Linagliptin (BI 1356), a potent and selective DPP-4 inhibitor, is safe and efficacious in combination with metformin in patients with inadequately controlled Type 2 diabetes

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.

An Update on the Molecular and Cellular Basis of Pharmacotherapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic illness with an increasing global prevalence. More than 537 million cases of diabetes were reported worldwide in 2021, and the number is steadily increasing. The worldwide number of people suffering from DM is projected to reach 783 million in 2045. In 2021 alone, more than USD 966 billion was spent on the management of DM. Reduced physical activity due to urbanization is believed to be the major cause of the increase in the incidence of the disease, as it is associated with higher rates of obesity. Diabetes poses a risk for chronic complications such as nephropathy, angiopathy, neuropathy and retinopathy. Hence, the successful management of blood glucose is the cornerstone of DM therapy. The effective management of the hyperglycemia associated with type 2 diabetes includes physical exercise, diet and therapeutic interventions (insulin, biguanides, second generation sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists, dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, amylin mimetics, meglitinides, α-glucosidase inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and bile acid sequestrants). The optimal and timely treatment of DM improves the quality of life and reduces the severe burden of the disease for patients. Genetic testing, examining the roles of different genes involved in the pathogenesis of DM, may also help to achieve optimal DM management in the future by reducing the incidence of DM and by enhancing the use of individualized treatment regimens.

DPP-4 inhibitors for treating T2DM - hype or hope? an analysis based on the current literature

DPP-4 inhibition is an interesting line of therapy for treating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and is based on promoting the incretin effect. Here, the authors have presented a brief appraisal of DPP-4 inhibitors, their modes of action, and the clinical efficiency of currently available drugs based on DPP-4 inhibitors. The safety profiles as well as future directions including their potential application in improving COVID-19 patient outcomes have also been discussed in detail. This review also highlights the existing queries and evidence gaps in DPP-4 inhibitor research. Authors have concluded that the excitement surrounding DPP-4 inhibitors is justified because in addition to controlling blood glucose level, they are good at managing risk factors associated with diabetes.

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.

Application of online liquid chromatography/quadrupole time-of-flight electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry for structural characterization of linagliptin degradation products and related impurities

RATIONALE

Linagliptin is a drug used for the management of type 2 diabetes, which is a leading cause of global ill health and mortality. Impurities can affect the quality and safety of drug products and eventually may affect human health. A robust, sensitive and reliable analytical method is required to detect, characterize, quantify and control the presence of impurities in finished pharmaceutical products such as linagliptin.

METHODS

Linagliptin was stressed under harsh conditions as in the ICH Q1A (R2) guidelines to generate degradation products. The degradation products and process-related impurities were separated using an InertSustain C8 column (4.6 mm × 150 mm, 5 μm) and characterized by tandem quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry in positive mode electrospray ionization. The developed method was validated according to the ICH Q2 (R1) guidelines.

RESULTS

Upon forced degradation, 12 degradation products were obtained (6 in oxidative stress and 3 in each of acid and alkaline hydrolysis). The special finding here was the presence of a pair of isomeric degradation products in acid hydrolysis and the formation of degradation products in base hydrolysis and oxidative degradation caused by the use of acetonitrile as a diluent. The 12 degradation products and 6 process-related substances were successfully identified using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry.

CONCLUSIONS

A reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography method was developed and validated for the separation of the 12 degradation products and 6 process-related impurities. Structural characterization of all impurities was carried out using fragmentation pathways obtained from tandem mass spectrometry. The method was sufficiently sensitive and reproducible for quality control of linagliptin and for further research studies.

Formulation development of linagliptin solid lipid nanoparticles for oral bioavailability enhancement: role of P-gp inhibition

Linagliptin (LGP), a novel anti-diabetic drug, is a DPP-4 inhibitor used in the treatment of type II diabetes. One of the major disadvantages of LGP is its low oral bioavailability (29.5%) due to first-pass metabolism and P-gp efflux. In an attempt to increase the oral bioavailability, LGP solid lipid nanoparticles (LGP-SLNs) were developed with poloxamer 188 and Tween 80 as P-gp inhibitors. LGP-SLNs were formulated using palmitic acid, poloxamer 188 and Tween 80 as lipid, surfactant and co-surfactant, respectively, by hot homogenization ultrasonication method and optimized using 3² full factorial designs. Particle size, entrapment efficiency (%EE) and drug release at 24 h were evaluated as responses. An optimized batch of LGP-SLNs (L12) was evaluated for intestinal transport of LGP by conducting in situ single-pass intestinal perfusion (SPIP), everted gut sac and Caco-2 permeability study. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of L12 was carried out in albino Wistar rats. The mean particle size, polydispersity index, zeta potential and %EE of L12 were found to be 225.96 ± 2.8 nm, 0.180 ± 0.034, - 5.4 ± 1.07 mV and 73.8 ± 1.73%, respectively. %CDR of 80.96 ± 3.13% was observed in 24 h. The permeability values of LGP-SLNs in the absorptive direction were 1.82-, 1.76- and 1.74-folds higher than LGP-solution (LGP-SOL) in SPIP, everted gut sac and Caco-2 permeability studies, respectively. LGP-SLNs exhibited relative bioavailability of 300% and better reduction in glucose levels in comparison with LGP-SOL in rats. The enhanced oral bioavailability exhibited by LGP-SLNs bioavailability may be due to P-gp efflux inhibition and lymphatic targeting. Improved bioabsorption can cause reduction in dose, dose-related side effects and frequency of administration. Thus, LGP-SLNs can be considered promising carriers for oral delivery but clinical studies are required to confirm the proof of concept.Graphical abstract.

