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

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022322129).

Comparison of gliclazide vs linagliptin on hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated cardiovascular safety of glimepiride (a sulfonylureas) against dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin. Gliclazide (another newer sulfonylureas) has shown similar glycemic efficacy and 50% decreased risk of hypoglycemia compared to glimepiride.

AIM

Considering the absence of cardiovascular outcome trials for gliclazide, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the car-diovascular (CV) safety by assessing the risk for major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide vs linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This systematic review followed the current Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to analyze all the clinical studies published from 2008 that compared the two drugs in patients with T2D with no risk of CV disease (CVD). We included only evidence designated high quality by the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

Eight clinical studies were included in the narrative descriptive analysis (gliclazide: 5 and linagliptin: 3). The CV safety of gliclazide in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation trial and of linagliptin in the Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin (CARMELINA) and CARdiovascular Outcome study of LINAgliptin vs glimepiride in patients with T2D (CAROLINA) trials were excluded from the comparative analysis as these trials demonstrated CV and hypoglycemia benefits in patients at high risk of CVD. However, since these are landmark trials, they were discussed in brief to show the CV benefits and low hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide and linagliptin. We did not find any study comparing gliclazide with linagliptin. Hence, direct comparison of their major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk could not be carried out. However, the literature meeting the inclusion criteria showed that both drugs were effective in achieving the desired glycemic control and had low major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk in adult patients with no history of CVD.

CONCLUSION

Gliclazide can be considered an effective and safe glucose-lowering drug in T2D patients with no established CVD but at high risk of CVD due to their T2D status. Future randomized controlled trials comparing gliclazide with linagliptin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors can confirm these findings.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

OUTCOMES

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

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Management of Diabetes and Hypertension within the Gulf Region: Updates on Treatment Practices and Therapies

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally, driven by the high rates of risk factors, such as diabetes and hypertension. As the prevalence of these risk factors is particularly high in the Gulf region, better diagnosis and management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and hypertension has the potential to dramatically reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes for individuals in that part of the world. This article provides a summary of presentations made during the EVIDENT summit, a virtual symposium on Evidence in Diabetes and Hypertension, held in September 2021, including a review of the various guidelines for both T2D and hypertension, as well as recent findings relevant to the safety and efficacy for therapies relating to these conditions. Of relevance to the Gulf region, the risk of hypoglycaemia with sulfonylureas during Ramadan was reviewed. For the management of T2D, sulfonylureas have been a long-standing medication used to achieve glycaemic control; however, differences have emerged between early and later generations, with recent studies suggesting improvements in the safety profiles of late-generation sulfonylureas. For patients with hypertension, incremental therapy changes are recommended to reduce the risk of cardiovascular complications that are associated with increasing blood pressure. For first-line therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), such as perindopril, have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The addition of calcium channel blockers and diuretics to ACEi has been shown to be effective in patients with poorly controlled hypertension. The different renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors are reviewed, and the benefit of combination therapies, including amlodipine and indapamide in patients with difficult-to-control hypertension, is investigated. The benefits of lifestyle modifications for these patients are also discussed, with important clinical considerations that are expected to inform patient management in daily clinical practice.

Efficacy and safety profile of sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and metformin in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic subjects

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic and progressive disease that requires long-term management. Thus, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) need more investigations about their efficacy and safety profile as there is still no evidence of whether DPP-4 inhibitors can be used as a first line option for T2DM drug-naïve patients. In this randomized case-controlled study, 60 drug-naïve T2DM subjects were randomized into three groups, each group comprising 20 subjects. Group 1 was given sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, Group 2 was given vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily, and Group 3 served as the control group and was given metformin 1 g twice daily. Efficacy endpoints included changes in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-hr postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), and the secondary endpoints were related to safety profile were the assessment of liver and kidney function tests and complete blood count (CBC). All treatment regimens had comparable efficacy and safety profiles with the non-significant relative superiority of vildagliptin in lowering HbA1c more than sitagliptin but significant (p = 0.011) regarding FPG reduction, vildagliptin significantly decreased HbA1c by -1.02% (p < 0.001), sitagliptin significantly decreased HbA1c by -0.96% (p < 0.001), and control significantly decreased HbA1c by -0.90% (p < 0.001) compared with baseline. The studied drugs showed moderate efficacy in lowering HbA1c levels with the non-significant relative higher efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors. DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin showed favourable effects on improving metabolic syndrome by decreasing blood pressure, serum triglycerides (TG), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), total cholesterol, and increasing high-density lipoprotein (HDL), plus their positive impacts on weight. As a final conclusion, the three medications are highly comparable.

