kazano. References of articles were reviewed to identify any additional sources.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Articles with adequate sample sizes, evaluating clinically relevant end points were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Alogliptin is a highly selective and potent competitive inhibitor of DPP-4. The DPP-4 enzyme rapidly inactivates the incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. GLP-1, which releases postprandial insulin in response to meals, is thought to be deficient in patients with T2DM. Studies evaluating the role of alogliptin in T2DM have shown significant reductions in blood glucose and hemoglobin A1C (A1C) levels. Alogliptin doses of 12.5 to 25 mg once daily reduced A1C by 0.56% to 0.59% as monotherapy. Patients given alogliptin in addition to other antidiabetic agentsexperienced additional A1C lowering of 0.4% to 0.8%. Side effects of alogliptin include nasopharyngitis, upper-respiratory tract infections, and headache. Alogliptin demonstrates a neutral effect on weight. A large trial evaluating the cardiovascular safety of alogliptin is currently being conducted.

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin is the fourth DDP-4 inhibitor approved in the US for the treatment of T2DM. It is available alone (Nesina) and in fixed-dose combinations with metformin (Kazano) and pioglitazone (Oseni). It has no demonstrable advantages over other agents in its class.

Comparative effectiveness of dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of the dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control.

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), health economic evaluation studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, followed by primary Bayesian mixed treatment comparison meta-analyses (MTCs), and secondary frequentist direct-comparison meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Outcomes were reported as weighted mean change from baseline, or odds ratio (OR) with 95% credible interval.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, and BIOSIS via Dialog ProQuest; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via EBSCO; four diabetes and two technical congress abstracts; and health technology assessment organization websites.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control receiving any pharmacological anti-diabetic treatment.

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Title/abstracts were reviewed for eligibility, followed by full-text review of publications remaining after first pass. A three-person team filtered articles and an independent reviewer checked a random selection (10%) of filtered articles. Data extraction and quality assessment of studies were also independently reviewed. Five DPP-4 inhibitors (alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin) were compared via meta-analysis (where data were available) as monotherapy, dual therapy (plus metformin, sulfonylurea, pioglitazone, or insulin), and triple therapy (plus metformin/sulfonylurea).

RESULTS

The review identified 6,601 articles; 163 met inclusion criteria and 85 publications from 83 RCTs contained sufficient or appropriate data for analysis. MTCs demonstrated no differences between DPP-4 inhibitors in mean change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) or body weight, or the proportions of patients achieving HbA1c <7% or experiencing a hypoglycemic event, apart from in patients on alogliptin plus metformin, who achieved HbA1c <7% more frequently than those treated with saxagliptin plus metformin [OR 6.41 (95% CI 3.15-11.98) versus 2.17 (95% CI 1.56-2.95)].

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and MTC showed similar efficacy and safety for DPP-4 inhibitors as treatment for type 2 diabetes, either as monotherapy or combination therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Vildagliptin as Add-on to Metformin in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin, a potent dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, as an add-on to metformin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This multicenter, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm study compared vildagliptin 50 mg bid with placebo in T2DM patients who were inadequately controlled [glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0-10.0%] on a stable daily dose of metformin monotherapy (250 mg bid or 500 mg bid).

RESULTS

A total of 139 patients were randomized to receive either vildagliptin (n = 69) or placebo (n = 70). Patient demographics were comparable between the groups at baseline. After 12 weeks of treatment, adjusted mean change in HbA1c was -1.1% in the vildagliptin group (baseline 8.0%) and -0.1% in the placebo group (baseline 8.0%), with a between-treatment difference of -1.0% (P < 0.001). Vildagliptin showed a similar reduction in HbA1c of -1.1% for both the subpopulations of patients receiving metformin 250 mg bid or 500 mg bid (P < 0.001 vs. baseline). Significantly more patients in the vildagliptin group achieved an HbA1c target of ≤6.5% (30.9%) and <7.0% (64.1%) compared with the placebo group (P < 0.001). The between-treatment difference in adjusted mean change in fasting plasma glucose was -1.6 mmol/L (P < 0.001) in favor of vildagliptin. Patients in the vildagliptin and placebo groups reported comparable incidences of adverse events (44.1% vs. 41.4%). No deaths or hypoglycemic events were reported in the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin 50 mg bid added to metformin improved glycemic control without any tolerability issues and hypoglycemia in Japanese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

The safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors added to metformin background therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of the present meta-analysis was to assess the safety profile of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors in comparison with placebo as add-on to metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were identified by searching Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database until 15 July 2013. All included studies were critically appraised and analysed with the use of Review Manager 5.1.0 software according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement protocol. Twenty randomized and double-blinded studies published in 22 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The overall results demonstrated that the use of oral antidiabetic agents (analysed separately and together) was not associated with any significantly increased risk of any serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal disorders. Moreover, the use of DPP-4 or SGLT-2 inhibitors significantly decreased risk of diarrhoea compared with placebo, when given concomitantly with metformin. However, we found that the SGLT-2 inhibitors were more likely to cause a genital infection. Despite some limitations, the findings of this meta-analysis indicate that DPP-4 or SGLT-2 inhibitors have favourable safety profile, and such therapy, when combined with metformin is well tolerated.