Comparisons between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and other classes of hypoglycemic drugs using two distinct biomarkers of pancreatic beta-cell function: A meta-analysis

Background and objective

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have been suggested to have pancreatic beta-cell preserving effect according to studies using homeostatic model of assessment for beta-cell function (HOMA-β). However, whether HOMA-β is a suitable biomarker for comparisons between hypoglycemic drugs with different mechanisms of action remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors and other classes of hypoglycemic drugs on HOMA-β and proinsulin-to-insulin ratio (PIR).

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Ichushi-web for the period of 1966 to May 2020. We collected randomized, controlled clinical trials in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus comparing DPP-4 inhibitors and other classes of hypoglycemic agents [α-glucosidase inhibitors (α-GIs), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues, metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, sulfonylureas, or thiazolidinediones]. Weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals of changes in HOMA-β or PIR during study periods were calculated for pairwise comparisons.

Results

Thirty-seven and 21 relevant trials were retrieved for comparisons of HOMA-β and PIR, respectively. HOMA-β and PIR consistently showed superiority of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with α-GIs. Both biomarkers consistently supported inferiority of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with GLP-1 analogues. However, PIR showed inferiority of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with metformin, and superiority compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, whereas HOMA-β showed no significant differences between DPP-4 inhibitors and the two other agents.

Conclusion

DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be superior to α-GIs but inferior to GLP-1 analogues in preservation of beta-cell function assessed by either HOMA-β or PIR. DPP-4 inhibitors seem to be superior to SGLT2 inhibitors but inferior to metformin on islet function assessed only by PIR. Because HOMA-β and PIR may indicate different aspects of beta-cell function, results of beta-cell function preserving effects of hypoglycemic agents should be interpreted with caution.

Early Combination Therapy with Linagliptin and Metformin in People with Type 2 Diabetes Improves Glycemic Control to HbA1c ≤ 6.5% without Increasing Hypoglycemia: Pooled Analysis of Two Randomized Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Clinical guidelines suggest a glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target of ≤ 6.5% for type 2 diabetes patients with short duration of disease, few comorbidities and/or long life expectancy-provided this goal can be achieved safely. We explored whether initial combination treatment with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin and metformin could provide better glycemic control (HbA1c ≤ 6.5%) than metformin alone without increasing hypoglycemia.

METHODS

We pooled and analyzed individual patient data from two randomized clinical trials of early combination therapy with linagliptin and metformin versus metformin monotherapy. The primary outcome in both trials was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. We evaluated the percentage of patients who achieved HbA1c ≤ 6.5% at week 24 and the incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

Most (> 70%) of the 1160 patients analyzed were treatment naive, and more than half had had diabetes for ≤ 1 year; mean baseline HbA1c was approximately 8.7%. Combination therapy with linagliptin and metformin resulted in more patients achieving HbA1c ≤ 6.5% than metformin alone, both for a metformin dose of 500 mg (40.1 vs. 22.9%, respectively, odds ratio [OR] 2.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-4.32) and 1000 mg (49.5 vs. 35.4%, respectively, OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.54-3.40). Hypoglycemia occurred in < 3% of patients, with a comparable incidence between treatment groups. Other adverse events were also balanced between groups.

CONCLUSION

Early combination treatment with linagliptin and metformin can improve the chances of achieving tight glycemic control (HbA1c ≤ 6.5%) without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or other adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00798161 and NCT01708902.

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.

High dose of linagliptin induces thermogenic beige adipocytes in the subcutaneous white adipose tissue in diet-induced obese C57BL/6 mice

PURPOSE

To verify whether the treatment with linagliptin induces the browning of the subcutaneous WAT (sWAT) and thermogenesis in murine diet-induced obesity (DIO) model.

METHODS

Forty animals were randomly assigned to receive a control diet (C, 10% lipids as energy) or a high-fat diet (HF, 50% lipids as energy) for 10 weeks. Each group was re-divided to begin the 5-week treatment, totalizing four experimental groups: C, C-L (C plus linagliptin, 30 mg/kg body mass; BM), HF, and HF-L (HF plus linagliptin, 30 mg/kg BM). The drug was mixed with diet.

RESULTS

HF animals showed overweight, glucose intolerance, and a greater cross-sectional area of adipocytes. The treatment with linagliptin was able to normalize the BM, restore the glucose tolerance and the cross-sectional area of adipocytes. These observations comply with the observation of UCP1-positive multilocular adipocytes in the sWAT of treated animals. Both treated groups (C-L and HF-L) showed high expression of thermogenic and type 2 cytokines genes, which agree with the enhanced body temperature and the lower respiratory exchange ratio, implying enhanced thermogenesis with the use of lipids as fuel.

CONCLUSIONS

The reduced BM, the enhanced body temperature, and the presence of positive UCP1 beige cells in the sWAT point to the activation of the browning cascade on the sWAT of linagliptin-treated mice, and hence, linagliptin could induce the thermogenic pathway as a pleiotropic effect that can have translational potential.