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Efficacy of a Combination of Metformin and Vildagliptin in Comparison to Metformin Alone in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Multicentre, Retrospective, Real-World Evidence Study

BACKGROUND

Early use of combination therapy in diabetes patients may lead to sustained glycemic control and thereby reduce the progression of diabetic complications. Given the limitation of the traditional stepwise intensification strategy, early combination therapy can be an effective approach. Therefore, this study aims to assess the real-world efficacy of a combination of metformin and vildagliptin in comparison to metformin alone in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in India.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, non-interventional study based on electronic medical records (EMRs) of 2740 T2DM patients, retrieved from 2010 onwards from 22 diabetes centres across India. Adult drug naïve patients with a 5-year history of T2DM treated with either metformin or a combination of metformin and vildagliptin for at least 3 months were considered for this study. Efficacy assessment was done to evaluate the post-treatment HbA1c levels and patients requiring additional oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) at the time of follow-up visit. Patients were also analyzed for the occurrence of adverse events.

RESULTS

Out of the total, 2452 patients were in metformin only arm, and 288 patients were in metformin plus vildagliptin treatment arm. A more significant reduction in HbA1c level was observed in metformin plus vildagliptin arm than metformin only arm (median: -0.5% vs 0%, respectively; p<0.001). Patients requiring additional OAD at follow-up were significantly lesser in the metformin plus vildagliptin arm than the metformin only arm (15.6% vs 35.2%, respectively; p<0.001). The adverse events were comparable across the two arms, and commonly reported adverse events were giddiness, fatigue and gastric discomfort.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this EMR-based real-world study emphasizes the need for early initiation of combination therapy (metformin plus vildagliptin) over metformin monotherapy for achieving better glycemic control.

The Place of Sulfonylureas in Guidelines: Why Are There Differences?

This review describes a presentation at a recent symposium entitled "SUs in the treatment of T2DM: a fresh look and new insights" on Wednesday September 18, 2019 at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Barcelona, Spain. It examines the current role of sulfonylureas (SUs) in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and gives the author's personal perspective of how this therapeutic class has performed in both local and international guidelines. The place of SUs within current guidelines is highlighted, and a critical appraisal of the reasons for the differences between guidelines given. Finally, comparison of evidence-based guidelines and consensus reports is discussed.

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.

Glycaemic durability of an early combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin versus sequential metformin monotherapy in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (VERIFY): a 5-year, multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Early treatment intensification leading to sustained good glycaemic control is essential to delay diabetic complications. Although initial combination therapy has been suggested to offer more opportunities than a traditional stepwise approach, its validity remains to be determined.