The pharmacokinetic considerations and adverse effects of DPP-4 inhibitors [corrected]

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of anti-hyperglycemic agents with proven efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

AREAS COVERED

This review considers the pharmacokinetic profile, adverse effects and drug interactions of DPP-4 inhibitors. DPP-4 inhibitors have certain differences in their structure, metabolism, route of elimination and selectivity for DPP-4 over structurally related enzymes, such as DPP-8/DPP-9. They have a low potential for drug interactions, with the exception of saxagliptin that is largely metabolized by cytochrome CYP3A4/A5. Reports of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer have raised concerns regarding the safety of DPP-4 inhibitors and are under investigation. Post-marketing surveillance has revealed less common adverse effects, especially a number of skin- and immune-related adverse effects. These issues are covered in the present review.

EXPERT OPINION

DPP-4 inhibitors are useful and efficient drugs. DPP-4 inhibitors have similar mechanism of action and similar efficacy. However, DPP-4 inhibitors have certain differences in their pharmacokinetic properties that may be associated with different clinical effects and adverse event profiles. Although clinical trials indicated a favorable safety profile, post-marketing reports revealed certain safety aspects that need further investigation. Certainly, more research is needed to clarify if the differences among DPP-4 inhibitors could lead to a different clinical and safety profile.

Incretin treatment and risk of pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk of pancreatitis associated with the use of incretin-based treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies of treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with placebo, lifestyle modification, or active anti-diabetic drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of trained reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. A modified Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies were used to assess bias. We pooled data from randomised controlled trials using Peto odds ratios, and conducted four prespecified subgroup analyses and a post hoc subgroup analysis. Because of variation in outcome measures and forms of data, we describe the results of observational studies without a pooled analysis.

RESULTS

60 studies (n=353,639), consisting of 55 randomised controlled trials (n=33,350) and five observational studies (three retrospective cohort studies, and two case-control studies; n=320,289) were included. Pooled estimates of 55 randomised controlled trials (at low or moderate risk of bias involving 37 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.11%) did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis with incretins versus control (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 2.17). Estimates by type of incretin suggested similar results (1.05 (0.37 to 2.94) for GLP-1 agonists v control; 1.06 (0.46 to 2.45) for DPP-4 inhibitors v control). Analyses according to the type of control, mode, duration of treatment, and individual incretin agents suggested no differential effect by subgroups, and sensitivity analyses by alternative statistical modelling and effect measures did not show important differences in effect estimates. Three retrospective cohort studies (moderate to high risk of bias, involving 1466 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.47%) also did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis associated with either exenatide (adjusted odds ratios 0.93 (0.63 to 1.36) in one study and 0.9 (0.6 to 1.5) in another) or sitagliptin (adjusted hazard ratio 1.0, 0.7 to 1.3); a case-control study at moderate risk of bias (1003 cases, 4012 controls) also suggested no significant association (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.69 to 1.38). Another case-control study (1269 cases, 1269 controls) at moderate risk of bias, however, suggested that the use of either exenatide or sitagliptin was associated with significantly increased odds of acute pancreatitis (use within two years v no use, adjusted odds ratio 2.07, 1.36 to 3.13).

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that the incidence of pancreatitis among patients using incretins is low and that the drugs do not increase the risk of pancreatitis. Current evidence, however, is not definitive, and more carefully designed and conducted observational studies are warranted to definitively establish the extent, if any, of increased risk.