Linagliptin safety profile: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To describe the safety profile of linagliptin.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic review using PubMed/MEDLINE, BVS and Web of Science. The search strategy "Linagliptin" AND "safety" was used. The inclusion criteria were clinical trials with a control group composed of conventional DM2 pharmacotherapy.

RESULTS

We identified 16 studies, and the most frequent adverse events (AEs) were nasopharyngitis with linagliptin at 5 and 10mg in monotherapy (31.6% and 29.6%, respectively) and gastrointestinal events (>10.0%) with linagliptin in combination. Of the AEs, 14.9 (±3.1)% were associated with the use of linagliptin in monotherapy, and 17.6 (±6.0)% in combination. The linagliptin AEs have a varied occurrence and frequency, ranging from mild to moderate intensity.

DPP-4 inhibitors promote proliferation and migration of rat brain microvascular endothelial cells under hypoxic/high-glucose conditions, potentially through the SIRT1/HIF-1/VEGF pathway

BACKGROUND

Vascular disease in diabetes, for example, stroke, presents a significant public health burden. Recently, the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin has been found to counteract stroke among diabetic patients, showing great promise in drug repurposing and indication expansion. However, the molecular basis of this protection mechanism remains unknown.

METHODS

The expression and localization of DPP-4 in rat brain microvascular endothelial cells (rBMVECs) were assessed with immunofluorescent staining and Western blotting. The effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on cell proliferation and migration of rBMVECs were determined using MTT and transwell assays, separately. The influence of DPP-4 inhibition on the expression of molecular markers (eg, VEGF, eNOS, HIF-1α. SIRT1) was examined at both mRNA and protein levels with qRT-PCR and Western blotting, individually.

RESULTS

DPP-4 inhibitors (40 nmol/L linagliptin, 30 μmol/L berberine) offer protection from hypoxia/high glucose induced impairments in the proliferation and migration of rBMVECs. Treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors counteracted the attenuating effects of hypoxic/high-glucose conditions on the expression of VEGF, eNOS, HIF-1α, and SIRT1, which can be completely eliminated by the inhibition of SIRT1 with 1 mmol/L nicotinamide.

CONCLUSIONS

The protection of rBMVECs from hypoxia/high-glucose induced impairment by DPP-4 inhibitors may be mediated by the SIRT1/HIF-1α/VEGF pathway.

Effect of Linagliptin and Voglibose on metabolic profile in patients with Type 2 Diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors improve glycemic control by promoting GLP1-mediated glucose-dependent insulin secretion and suppression of glucagon. Sitagliptin and vildagliptin have been shown to improve insulin sensitivity in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, these patients had uncontrolled blood glucose at inclusion; therefore, the improvement in insulin sensitivity observed in these studies could be attributed to the drug per se and/or reduction in glucotoxicity. This study examines the effect of linagliptin on insulin sensitivity and β-cell function in patients with well-controlled T2DM.

Methods

Thirty patients with T2DM of duration ≤5 years, and having HbA1c < 7.5% were randomized to receive linagliptin, voglibose or placebo (n = 10 each), and were followed up for 6 months. Insulin sensitivity was assessed by hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp, and insulin secretory response was measured by basal (M₀) and postprandial (M₁) β-cell function, and area under curve (AUC) for C-peptide during mixed meal tolerance test.

Results

The median HbA1c of the study subjects at inclusion was 6.9% and there was no significant difference among the groups in terms of age, duration of diabetes, body mass index (BMI), HbA1c, insulin sensitivity, AUC of C-peptide and M₀ and M₁ at baseline. At the end of the study, there was a modest reduction in HbA1c (− 0.2%) in the linagliptin group, and a significant decrease (− 0.8%) in the voglibose group, as compared to placebo (p = 0.038). However, there were no significant differences in insulin sensitivity, M₀ and M₁ and AUC of C-peptide, within, or among the groups.

Conclusion

Linagliptin modestly improves glycemic profile in patients with well controlled T2DM; however, it may not have an effect on insulin sensitivity in these patients.

Trial registration

Retrospectively Registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (ID number, NCT02097342). Registered: March 27, 2014.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-finding study of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To identify the dose of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin in pediatric patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Double-blind, randomized, controlled parallel group study comparing linagliptin 1 and 5 mg once daily, with placebo in 39 patients with T2D aged 10 to below 18 years. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) after 12 weeks of treatment. The key pharmacodynamic endpoint was DPP-4 inhibition during steady-state.

RESULTS

Compared to placebo, there was a dose-dependent reduction in mean HbA1c of 0.48% and 0.63% with linagliptin 1 and 5 mg, respectively, associated with corresponding declines in mean fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 5.6 and 34.2 mg/dL. Median DPP-4 inhibition was 38% with linagliptin 1 mg and 79% with linagliptin 5 mg. Geometric mean trough levels of linagliptin were 3.80 and 7.42 nmol/L in the 1 and 5 mg groups, respectively; levels that were slightly higher than in adult patients with T2D that were most likely caused by higher plasma DPP-4 concentrations in the study population. There were no drug-related adverse events during treatment with either dose of linagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin was well tolerated and induced dose-dependent DPP-4 inhibition that was accompanied by corresponding reductions in HbA1c and FPG levels in young people with T2D. The results are consistent with the clinical efficacy and safety profile that have been reported for linagliptin in adult patients with T2D, favoring linagliptin 5 mg over 1 mg.