METHODS

Vildagliptin Efficacy in combination with metfoRmIn For earlY treatment of type 2 diabetes (VERIFY) was a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes conducted in 254 centres across 34 countries. The study consisted of a 2-week screening visit, a 3-week metformin-alone run-in period, and a 5-year treatment period, which was further split into study periods 1, 2, and 3. Patients aged 18-70 years were included if they had type 2 diabetes diagnosed within 2 years prior to enrolment, and centrally confirmed glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA_1c) of 48-58 mmol/mol (6·5-7·5%) and a body-mass index of 22-40 kg/m². Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio either to the early combination treatment group or to the initial metformin monotherapy group, with the help of an interactive response technology system and simple randomisation without stratification. Patients, investigators, clinical staff performing the assessments, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. In study period 1, patients received either the early combination treatment with metformin (stable daily dose of 1000 mg, 1500 mg, or 2000 mg) and vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily, or standard-of-care initial metformin monotherapy (stable daily dose of 1000 mg, 1500 mg, or 2000 mg) and placebo twice daily. If the initial treatment did not maintain HbA_1c below 53 mmol/mol (7·0%), confirmed at two consecutive scheduled visits which were 13 weeks apart, patients in the metformin monotherapy group received vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily in place of the placebo and entered study period 2, during which all patients received the combination therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time from randomisation to initial treatment failure, defined as HbA_1c measurement of at least 53 mmol/mol (7·0%) at two consecutive scheduled visits, 13 weeks apart from randomisation through period 1. The full analysis set included patients who received at least one randomised study medication and had at least one post-randomisation efficacy parameter assessed. The safety analysis set included all patients who received at least one dose of randomised study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01528254.

FINDINGS

Trial enrolment began on March 30, 2012, and was completed on April 10, 2014. Of the 4524 participants screened, 2001 eligible participants were randomly assigned to either the early combination treatment group (n=998) or the initial metformin monotherapy group (n=1003). A total of 1598 (79·9%) patients completed the 5-year study: 811 (81·3%) in the early combination therapy group and 787 (78·5%) in the monotherapy group. The incidence of initial treatment failure during period 1 was 429 (43·6%) patients in the combination treatment group and 614 (62·1%) patients in the monotherapy group. The median observed time to treatment failure in the monotherapy group was 36·1 (IQR 15·3-not reached [NR]) months, while the median time to treatment failure time for those receiving early combination therapy could only be estimated to be beyond the study duration at 61·9 (29·9-NR) months. A significant reduction in the relative risk for time to initial treatment failure was observed in the early combination treatment group compared with the monotherapy group over the 5-year study duration (hazard ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·45-0·58]; p<0·0001). Both treatment approaches were safe and well tolerated, with no unexpected or new safety findings, and no deaths related to study treatment.

INTERPRETATION

Early intervention with a combination therapy of vildagliptin plus metformin provides greater and durable long-term benefits compared with the current standard-of-care initial metformin monotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes.

FUNDING

Novartis.

Design and in silico modeling of Indoloquinoxaline incorporated keratin nanoparticles for modulation of glucose metabolism in 3T3-L1 adipocytes

The following study was done to assess the glucose utilizing efficiency of Indoloquinoxaline derivative incorporated keratin nanoparticles (NPs) in 3T3-L1 adipocytes. Indoloquinoxaline derivative had wide range of biological activities including antidiabetic activity. In this view, Indoloquinoxaline moiety containing N, N-dimethyl (3-fluoro-6H-indolo [3,2-b] quinoxalin-6-yl) methanamine compound was designed and synthesized, and further it is incorporated into keratin nanoparticles. The formulated NPs, drug entrapment efficiency, releasing capacity, stability, and physicochemical properties were characterized by various spectral analyzer and obtained results of characterizations were confirmed the properties of NPs. The analysis of mechanism underlying the glucose utilization of NPs was examined through molecular docking with identified target, and observed in silico study reports shown strong interaction of NPs in the binding pockets of AMPK and PTP1B. Based on the in silico screening, the formulated NPs was performed for in vitro cellular viability and glucose uptake studies on 3T3-L1 adipocytes. Interestingly, 40 μg of NPs displayed 78.2 ± 2.76% cellular viability, and no cell death was observed at lower concentrations. Further, the concentration dependent glucose utilization was observed at different concentrations of NPs in 3T3-L1 adipocytes. The results of NPs (40 μg) on glucose utilization have revealed eminent result 58.56 ± 4.54% compared to that of Metformin (10 μM) and Insulin (10 μM). The identified results clearly indicated that Indoloquinoxaline derivative incorporated keratin NPs significantly increased glucose utilization efficiency and protect the cells against the insulin resistance.

Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Vildagliptin Add-On to Metformin Versus Other Oral Dual Antidiabetes Agents in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: The China Prospective Diabetes Study

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy and safety of vildagliptin alone or with metformin is well established by randomized trials, but it is unknown whether it can be extrapolated to the real-world setting in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin add-on to metformin versus dual oral antidiabetes drug (OAD), non-vildagliptin combination therapies in real-world Chinese patients with T2DM.

METHODS

The China Prospective Diabetes Study was a post-marketing, prospective, multicenter, observational, real-world study conducted in 52 centers. Patients inadequately controlled with OAD monotherapy and who initiated vildagliptin add-on to metformin (VM cohort) or two OADs other than vildagliptin (comparator cohort) were included for the present analysis. The composite primary endpoint was glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <  7% and without tolerability events (hypoglycemia, weight gain ≥ 3%, or discontinuation due to gastrointestinal events) at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included change in HbA1c from baseline, subgroup analysis, and tolerability. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for baseline covariates imbalance (body mass index (BMI) and HbA1c).

RESULTS

A total of 604 patients received VM and 670 received comparator therapy. Patients who received VM were younger, more obese, and had a higher baseline HbA1c and a shorter duration of T2DM. After propensity score matching, there were 530 patients per cohort. After 12-month treatment, the success rates of the composite primary endpoint were 50.9% and 33.0% in the VM and comparator cohorts, respectively (P < 0.001; odds ratio = 2.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64-2.70). Furthermore, the success rates of the composite endpoint were higher with VM across geographic area, BMI, and baseline HbA1c subgroups. Fewer tolerability events occurred in the VM cohort versus the comparator cohort (8.3% vs. 16.2%, P < 0.001; relative risk = 0.51, 95% CI 0.36-0.72).

CONCLUSION

Compared with dual OAD non-vildagliptin combination therapies, vildagliptin add-on to metformin is effective and safe to achieve glycemic control in Chinese patients with T2DM.

FUNDING

Novartis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

This study was funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Brazil.

Clinical Use of DPP-4 Inhibitors

DPP-4 inhibitors were introduced for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in 2006. They stimulate insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon secretion by elevating endogenous GLP-1 concentrations without an intrinsic hypoglycaemia risk. Their efficacy potential to lower HbA1c is in the range between 0.5 and 1.0% and their safety profile is favorable. DPP-4 inhibitors are body weight neutral and they have demonstrated cardiovascular safety. Most compounds can be used in impaired renal function. Guidelines suggest the additional use of DPP-4 inhibitors after metformin failure in patients that do not require antidiabetic therapy with proven cardiovascular benefit. Recently, DPP-4 inhibitors have increasingly replaced sulfonylureas as second line therapy after metformin failure and many metformin/DPP-4 inhibitor fixed dose combinations are available. In later stages of type 2 diabetes, DPP-4 inhibitors are also recommended in the guidelines in triple therapies with metformin and SGLT-2 inhibitors or with metformin and insulin. A treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors should be stopped when GLP-1 receptor agonists are used. DPP-4 inhibitors can be used as monotherapy when metformin is contraindicated or not tolerated. Some studies have shown value of initial metformin-DPP-4 inhibitor combination therapy in special populations. This article gives an overview on the clinical use of DPP-4 inhibitors.

A comparison of the anti-diabetic potential of d-ribose-l-cysteine with insulin, and oral hypoglycaemic agents on pregnant rats