Alogliptin

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. A drug class review is now published monthly with The Formulary Monograph Service. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service, call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The July 2013 monograph topics are prothrombin complex concentrate (human), cysteamine bitartrate delayed-release capsules, doxylamine succinate/pyridoxine hydrochloride, tedizolid phosphate, and sofosbuvir. The DUE/MUE is on canaglifozin.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of combinational therapy with metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors

Combinational therapies are often required in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Among the important candidates, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPPIs) and metformin combination (DPPI-MET) have shown promising endeavors. In order to examine the efficacy and safety of such a combination therapy in T2DM patients finding inadequate control with metformin, this systematic review and meta-analysis has been conducted. Literature search was made in multiple electronic databases. Inclusion criteria included; RCTs examining the efficacy and safety of DPPI-MET against placebo-MET or MET-only groups of T2DM patients by observing changes in disease endpoints including HbA1c and FPG, and the length of trial be at least 12 weeks. Mean differences based meta-analyses were performed and heterogeneity assessment was carried out. Nineteen studies were selected and included in the meta-analyses. DPPI-MET significantly improved all disease endpoints and the difference could be noticed up to 2 years in the majority of outcome measures. In comparison with PBO-MET, the DPPI-MET combinational therapy resulted in the percent HbA1c changes from baseline with a mean difference [95% CI] of −0.77 [−0.86, −0.69] in 3-month (P < 0.00001), −0.67 [−0.76, −0.59] in 6-month (P < 0.00001), −0.67 [−0.88, −0.47] in 1-year (P < 0.00001) and −0.36 [−0.53, −0.20] in 2-year trials (P < 0.0003). Reduction in body weight and safety profile in the treated and control groups were not different. A combinational therapy with DPPI and metformin significantly improves diabetes clinical indicators and this effect has been observed for up to 2 years herein. Safety and tolerability of DPPI-MET combination have been found well-manageable with a very similar adverse event profile in both treated and control groups.

Effect of combination therapy with alogliptin and lansoprazole on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

The main purpose of the current study was to investigate the effect of a combination of alogliptin [a dipeptydil peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor] and lansoprazole [a proton pump inhibitor (PPI)] compared with alogliptin mono-therapy on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study was a multicenter randomized open-label study. One hundred type 2 diabetic patients were randomly assigned to either the alogliptin with lansoprazole group or the alogliptin mono-therapy group. After 3 months of treatment, the changes in hemoglobin (Hb)A1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), serum gastrin, homeostasis model assessment (HOMA)-β, and HOMA-insulin resistance (IR) were evaluated. A significant decrease in HbA1c and FPG, and a significant increase in HOMA-β were observed in both groups (all with P <0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in changes in HbA1c, FPG, or HOMA-β before and after therapy between the combination and alogliptin mono-therapy group (P =0.2945, P =0.1901, P =0.3042, respectively). There was a significant elevation of serum gastrin in the combination group compared with the alogliptin mono-therapy group (P =0.0004). This study showed that, although combination therapy with alogliptin and lansoprazole more effectively elevated serum gastrin levels compared with alogliptin mono-therapy, the effect of the combination therapy on glycemic control was equal to that of alogliptin mono-therapy during a 3-month study period.

Alogliptin in combination with metformin and pioglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Alogliptin is a selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor recently marketed for once-daily administration in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Fixed-dose combinations of alogliptin with both metformin and pioglitazone are also commercially available, providing a measure of convenience in addition to an effective mode of delivering combination therapy to improve glycemic control. Alogliptin has been studied clinically as initial therapy in treatment-naïve patients with T2DM and as initial therapy or add-on in combination with other antidiabetic agents. Clinical trial data with alogliptin demonstrate clinical efficacy in terms of glycosylated hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose reductions when used both as monotherapy and as a component of two- or three-drug combination regimens for the treatment of T2DM. Extensive Phase II and Phase III clinical trial data support the use of alogliptin in combination with metformin and pioglitazone. Glycemic reduction with both combinations is similar to the sum of the respective monotherapies, with adverse event rates similar - or more moderate - than those observed with up-titration of monotherapy or the addition of other antihyperglycemic agents.

Efficacy of alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, on glucose parameters, the activity of the advanced glycation end product (AGE) - receptor for AGE (RAGE) axis and albuminuria in Japanese type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

To examine the effects of alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, on glucose parameters, the advanced glycation end product (AGE)-receptor for AGE (RAGE) axis and albuminuria in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients.

METHODS

Sixty-one patients whose HbAlc  ≥ 6.1% (mean age 64.7 years; 67% men; mean HbAlc 7.4%; 57% were pharmacologically treated) underwent blood and urine sampling and analysis before and after 12 weeks of treatment with alogliptin (25 mg once daily).