Linagliptin versus sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Diabetes is one of the most common chronic and costly diseases worldwide and type 2 diabetes is the most common type which accounts for about 90% of cases with diabetes. New medication-therapy regimens such as those containing linagliptin alone or in combination with other medications (within the category of DDP-4 inhibitors) must be evaluated in terms of efficacy and compared with other currently used drugs and then enter the medication list of the country. Hence, this study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of the two drugs, i.e. linagliptin and sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify all clinical trials published by 2015 which compared the two drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes. Using keywords such as “linagliptin”, “type 2 diabetes mellitus”, “sitagliptin” and related combinations, we searched databases including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated using the Jadad score. Considering primary and secondary outcomes extracted from the reviewed studies, a network meta-analysis was used to conduct a systematic comparison between the two studied drugs.

Results

This network meta-analysis included 32 studies (Linagliptin vs PLB: n = 8, Sitagliptin vs PLB: n = 13, Linagliptin + MET vs PLB + MET: n = 4, and Sitagliptin + MET vs PLB + MET: n = 7) and a total of 13,747 patients. The results showed no significant difference between linagliptin and sitagliptin in terms of key efficacy and safety outcomes such as HbA1c changes from baseline, body weight change from baseline, percentage of patients achieving HbA1c <7, and percentage of patients experiencing hypoglycemic events (p > 0.05). The results showed that the efficacy of the two drug regimens was the same.

Conclusions

Based on the results, there was no significant difference between the two drugs, i.e. linagliptin and sitagliptin, in terms of efficacy; in other words, the efficacy of the two drugs was the same. Therefore, the use of these two drugs depends on their availability and cost.

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract of the network meta-analysis performed to evaluate the alternatives under the study.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40199-017-0189-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of linagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, with consideration of Asian patient populations

Our aims were to summarize the clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitor, linagliptin, and to consider how these characteristics influence its clinical utility. Differences between linagliptin and other dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitors were also considered, in addition to the influence of Asian race on the pharmacology of linagliptin. Linagliptin has a xanthine‐based structure, a difference that might account for some of the pharmacological differences observed with linagliptin versus other dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitors. The long terminal half‐life of linagliptin results from its strong binding to dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4. Despite this, linagliptin shows a short accumulation half‐life, as a result of saturable, high‐affinity binding to dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of linagliptin make it suitable for once‐daily dosing in a broad range of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Unlike most other dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitors, linagliptin has a largely non‐renal excretion route, and dose adjustment is not required in patients with renal impairment. Furthermore, linagliptin exposure is not substantially altered in patients with hepatic impairment, and dose adjustment is not necessary for these patients. The 5‐mg dose is also suitable for patients of Asian ethnicity. Linagliptin shows unique pharmacological features within the dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitor class. Although most clinical trials of linagliptin have involved largely Caucasian populations, data on the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of linagliptin show that these features are not substantially altered in Asian populations. The 5‐mg dose of linagliptin is suitable for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus irrespective of their ethnicity or the presence of renal or hepatic impairment.

Alternate-day dosing of linagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients controlled on once daily dose: A case series

Linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP 4) inhibitor with a long terminal half life, significantly inhibits the DPP 4 enzyme at a steady state up to 48 h after the last dose. The present case series examined the hypothesis that linagliptin retains its efficacy during alternate day dosing in type 2 diabetes patients when switched over from once daily (OD) dosing. Eight type 2 diabetes patients maintaining stable glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with acceptable fasting plasma glucose and postprandial glucose levels and receiving linagliptin 5 mg OD for at least 6 weeks, with a stable dose of concomitant antidiabetic medications were given linagliptin 5 mg every alternate day. The median HbA1c while on the OD regimen was 6.1% (43 mmol/mol) (range: 5.8-6.9% [40-52 mmol/mol]) and median duration of diabetes was 7 years (range: 0.75-16 years). After a median follow-up period of 21weeks,the glycemic control was maintained in all patients similar to their baseline values (median HbA1c: 6.0% [42 mmol/mol], range: 5.1-7.1% [32-54 mmol/mol]). The body weight, fasting, and random glucose levels at baseline were also well maintained at the end of treatment. Optimal glycemic status maintained in our study population favors our hypothesis that linagliptin used alternate daily after switching from initial OD dose of the drug in patients on a stable background antidiabetic medications retains its efficacy. Paradoxically, alternate day dosing may affect compliance if the patient forgets when they took the last dose. Further studies including larger cohorts are needed to validate this finding and identify patients who can benefit from the alternate day regimen.

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

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

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.

Population Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Linagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Background and Objectives

Linagliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor, used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses were performed to characterize the impact of clinically relevant intrinsic/extrinsic factors (covariates) on linagliptin exposure and DPP-4 inhibition in patients with T2DM.

Methods

Linagliptin plasma concentrations and DPP-4 activities were obtained from four studies (two phase 1, two phase 2b). Non-linear mixed-effects modelling techniques were implemented using NONMEM software. The covariates that were studied comprised demographic information and laboratory values, including liver enzyme levels and creatinine clearance, as well as study-related factors such as metformin co-treatment. Covariate effects on parameters describing the pharmacokinetics and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship were investigated using stepwise forward inclusion/backward elimination.