Over 18% of pregnant women are affected by diabetes mellitus (DM) and Insulin has been the commonest drug used in its treatment. There are reports of noncompliance to insulin due to trypanophobia, with suggestions for the use of oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHAs). However, the opposing views about the benefits and risk of oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHAs) warrant a continuous search for an alternative regimen. Therefore, this study is aimed at comparing the antidiabetic effects of d-ribose-l-cysteine (riboceine) with vildagliptin, glibenclamide, metformin, glipizide and insulin in diabetes in pregnancy. Forty (40) female Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were mated with twenty (20) male SD rats. Diabetes was induced by streptozotocin and the female SD rats were divided into 8 groups of five (5) rats each. The animals were administered either of the OHAs vildagliptin, glibenclamide, metformin, glipizide and riboceine for a period of 19 gestational days. The results showed that streptozotocin (STZ) significantly (p < 0.05) decreased the weights of the animals, increased malondialdehyde, blood glucose levels and altered reproductive hormones. These effects of STZ were better ameliorated in animals that received insulin and riboceine compared to the other OHAs. While progesterone levels were significantly (p < 0.05) higher in animals that received riboceine compared to insulin. Glibenclamide increased (p < 0.05) foetal weights compared to non-diabetic animals. In conclusion, glibenclamide may be a threat to mother`s life in the management of diabetes in pregnancy however, riboceine as well as vildagliptin, metformin and glipizide are effective oral hypoglycaemic agents which could serve as a potent adjuvant comparable to insulin in the management of diabetes during gestation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin, a once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor, or glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin or the sulfonylurea glimepiride to the treatment regimen of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with T2DM and HbA1c ≥6.5% to ≤9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥1500 mg/day) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once-weekly (n = 376) or glimepiride up to 6 mg once daily (n = 375) for 54 weeks. The primary hypothesis was that omarigliptin is non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA1c at week 54.

RESULTS

The mean baseline HbA1c was 7.5% in the omarigliptin group and 7.4% in the glimepiride group. After 54 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.30% in the omarigliptin group and -0.48% in the glimepiride group, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.18% (0.06, 0.30), which met the pre-specified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 5.3% in the omarigliptin group and 26.7% in the glimepiride group. With the exception of hypoglycemia, the incidences of adverse events and discontinuations were similar between treatment groups. Relative to baseline, omarigliptin was associated with a mean weight loss (-0.4 kg) and glimepiride a mean weight gain (+1.5 kg).

CONCLUSIONS

After 54 weeks, as add-on therapy to metformin, once-weekly omarigliptin was generally well tolerated and non-inferior to glimepiride in improving glycemic control, with a lower incidence of hypoglycemia and with weight loss vs weight gain.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma AG.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

Aim

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

The effect of vildagliptin relative to sulfonylurea as dual therapy with metformin (or as monotherapy) in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan in the Middle East: the VIRTUE study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of vildagliptin relative to sulfonylurea (SU) on hypoglycemic events, in Muslim patients from the Middle East with type 2 diabetes who fast during Ramadan. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with at least one hypoglycemic event (HE) during the fasting period. Secondary endpoints included change in weight, HbA1c levels, treatment adherence and overall safety.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study enrolled Muslim adult T2DM patients from Middle Eastern countries who received treatment with vildagliptin or SU as add on to metformin or monotherapy. During a ∼16 week observation period, data was collected up to 6 weeks before and 6 weeks after Ramadan fasting.

RESULTS

A total of 584 patients from the Middle East enrolled in the study; 308 patients received vildagliptin and 265 received SU. Significantly fewer vildagliptin patients reported at least one HE (3.7% vildagliptin vs. 25.5% SU; p < .001). No grade 2 HEs were reported in vildagliptin patients versus two in SU patients (p = .128). Mean change in HbA1c at the end of study showed -0.18% between treatment difference in favor of vildagliptin, p = .001. Mean body weight change at the end of study showed -0.68 kg between treatment difference in favor of vildagliptin, p < .001. Treatment exposure and adherence were high and similar in both cohorts. There were 4.3% adverse events reported in vildagliptin compared to 25.3% in the SU cohort, with hypoglycemia being the most experienced event in both cohorts.

LIMITATIONS

Being observational and not mandating HE confirmation with blood glucose measurement (though it was done in a large number of patients) were key limitations.