RESULTS

Alogliptin treatment significantly reduced fasting glucose (160.3 mg/dL at baseline versus 138.0 mg/dL at 12 weeks), glycoalbumin (21.1% at baseline versus 18.9% at 12 weeks), HbAlc (7.4% at baseline versus 6.9% at 12 weeks), circulating soluble form of RAGE concentrations (847.3 pg/mL at baseline versus 791.4 pg/mL at 12 weeks) and urine albumin to creatinine ratio (31.6 mg/g Cr at baseline versus 26.5 mg/g Cr at 12 weeks), whereas 1,5-anhydroglucitol concentrations were significantly increased (7.5 µg/mL at baseline versus 11.6 µg/mL at 12 weeks; all P < 0.05). Circulating AGEs concentrations were reduced only in patients with baseline AGEs ≥7 U/mL (n = 33, from 8.2 U/mL to 7.2U /mL; p < 0.01) after alogliptin treatment. The treatment-induced change of soluble form of sRAGE concentrations was associated with changes of 1,5-anhydroglucitol and HbAlc concentrations (rho = -0.32 and 0.29, respectively). Meanwhile, the treatment-induced change of urine albumin to creatinine ratio was associated with a change in the fasting glucose concentration (rho = 0.25; all p < 0.05). During the intervention, alogliptin treatment was well tolerated without any hypoglycemia or side effects.

CONCLUSION

Alogliptin treatment improved the AGE-RAGE axis and reduced albuminuria in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes therapy--focus on alogliptin

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex and progressive disease that is showing an apparently unstoppable increase worldwide. Although there is general agreement on the first-line use of metformin in most patients with type 2 diabetes, the ideal drug sequence after metformin failure is an area of increasing uncertainty. New treatment strategies target pancreatic islet dysfunction, in particular gut-derived incretin hormones. Inhibition of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) slows degradation of endogenous glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and thereby enhances and prolongs the action of the endogenous incretin hormones. The five available DPP-4 inhibitors, also known as 'gliptins' (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, alogliptin), are small molecules used orally with similar overall clinical efficacy and safety profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes. The main differences between the five gliptins on the market include: potency, target selectivity, oral bioavailability, long or short half-life, high or low binding to plasma proteins, metabolism, presence of active or inactive metabolites, excretion routes, dosage adjustment for renal and liver insufficiency, and potential drug-drug interactions. On average, treatment with gliptins is expected to produce a mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) decrease of 0.5%-0.8%, with about 40% of diabetic subjects at target for the HbA1c goal <7%. There are very few studies comparing DPP-4 inhibitors. Alogliptin as monotherapy or added to metformin, pioglitazone, glibenclamide, voglibose, or insulin therapy significantly improves glycemic control compared with placebo in adult or elderly patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. In the EXAMINE trial, alogliptin is being compared with placebo on cardiovascular outcomes in approximately 5,400 patients with type 2 diabetes. In clinical studies, DPP-4 inhibitors were generally safe and well tolerated. However, there are limited data on their tolerability, due to their relatively recent marketing approval. Alogliptin will be used most when avoidance of hypoglycemic events is paramount, such as in patients with congestive heart failure, renal failure, and liver disease, and in the elderly.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors attenuate endothelial function as evaluated by flow-mediated vasodilatation in type 2 diabetic patients

BACKGROUND

Endothelial dysfunction is an independent predictor for cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) reportedly exerts vasodilatory actions, and inhibitors of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), an enzyme-degrading GLP-1, are widely used to treat T2DM. We therefore hypothesized that DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP-4Is) improve endothelial function in T2DM patients and performed 2 prospective, randomized crossover trials to compare the DPP-4I sitagliptin and an α-glucosidase inhibitor, voglibose (in study 1) and the DPP-4Is sitagliptin and alogliptin (in study 2).

METHODS AND RESULTS

In study 1, 24 men with T2DM (46±5 years) were randomized to sitagliptin or voglibose for 6 weeks without washout periods. Surprisingly, sitagliptin significantly reduced flow-mediated vasodilatation (FMD; -51% compared with baseline, P<0.05) of the brachial artery despite improved diabetic status. In contrast, voglibose did not affect FMD. To confirm this result and determine whether it is a class effect, we conducted another trial (study 2) to compare sitagliptin and alogliptin in 42 T2DM patients (66±8 years) for 6 weeks with 4-week washout periods. Both DPP-4Is improved glycemic control but significantly attenuated FMD (7.2/4.3%, P<0.001, before/after sitagliptin; 7.0/4.8%, P<0.001, before/after alogliptin, respectively). Interestingly, FMD reduction was less evident in subjects who were on statins or whose LDL cholesterol levels were reduced by them, but this was not correlated with parameters including DPP-4 activity and GLP-1 levels or diabetic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Our 2 independent trials demonstrated that DPP-4 inhibition attenuated endothelial function as evaluated by FMD in T2DM patients. This unexpected unfavorable effect may be a class effect of DPP-4Is.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://center.umin.ac.jp, Unique Identifiers: UMIN000005682 (sitagliptin versus voglibose) and UMIN000005681 (sitagliptin versus alogliptin).