Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor-Associated Pancreatic Carcinoma: A Review of the FAERS Database

Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer Risk Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis sought to assess the relationship between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) and the risk of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer by synthesizing data from randomized, controlled trials, in light of the conflicting findings from observational studies and previous meta-analyses.

METHODS

Cochrane, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and PubMed databases that compared the use of DPP-4 inhibitors and that reported pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer events in patients with diabetes mellitus Type 2 (T2DM) were searched using specific terms. Studies were included if they satisfied the following inclusion criteria: They were randomized trials comparing DPP-4 inhibitors use in patients with T2DM; The study's duration was longer than 24 weeks; And they reported pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer events. Stata 15 MP was used to analyze the data, and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the results.

FINDINGS

A total of 81,737 participants with T2DM were included in the analysis. The results showed that during a mean follow-up period of 24 to 520 weeks, The use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of pancreatitis (Peto-OR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.74, 1.27) or pancreatic cancer (Peto-OR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.30).

IMPLICATIONS

Current evidence fails to validate a significant correlation between DPP-4 therapy and pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer. However, subgroup analyses showed that sitagliptin was associated with a significant reduction in pancreatitis risk compared to the control group; furthermore, when comparing different types of control medications, a significant decrease in pancreatic cancer risk was observed among DPP-4 users compared to GLP-1 users.

Long-term efficacy and safety of early alogliptin initiation in subjects with type 2 diabetes: an extension of the SPEAD-A study

We previously reported in the study of preventive effects of alogliptin on diabetic atherosclerosis (SPEAD-A) that alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, attenuated the progression of carotid atherosclerosis in subjects with type 2 diabetes and no history of cardiovascular disease. This extension study of the SPEAD-A trial investigated whether early alogliptin initiation improved long-term cardiovascular outcomes. The SPEAD-A trial randomized 341 subjects with type 2 diabetes to either alogliptin or conventional treatment to investigate the effects of alogliptin on atherosclerosis. All subjects who completed that trial were eligible for this prospective, observational cohort study. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of a major cardiovascular event, defined as death due to any cause, acute myocardial infarction, or stroke. During the 520-week follow-up period, composite primary outcome events occurred in only a few subjects in each group [8 (5.4%) in the alogliptin group and 9 in the conventional treatment group (5.9%)]. There were no significant differences in the incidence rate of the primary outcome between the two groups. Post hoc Poisson regression analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence rate of composite recurrence events for the same outcomes as the primary endpoint. On the other hand, this incidence rate was significantly lower in subjects who received DPP-4 inhibitors before an initial cardiovascular event than in those who did not (5.8 vs. 13.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively, p = 0.04). Early initiation of alogliptin was not associated with a reduced risk of composite cardiovascular disease, which could be attributed to fewer events and/or the addition of DPP-4 inhibitors during the follow-up period.

Comparison of Adverse Events Occurred During Administration of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor in Patients with Diabetes Using FDA Adverse Event Reporting System

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Various dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of diabetes. The frequencies of known serious side effects might differ among DPP-4 inhibitors, therefore a large sample size is needed to study them in prospective clinical trials. We examined the adverse events that occurred during the administration of a DPP-4 inhibitor in patients with diabetes using FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data.

METHODS

We used FAERS data reported between January 2013 and March 2022 in patients with diabetes who received a DPP-4 inhibitor. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate reporting odds ratio (ROR) and adjusted ROR (aROR) controlling for differences in patient background.

RESULTS

The 9 target DPP-4 inhibitors were sitagliptin (N = 26,843), vildagliptin (N = 4767), alogliptin (N = 2085), linagliptin (N = 7969), saxagliptin (N = 3334), teneligliptin (N = 461), anagliptin (N = 102), trelagliptin (N = 17), and omarigliptin (N = 12). Compared with sitagliptin, aROR of acute kidney injury was significantly < 1.000 for alogliptin (0.247 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.150-0.408], p < 0.001) but aROR of pemphigoid was significantly > 1.000 for alogliptin (3.082 [95% CI 2.156-4.406], p < 0.001). Similar statistical analyses were conducted for other adverse events and the types of adverse events with aROR of significantly < 1.000 or > 1.000 differed depending on the type of DPP-4 inhibitor.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is impossible to select a DPP-4 inhibitor with aROR of < 1.000 of all occurrences of adverse events, these results may be used for drug selection when the patient has adverse events that need to be avoided. We provided the sample code of software R that can reproduce the results.

Antitumor Effects and Mechanisms of Metabolic Syndrome Medications on Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver cancer has a high incidence and mortality rate worldwide, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) being the most common histological type. With the decrease in the number of newly infected patients and the spread of antiviral therapy, hepatitis virus-negative chronic liver diseases including steatohepatitis are increasingly accounting for a large proportion of HCC, and an important clinical characteristic is the high prevalence of metabolic syndrome including hypertension, type 2 diabetes (T2D), dyslipidemia, and obesity. Since patients with steatohepatitis are less likely to undergo surveillance for early detection of HCC, they may be diagnosed at an advanced stage and have worse prognosis. Therefore, treatment strategies for patients with HCC caused by steatohepatitis, especially in advanced stages, become increasingly important. Further, hypertension, T2D, and dyslipidemia may occur as side effects during systemic treatment, and there will be increasing opportunities to prescribe metabolic syndrome medications, not only for originally comorbid diseases, but also for adverse events during HCC treatment. Interestingly, epidemiological studies have shown that patients taking some metabolic syndrome medications are less likely to develop various types of cancers, including HCC. Basic studies have also shown that these drugs have direct antitumor effects on HCC. In particular, angiotensin II receptor blockers (a drug group for treating hypertension), biguanides (a drug group for treating T2D), and statins (a drug group for treating dyslipidemia) have shown to elucidate antitumor effects against HCC. In this review, we focus on the antitumor effects of metabolic syndrome medications on HCC and their mechanisms based on recent literature. New therapeutic agents are also increasingly being reported. Analysis of the antitumor effects of metabolic syndrome medications on HCC and their mechanisms will be doubly beneficial for HCC patients with metabolic syndrome, and the use of these medications may be a potential strategy against HCC.