CONCLUSION

Anti-hyperglycemic treatment with vildagliptin led to significantly fewer hypoglycemia events compared to sulfonylurea treatment among Muslim diabetic patients who fast during Ramadan. Good glycemic control, weight control and safety results supported this outcome.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pharmacology and therapeutic implications of current drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global epidemic that poses a major challenge to health-care systems. Improving metabolic control to approach normal glycaemia (where practical) greatly benefits long-term prognoses and justifies early, effective, sustained and safety-conscious intervention. Improvements in the understanding of the complex pathogenesis of T2DM have underpinned the development of glucose-lowering therapies with complementary mechanisms of action, which have expanded treatment options and facilitated individualized management strategies. Over the past decade, several new classes of glucose-lowering agents have been licensed, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. These agents can be used individually or in combination with well-established treatments such as biguanides, sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones. Although novel agents have potential advantages including low risk of hypoglycaemia and help with weight control, long-term safety has yet to be established. In this Review, we assess the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profiles, including cardiovascular safety, of currently available therapies for management of hyperglycaemia in patients with T2DM within the context of disease pathogenesis and natural history. In addition, we briefly describe treatment algorithms for patients with T2DM and lessons from present therapies to inform the development of future therapies.

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

AIM

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Incretin-Based Therapy for Diabetes: What a Cardiologist Needs to Know

Incretin-based therapies are effective glucose-lowering drugs that have an increasing role in the treatment of type 2 diabetes because of their efficacy, safety, and ease of use. Both glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are commonly used for glycemic control as adjuncts to metformin, other oral antiglycemic agents, or insulin. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists may have additional effects, such as weight loss, that may be advantageous in obese patients. There is a large body of evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials supporting the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and some glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, at least in the short term. However, concerns have been raised, particularly regarding their safety in patients with heart failure. In this review, the authors provide a brief but practical evidence-based analysis of the use of incretin-based agents in patients with diabetes, their efficacy, and cardiovascular safety.

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.

Comparative studies of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor vs sulphonylurea among Muslim Type 2 diabetes patients who fast in the month of Ramadan: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To systematically review the literature to compare the use of DPP4 inhibitors vs sulphonylurea in type 2 diabetic Muslim patients who fast in Ramadan, with regards to its safety, tolerability, glycemic control, and body weight changes.

METHODS

All English-language medical literature published from inception till October 2014 which met the inclusion criteria were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of nine papers were included, reviewed and analyzed. The total sample size was 4276 patients. All studies used either of the two DPP4 inhibitors - Vildagliptin or Sitagliptin, vs sulphonylurea or meglitinides. Patients receiving DPP4 inhibitors were less likely to develop symptomatic hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70), confirmed hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64) and severe hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.53) compared with patients on sulphonylureas. There was no statistically significant difference in HbA1C changes comparing Vildagliptin and sulphonylurea.

CONCLUSION

DPP4 inhibitor is a safer alternative to sulphonylurea in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who fast during the month of Ramadan as it is associated with lower risk of symptomatic, confirmed and severe hypoglycemia, with efficacy comparable to sulphonylurea.

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.

Comparative review of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sulphonylureas

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is a progressive disease, and pharmacotherapy with a single agent does not generally provide durable glycaemic control over the long term. Sulphonylurea (SU) drugs have a history stretching back over 60 years, and have traditionally been the mainstay choice as second-line agents to be added to metformin once glycaemic control with metformin monotherapy deteriorates; however, they are associated with undesirable side effects, including increased hypoglycaemia risk and weight gain. Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors are, by comparison, more recent, with the first compound being launched in 2006, but the class now globally encompasses at least 11 different compounds. DPP-4 inhibitors improve glycaemic control with similar efficacy to SUs, but do not usually provoke hypoglycaemia or weight gain, are relatively free from adverse side effects, and have recently been shown not to increase cardiovascular risk in large prospective safety trials. Because of these factors, DPP-4 inhibitors have become an established therapy for T2DM and are increasingly being positioned earlier in treatment algorithms. The present article reviews these two classes of oral antidiabetic drugs (DPP-4 inhibitors and SUs), highlighting differences and similarities between members of the same class, as well as discussing the potential advantages and disadvantages of the two drug classes. While both classes have their merits, the choice of which to use depends on the characteristics of each individual patient; however, for the majority of patients, DPP-4 inhibitors are now the preferred choice.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42014004330.