Results

The pharmacokinetic analysis included 6,907 measurements of plasma linagliptin concentrations from 462 patients; the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis included 9,674 measurements of plasma DPP-4 activity and linagliptin plasma concentrations from 607 patients. The non-linear pharmacokinetics were described by a target-mediated drug disposition model accounting for the concentration-dependent binding of linagliptin to its target, DPP-4. The difference in exposure between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the covariate distributions and median was <20 % for each single covariate. Likewise, the impact of the covariates on both the half-maximum effect (EC₅₀) and the concentration leading to 80 % DPP-4 inhibition was <20 %.

Conclusion

These analyses show that the investigated factors do not alter the pharmacokinetics and DPP-4 inhibitory activity of linagliptin to a clinically relevant extent and that dose adjustment is not necessary on the basis of factors including age, sex and weight.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40262-014-0232-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Cardiovascular safety of linagliptin in type 2 diabetes: a comprehensive patient-level pooled analysis of prospectively adjudicated cardiovascular events

BACKGROUND

The cardiovascular (CV) safety of linagliptin was evaluated in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

Pre-specified patient-level pooled analysis of all available double-blind, randomized, controlled trials, ≥ 12 weeks' duration (19 trials, 9459 subjects) of linagliptin versus placebo/active treatment. Primary end point: composite of prospectively adjudicated CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina (4P-MACE). Hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF) was also evaluated; adjudication of CHF was introduced during the phase 3 program (8 trials; 3314 subjects). 4P-MACE was assessed in placebo-controlled trials (subgroup of 18 trials; 7746 subjects). Investigator-reported events suggestive of CHF from 24 placebo-controlled trials (including trials <12 weeks' duration, 8778 subjects) were also analyzed.

RESULTS

5847 patients received linagliptin (5 mg: 5687, 10 mg: 160) and 3612 comparator (glimepiride: 775, voglibose: 162, placebo: 2675); cumulative exposure, 4421.3 and 3254.7 patient-years, respectively. 4P-MACE incidence rates: 13.4 per 1000 patient-years, linagliptin (60 events), 18.9, total comparators (62 events); overall hazard ratio (HR), 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.12). HR for adjudicated hospitalization for CHF (n = 21): 1.04 (0.43-2.47). For placebo-controlled trials, 4P-MACE incidence rates: 14.9 per 1000 patient-years, linagliptin (43 events), 16.4, total comparators (29 events); overall HR, 1.09 (95% CI, 0.68-1.75). Occurrence of investigator-reported events suggestive of CHF was low for linagliptin- (26 events, 0.5%; serious: 16 events, 0.3%) and placebo-treated (8 events, 0.2%; serious: 6 events, 0.2%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin is not associated with increased CV risk versus pooled active comparators or placebo in patients with T2DM.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of glimepiride and iDPP4, associated with metformin in second line pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Our review analyses the studies that have specifically compared the association iDPP4/metformin with glimepiride/metformin, both in second line pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2).

METHODS

Systematic literature review with a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing glimepiride with any iDPP4, both used together with metformin as a second line treatment of DM2. The effectiveness variables used were as follows: %HbA1c variation, fasting plasma glucose variation, patients achieving the therapeutic objective of HbA1c <7%, treatment dropouts due to lack of effectiveness and rescue treatments needed. The safety variables included were as follows: weight variation at the end of treatment; presentation of any type of adverse event; presentation of serious adverse events; patients who experienced any type of hypoglycaemia; patients who experienced severe hypoglycaemia; treatments suspended due to adverse effects; and deaths for any reason.

RESULTS

Four studies met the inclusion criteria. The group treated with glimepiride showed better results in all effectiveness variables. Regarding safety variables, the main differences observed were in the greater number of cases with hypoglycaemia in the group treated with glimepiride, and the serious adverse events or treatment discontinuations due to these which occurred in slightly over 2% more cases in this group compared to the iDPP4 group. The remaining adverse events, including mortality, did not show any differences between both groups. The variation in the weight difference between groups (2.1 kg) is not considered clinically relevant.

CONCLUSIONS

A greater effectiveness is seen in the glimepiride/metformin association, which should not be diminished by slight differences in adverse effects, with absence of severe hypoglycaemia in over 98% of patients under treatment. The association of glimepiride/metformin, both due to cost as well as effectiveness and safety, may be the preferential treatment for most DM2 patients, and it offers a potential advantage in refractory hyperglycemic populations, tolerant to treatment.

Combination of linagliptin and metformin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a progressive condition requiring long-term treatment. Most patients with T2DM are unable to maintain normoglycemia using metformin alone; thus, combination therapy is a pivotal part of disease management. Addition of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin, with its proven efficacy, low propensity for hypoglycemia, and weight neutrality, has been shown to improve glycemic control for patients who are not well controlled with metformin. As patients often have other comorbidities requiring pharmacotherapy, an increase in pill number, different prescribing frequencies, and timing of medications may adversely impact patients’ adherence. Studies have shown that treatment nonadherence contributes to increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare cost. In the United States, the single-pill combination (SPC) of linagliptin/metformin is available in three strengths approved for twice-daily administration: 2.5/500 mg, 2.5/850 mg, and 2.5/1000 mg. The SPC has the potential to reduce pill burden and simplify patients’ treatment regimens, thereby promoting improved adherence and efficacy.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin as monotherapy or add-on treatment in Asian patients with suboptimal glycemic control: a pooled analysis

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor linagliptin in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a rapidly increasing population.