Is gliclazide a sulfonylurea with difference? A review in 2016

Sulfonylureas (SUs) remain the most commonly prescribed drug after metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), despite the availability of several newer agents. The primary reason of SUs being most popular is their quick glycemic response, time-tested experience and least cost. Although SUs are one amongst the several other second line agents after metformin in all major guidelines, the new Dutch type 2 guidelines specifically advise gliclazide as the preferred second line drug instead of SUs as a class. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also included gliclazide in their Model List of Essential Medicines 2013 motivated by its safety data in elderly patients. Specifically advising gliclazide may have been based on emerging evidence suggesting cardiovascular neutrality of gliclazide over other SUs. This prompted us to do a literature review of gliclazide efficacy and safety data compared to other SUs as well as oral anti-diabetic drugs.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Newer Antidiabetic Medications for Ramadan Fasting Diabetic Patients

Hypoglycemia is the most common side effects for most glucose-lowering therapies. It constitutes a serious risk that faces diabetic patients who fast during Ramadan (the 9th month in the Islamic calendar). New glucose-lowering classes like dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors are efficacious in controlling blood glucose level with less tendency to induce hypoglycemia and thus may constitute a good choice for diabetic patients during Ramadan. This study reviews the safety and efficacy of newer glucose-lowering therapies during Ramadan. This study was accomplished through a careful literature search about studies that assess the benefit and side effects of these new glucose-lowering therapies during Ramadan during September 2015. Vildagliptin, sitagliptin, liraglutide, exenatide, and dapagliflozin were the only studied glucose-lowering therapies. All of the studied newer glucose-lowering therapies except dapagliflozin were associated with reduced risk to induce hypoglycemia. Gastrointestinal upset was common with the usage of liraglutide while increased thirst sensation was common with dapagliflozin. In conclusion DPP-4 inhibitors such as vildagliptin and sitagliptin may form a suitable glucose-lowering therapy option for Ramadan fasting patients.

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.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and hypoglycemic safety of gliclazide versus other insulinotropic agents

AIMS

Sulfonylureas are well positioned in treating type 2 diabetes, after lifestyle modification and metformin. The sulfonylurea gliclazide was given preference over glibenclamide in older people with type 2 diabetes in the World Health Organization model list of essential medicines. Consequently, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the efficacy and safety of gliclazide versus other oral insulinotropic agents (sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and glinides) was performed.

METHODS

Two reviewers searched MEDLINE for studies of ≥12 weeks duration in adults with type 2 diabetes. The key search word was "gliclazide", filtered with "randomized controlled trial", "human" and "19+ years". Differences were explored in mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline (primary outcome) and risk of hypoglycemia (secondary outcome) between gliclazide and other oral insulinotropic agents; and other sulfonylureas.

RESULTS

Nine out of 181 references reported primary outcomes, of which 7 reported secondary outcomes. Gliclazide lowered HbA1c more than other oral insulinotropic agents, with a weighted mean difference of -0.11% (95%, CI -0.19 to -0.03%, P=0.008, I(2)=60%), though not more than other sulfonylureas (-0.12%; 95%, CI -0.25 to 0.01%, P=0.07, I(2)=77%). Risk of hypoglycemia with gliclazide was not different to other insulinotropic agents (RR 0.85; 95%, CI 0.66 to 1.09, P=0.20, I(2)=61%) but significantly lower than other sulfonylureas (RR 0.47; 95%, CI 0.27 to 0.79, P=0.004, I(2)=0%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with other oral insulinotropic agents, gliclazide significantly reduced HbA1c with no difference regarding hypoglycemia risk. Compared with other sulfonylureas, HbA1c reduction with gliclazide was not significantly different, but hypoglycemia risk was significantly lower.

The efficacy and safety of DPP4 inhibitors compared to sulfonylureas as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

There is no consensus on the selection of specific drug therapies when metformin fails in Type 2 diabetes (T2D). This meta-analysis was performed to determine the efficacy and safety of Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-I) compared to sulfonylurea (SU) as add-on therapy to metformin in inadequately controlled T2D patients. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized trials comparing DPP4-I to SU as add-on therapy to metformin and reported a change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Sixteen articles were included. There was a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c from baseline to 12 weeks with SU versus DPP4-I (MD[95% CI]=0.21%(2 mmol/mol) [0.06, 0.35]) but no significant difference at 52 and 104 weeks (MD[95% CI]=0.06%(-1 mmol/mol) [-0.03, 0.15] and 0.02%(-1 mmol/mol) [-0.13,0.18] respectively). SU was associated with weight gain and DPP4-I with weight loss at all time-points. The incidence of hypoglycemia at 12, 52, and 104 weeks was significantly greater with SU (20%, 24%, and 27% respectively) compared to DPP4-I (6%, 3%, and 4% respectively). The proportion of patients with HbA1c<7%(53 mmol/mol) without hypoglycemia was significantly higher at 52 and 104 weeks among patients on DPP4-I (RR[95% CI]=1.20 [1.05, 1.37] and 1.53 [1.16, 2.02] respectively). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of other side effects. While both SU and DPP4-I can be considered as options for add-on therapy to metformin in inadequately controlled T2D, SU results in a significantly increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. By contrast, DPP4-I produce 0.4-0.6% (4-7 mmol/mol) reduction in HbA1c, lower risk of hypoglycemia, and weight loss.

Clinical trial simulation methods for estimating the impact of DPP-4 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease

Introduction

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of oral antidiabetic agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, which lower blood glucose without causing severe hypoglycemia. However, the first cardiovascular (CV) safety trials have only recently reported their results, and our understanding of these therapies remains incomplete. Using clinical trial simulations, we estimated the effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in a population like that enrolled in the SAVOR-TIMI (the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus – Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) 53 trial.

Methods

We used the Archimedes Model to simulate a clinical trial of individuals (N=11,000) with diagnosed type 2 diabetes and elevated CV risk, based on established disease or multiple risk factors. The DPP-4 class was modeled with a meta-analysis of HbA_1c and weight change, pooling results from published trials of alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin. The study treatments were added-on to standard care, and outcomes were tracked for 20 years.

Results

The DPP-4 class was associated with an HbA_1c drop of 0.66% (0.71%, 0.62%) and a weight drop of 0.14 (−0.07, 0.36) kg. These biomarker improvements produced a relative risk (RR) for MACE at 5 years of 0.977 (0.968, 0.986). The number needed to treat to prevent one occurrence of MACE at 5 years was 327 (233, 550) in the elevated CV risk population.

Conclusion

Consistent with recent trial publications, our analysis indicates that DPP-4 inhibitors do not increase the risk of MACE relative to the standard of care. This study provides insights about the long-term benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors and supports the interpretation of the published CV safety trial results.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4: A New Link between Diabetes Mellitus and Atherosclerosis?

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has become one of the most prevalent noncommunicable diseases in the past years. It is undoubtedly associated with atherosclerosis and increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. Incretins, which are intestinal peptides secreted during digestion, are able to increase insulin secretion and its impaired function and/or secretion is involved in the pathophysiology of T2DM. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) is an ubiquitous enzyme that regulates incretins and consequently is related to the pathophysiology of T2DM. DPP4 is mainly secreted by endothelial cells and acts as a regulatory protease for cytokines, chemokines, and neuropeptides involved in inflammation, immunity, and vascular function. In T2DM, the activity of DPP4 seems to be increased and there are a growing number of in vitro and in vivo studies suggesting that this enzyme could be a new link between T2DM and atherosclerosis. Gliptins are a new class of pharmaceutical agents that acts by inhibiting DPP4. Thus, it is expected that gliptin represents a new pharmacological approach not only for reducing glycemic levels in T2DM, but also for the prevention and treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in diabetic subjects. We aimed to review the evidences that reinforce the associations between DPP4, atherosclerosis, and T2DM.