METHODS

Data were pooled for Asian patients receiving linagliptin orally once daily, as monotherapy or added to existing oral antidiabetes therapies, in multinational randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials. Efficacy data were taken from four pivotal trials with 24-week durations to allow for robust efficacy assessment. Safety data were pooled from a wider group of 10 trials with varying durations to capture the largest possible incidence of adverse events (AEs). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c. AEs were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA1c (±SD) in this population was 8.2 ± 0.9%. Placebo-corrected mean change in HbA1c after 24 weeks was -0.79% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.92 to -0.67; p < 0.0001). Placebo-corrected mean change in fasting plasma glucose was -17.8 ± 2.4 mg/dL (95% CI: -22.6, -13.0; p < 0.0001). In a small subgroup, mean post-prandial glucose was reduced by a placebo-corrected -56.9 ± 14.0 mg/dL (95% CI: -85.2, -28.5). AEs occurred in 58.0% of linagliptin patients (serious AEs in 2.4%) and 58.2% of placebo patients (serious AEs in 3.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study was limited by the post hoc nature of the analysis, and because the pooling did not differentiate between geographically distant Asian regions. Nonetheless, this analysis provides evidence that linagliptin was efficacious and well tolerated as monotherapy or added to other oral antidiabetes therapies in Asian patients with T2DM.

Observational and clinical trial findings on the comparative effectiveness of diabetes drugs showed agreement

OBJECTIVES

This study compares an observational study of diabetes treatment effectiveness to randomized controlled trials to assess their convergent validity.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Multivariate models were developed using observational data to describe change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c; % unit) and weight (kilograms) after addition of a second-line oral diabetes drug to metformin monotherapy. Randomized trials of these scenarios were systematically identified. The models were used to simulate each trial, and simulated and actual results were compared by linear regression and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-two randomized trials of second-line diabetes oral therapy were identified. For all outcomes and drugs studied, simulation and actual results correlated (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between meta-analyzed randomized and simulated results for effect on HbA1c. For effect on weight, results were qualitatively comparable, but for sulfonylureas, the simulated weight gain was nominally greater than seen in the randomized controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

An observational study of diabetes drug effectiveness showed convergent validity with randomized data. This supports cautious use of the observational research to draw conclusions about drug effectiveness in populations not studied in clinical trials. This approach may be useful in other situations where observational and randomized data need integration.

Safety and Tolerability of Linagliptin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Comprehensive Pooled Analysis of 22 Placebo-controlled Studies

PURPOSE

Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors are an increasingly used antihyperglycemic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Linagliptin, an orally administered DPP-4 inhibitor, has demonstrated favorable efficacy/safety in clinical trials. The aim of this post hoc pooled analysis was to expand current knowledge of the safety of linagliptin.

METHODS

Safety data for once-daily linagliptin 5 mg (1 study of linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily) were analyzed from 22 randomized, double-blind, Phase I-III, placebo-controlled clinical trials of ≤102 weeks' duration. Assessments of pooled data included incidence of patient-reported adverse events (AEs).

FINDINGS

Data from 7400 patients (linagliptin, 4810; placebo, 2590) were pooled. Most patients (58.4%) had T2DM diagnosis for >5 years; approximately 75% were receiving ≥1 type of background therapy in addition to linagliptin/placebo. Overall exposure to the study drug was 2412.8 years for linagliptin and 1481.4 years for placebo (mean [SD], 183 [120] days and 209 [150] days, respectively). Overall frequencies of AEs were similar for linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients (57.3% and 61.8%, respectively). The incidence of neoplastic AEs was low (0.6% and 0.9%, respectively); there were no reports of pancreatic neoplasia. Pancreatitis was observed in 2 linagliptin-treated patients (<0.1%) and 1 placebo-treated patient (<0.1%). The occurrence of cardiac disorder AEs was similar in linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients (3.2% [n = 153] and 3.3% [n = 83], respectively); the incidence of heart failure AEs for linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients was 0.2% (n = 11) and 0.3% (n = 7), respectively. Overall, linagliptin was weight neutral. Occurrence of investigator-defined hypoglycemic AEs was low for both linagliptin and placebo (11.5% vs 14.0%). In patients receiving concomitant sulfonylurea therapy, investigator-defined hypoglycemic AEs were more frequent with linagliptin versus placebo (22.1% [238/1079] vs 14.5% [61/421], respectively). Subgroup analyses showed similar frequencies of AEs for linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients across different age groups and renal function levels.

IMPLICATIONS

This updated and expanded pooled, post hoc analysis of 22 placebo-controlled trials of linagliptin 5 mg daily supports previous findings of the acceptable overall safety/tolerability profile of linagliptin when administered to a broad range of patients with T2DM. Linagliptin-treated patients demonstrated a low overall risk of hypoglycemia (risk increased by concomitant sulfonylurea therapy). As with all pooled analyses, this study is limited by the use of data from different studies, and the relatively short duration of some included studies, although use of individual patient data from consistently designed trials should minimize methodological differences between trials. Results from ongoing clinical trials will provide additional insight into the long-term safety/tolerability of linagliptin.

Efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with alogliptin plus metformin versus either as monotherapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, 6-month study

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin plus metformin (A + M) initial combination therapy versus either as monotherapy in drug-naïve T2DM patients.

METHODS

This international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 26-week study involved T2DM patients with hyperglycaemia (HbA1c 7.5-10.0%) following diet/exercise therapy. Patients (N = 784) received placebo, alogliptin (A, 12.5 mg BID or 25 mg QD), metformin (M, 500 or 1000 mg BID) or A + M (12.5/500 or 12.5/1000 mg BID); placebo, A25 for secondary analyses only.

ENDPOINTS

week 26 changes from baseline in HbA1c (primary), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 2-h postprandial glucose (PPG); incidences of clinical response and hyperglycaemic rescue.

RESULTS

Week 26 mean HbA1c reductions from baseline (8.45%) were -1.22 and -1.55% with A + M 12.5/500 and 12.5/1000 versus -0.56, -0.65, and -1.11% with A12.5, M500 and M1000 (p<0.001, A + M vs. component monotherapies). FPG reductions were -1.76 and -2.55 mmol/L with 12.5/500 and 12.5/1000 versus -0.54, -0.64 and -1.78 mmol/L with A12.5, M500 and M1000 (p < 0.05, A + M vs. component monotherapies). Significantly more A + M-treated patients achieved HbA1c < 7% (47.1-59.5% vs. 20.2-34.3% with monotherapy), significantly fewer required hyperglycaemic rescue (2.6-12.3% vs. 10.8-22.9% with monotherapy). A + M caused only mild/moderate hypoglycaemia (1.9-5.3%) and weight loss (0.6-1.2 kg).

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin plus metformin initial combination therapy was well tolerated yet more efficacious in controlling glycaemia in drug-naïve T2DM patients than either as monotherapy.

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.

Linagliptin: from bench to bedside

PURPOSE

The nature of biomedical research affords a broad range of investigational topics at the preclinical stage, not all of which may be explored in subsequent clinical studies. To provide a comprehensive perspective on the physiologic effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin, this review will discuss the results of both preclinical and clinical research, summarizing data describing outcomes associated with its use.

SUMMARY

Clinical studies demonstrate an overall favorable safety profile, low risk for hypoglycemia, weight neutrality, primarily nonrenal clearance, and efficacy for glycosylated hemoglobin reduction, typically ranging from 0.6% to 0.8% depending on baseline levels. In addition to these characteristics, preclinical research on linagliptin has yielded several interesting findings such as improved wound healing, reduced hepatic fat content, decreased infarct size following myocardial infarction or intracranial stroke, and improved vascular function with decreased oxidative stress. In accordance with its preclinical profile, linagliptin is unique among available dipeptidyl peptidase-4 compounds because it does not require dose adjustment when used in patients with renal dysfunction. Reduction of albuminuria with linagliptin on top of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in both preclinical and post hoc clinical analysis serves as the foundation for ongoing clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

In addition to its efficacy for glycemic control, current literature points to other potential opportunities associated with linagliptin therapy. These results warrant further investigation and underscore the importance of translational study based on findings from preclinical research. Moving forward, we can expect that future research on linagliptin and other incretin-based therapies will continue to expand their applications beyond the maintenance of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis

AIMS

This meta-analysis was performed to provide an update on the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We conducted a search on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Collaborative database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin as initial combination therapy or as monotherapy in patients with T2DM by the end of December 2012, using the key words 'alogliptin', 'dutogliptin', 'linagliptin', 'saxagliptin', 'sitagliptin', 'vildagliptin' and 'metformin'. RCTs were selected for meta-analysis if (1) they were RCTs comparing DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin as initial combination therapy or DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy to metformin monotherapy, (2) duration of treatment was ≥12 weeks and (3) reported data on haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) change, weight change, adverse cardiovascular (CV) events, hypoglycaemia or gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

A total of eight RCTs were included. Compared with metformin monotherapy, DPP-4 inhibitors monotherapy was associated with lower reduction in HbA1c level [weighted mean differences (MD) = 0.28, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (0.17, 0.40), p < 0.00001], lower reduction in FPG level [MD = 0.81, 95% CI(0.60, 1.02), p <0.00001], lower weight loss [MD = 1.51, 95% CI (0.89, 2.13), p < 0.00001], but lower risk of adverse CV events [risk ratio (RR) = 0.36, 95% CI (0.15, 0.85), p = 0.02], lower risk of hypoglycaemia [RR = 0.44, 95% CI (0.27, 0.72), p = 0.001] and lower risk of gastrointestinal AEs [RR = 0.63, 95% CI(0.55, 0.70), p <0.00001]. Compared with metformin monotherapy, DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin as initial combination therapy was associated with higher reduction in HbA1c level [MD = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.57, -0.40), p < 0.00001], higher reduction in FPG level [MD = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.87, -0.74), p < 0.00001], lower weight loss [MD = 0.44, 95% CI (0.22, 0.67), p = 0.0001]; but was not associated with a further reduction in adverse CV events [RR=0.54, 95% CI (0.25, 1.19), p = 0.13], nor the higher risk of hypoglycaemia [RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.72, 1.50), p = 0.82], nor the prolonged risk of gastrointestinal AEs [RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.88, 1.10), p = 0.77].

CONCLUSIONS

DPP-4 inhibitors, which are safe and effective in controlling the blood glucose, may possibly decrease the risk of CV events in patients with T2DM. It could be a credible alternative for T2DM patients who, for some reason, cannot use metformin, or are in high risk of CV exposure. High-quality, large sample and long-term follow-up clinical trails are needed to confirm the long-term conclusions.

The incidence of mild and severe hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with sulfonylureas: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using sulfonylurea derivatives or insulin may experience hypoglycaemia. However, recent data regarding the incidence of hypoglycaemia are scarce. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that experience hypoglycaemia when treated with sulfonylurea or insulin. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials that compared incretin-based drugs to sulfonylureas or insulin and assessed hypoglycaemia incidence in the latter therapies. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to study possible associations with potential risk factors for hypoglycaemia. Data of 25 studies were extracted, 22 for sulfonylurea and 3 for insulin. Hypoglycaemia with glucose ≤3.1 mmol/L or ≤2.8 mmol/L was experienced by 10.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.3-13.8%] and 5.9% (95% CI 2.5-13.4%) of patients with any sulfonylurea treatment. Severe hypoglycaemia was experienced by 0.8% (95% CI 0.5-1.3%) of patients. Hypoglycaemia with glucose ≤3.1 mmol/L and severe hypoglycaemia occurred least frequently with gliclazide: in 1.4% (95% CI 0.8-2.4%) and 0.1% (95% CI 0-0.7%) of patients, respectively. None of the risk factors were significant in a stepwise multivariate meta-regression analysis. Too few studies had insulin as comparator, so these data could not be meta-analysed. The majority of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on sulfonylurea therapy in clinical trials remain free of any relevant hypoglycaemia. Gliclazide was associated with the lowest risk of hypoglycaemia. Because participants in randomized controlled trials differ from the general population, care should be taken when translating these data into clinical practice.

Prognostic implications of DPP-4 inhibitor vs. sulfonylurea use on top of metformin in a real world setting - results of the 1 year follow-up of the prospective DiaRegis registry

BACKGROUND

DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP4-I) have been shown to provide non-inferior glycaemic control compared with sulfonylureas (SU), but result in a reduction of body weight and a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to validate these results in a large real-world sample of patients participating in the prospective DiaRegis registry and to assess prognostic implications.

METHODS

DiaRegis included 3810 patients with type 2 diabetes in which antidiabetic therapy was intensified. We defined two patient subgroups, the first receiving either a DPP4-I or SU on top of prior metformin monotherapy and the second containing patients out of subgroup 1 with unaltered treatment for 1 year.

RESULTS

After enrolment 884 patients with prior metformin monotherapy received a dual combination of metformin with either DPP4-I (n = 628; 71%) or SU (n = 256; 29%). Patient characteristics, blood glucose and blood pressure control as well as comorbidity burden were virtually identical. There were neither significant differences in the change of HbA1c over the 12 months treatment period nor in the reduction of body weight, but fasting (p = 0.033) and postprandial glucose levels (p = 0.01) were significantly lower in those receiving DPP4-I. Hypoglycaemia was significantly less frequent in patients receiving DPP4-I (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.19-0.54). Qualitative changes were robust for subgroup 2 (except of fasting plasma glucose). Patients receiving DPP4-I had significantly less stroke/transitory ischaemic attack (0.2 vs. 2.0; p < 0.05) during the 1 year follow-up, whereas other vascular events (coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention) were borderline significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results confirm prior randomised controlled trial results in patients with type 2 diabetes from real world clinical practice demonstrating that DPP4-I on top of prior metformin monotherapy result in similar HbA1c reductions within 12 months but a significant reduction in hypoglycaemia compared with sulfonylurea added to metformin. The reduction in vascular events observed has to be verified in larger cohorts.

Novel therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: Part 2. Addressing the incretin defect in the clinical setting in 2013

The present short review summarizes and updates clinical experience with two classes of drugs introduced for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus over the past 8 years: (i) the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists; and (ii) the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. Both classes of agents address the so called "incretin defect" in patients with T2DM.

Linagliptin provides effective, well-tolerated add-on therapy to pre-existing oral antidiabetic therapy over 1 year in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of linagliptin as add-on therapy to one approved oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and insufficient glycaemic control.

METHODS

This 52-week, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group study evaluated once-daily linagliptin 5 mg as add-on therapy to one OAD [biguanide, glinide, glitazone, sulphonylurea (SU) or α-glucosidase inhibitors (A-GI)] in 618 patients. After a 2-week run-in, patients on SU or A-GI were randomized to either linagliptin (once daily, 5 mg) or metformin (twice or thrice daily, up to 2250 mg/day) as add-on therapy. Patients receiving the other OADs received linagliptin add-on therapy (non-randomized).

RESULTS

Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate, and rates were similar across all groups. Hypoglycaemic events were rare, except in the SU group. Overall, 26 (5.8%) hypoglycaemic events were reported in patients receiving linagliptin (non-randomized). Hypoglycaemic events were similar for linagliptin and metformin added to A-GI (1/61 vs. 2/61, respectively) or SU (17/124 vs. 10/63, respectively). Significant reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels (between -0.7 and -0.9%) occurred throughout the study period for the background therapy groups that received linagliptin (baseline HbA1c 7.9-8.1%). The decline in HbA1c levels was indistinguishable between linagliptin and metformin groups when administered as add-on therapy to A-GI or SU.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily linagliptin showed safety and tolerability over 1 year and provided effective add-on therapy leading to significant HbA1c reductions, similar to metformin, over 52 weeks in Japanese patients.