Association Between DPP4 Inhibitor Use and the Incidence of Cirrhosis, ESRD, and Some Cancers in Patients With Diabetes

CONTEXT

There are relatively few data on noncardiovascular (non-CV) long-term clinical outcomes of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP4i) treatment.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate some non-CV effects of DPP4is in patients with diabetes.

METHODS

Based on data from the National Health Insurance Service database in Korea (2007-2018), we conducted 3 pairwise comparisons of metformin-combined antidiabetic therapies in adult patients with diabetes: DPP4is vs (1) all other oral antidiabetic agents, (2) sulfonylureas/glinides, and (3) thiazolidinediones (TZDs). Major outcomes were liver cirrhosis, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and cancers in the liver, kidney, and pancreas. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the outcomes were estimated using an adjusted Cox model.

RESULTS

Of the 747 124 patients included, 628 217 had received DPP4i therapy for a mean duration of 33.8 ± 25.0 months. Compared with TZD therapy, DPP4i therapy was associated with higher adjusted HRs [95% CIs] for liver cirrhosis (1.267 [1.108-1.449]), ESRD (1.596 [1.139-2.236]), liver cancer (1.117 [1.011-1.235]), and pancreatic cancer (1.158 [1.040-1.290]). Furthermore, apart from liver cirrhosis, a higher risk of each of these outcomes was associated with DPP4i use than with non-DPP4i use. The higher adjusted HRs associated with DPP4i use further increased when patients with long-term exposure to DPP4is were analyzed.

CONCLUSION

DPP4i therapy in patients with diabetes was associated with a higher risk of liver cirrhosis and cancer, ESRD, and pancreatic cancer than TZD therapy and, except for liver cirrhosis, the risk of these outcomes was greater with DPP4i treatment than with non-DPP4i treatment.

Incretin based therapy and pancreatic cancer: Realising the reality

Incretin-based therapies like glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors help maintain the glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with additional systemic benefits and little risk of hypoglycaemia. These medications are associated with low-grade chronic pancreatitis in animal models inconsistently. The incidence of acute pancreatitis was also reported in some human studies. This inflammation provides fertile ground for developing pancreatic carcinoma (PC). Although the data from clinical trials and population-based studies have established safety regarding PC, the pathophysiological possibility that low-grade chronic pancreatitis leads to PC remains. We review the existing literature and describe the relationship between incretin-based therapies and PC.

Drugs-associated with red man syndrome: An integrative approach using disproportionality analysis and Pharmip

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Red man syndrome (RMS) is a non-IgE-mediated anaphylactoid adverse event frequently witnessed after a rapid infusion of vancomycin. This study aims to unravel drugs and associated off-label targets that induce RMS by exploiting FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and Pharmacovigilance/Pharmacogenomics Insilico Pipeline (PHARMIP).

METHODS

The case/non-case retrospective observational study was conducted in the FAERS database. Reporting odds ratio (ROR) and proportional reporting ratio (PRR) data mining algorithms were used to evaluate the strength of the signal. The off-label targets of the drugs with potential signals were obtained using online servers by applying a similarity ensemble approach and a reverse pharmacophore database, which was further validated by molecular docking studies.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Oritavancin exhibited a strong positive signal (PRR:1185.20 and ROR:1256), which suggests a higher risk for causing RMS. The literature search revealed the involvement of the MRGPRX2 gene in the development of RMS. PHARMIP study unearthed Carbonic anhydrase II (CA2) as the common off-label target among the drugs causing RMS. The results obtained from molecular docking studies reinforced the findings as mentioned earlier, wherein the highest docking score was disinterred for oritavancin (-9.4 for MRGPRX2 and - 8.7 for CA2).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Many antibiotics and other classes of medications have been discovered in the quest for drugs that may induce RMS, although a causal relationship could not be established. The implication of MRGPX2 and CA2 in the initial stages of pathogenesis necessitates the development of inhibitors that could be used as potential therapeutic agents against RMS.

An overview of alogliptin + pioglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive condition, and sequential additions of therapy are usually required to maintain glycemic control. The options for glucose lowering therapies have increased considerably in recent years. Fixed-dose combinations such as alogliptin with pioglitazone provide a convenient choice which can improve medication adherence.

AREAS COVERED

The authors performed a literature search to identify publications describing the efficacy and safety of alogliptin and pioglitazone when used separately and in combinations.

EXPERT OPINION

Pioglitazone activates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma which improves insulin sensitivity and helps to preserve β-cell function with a durable improvement in glycemic control. Pioglitazone can retard the progression of atherosclerosis and reduce cardiovascular events, but it is associated with adverse events including weight gain, fluid retention, and increased risk of fractures. Alogliptin improves glycemic control and appears neutral in terms of cardiovascular events. It does not appear to increase the adverse events associated with pioglitazone and use of the combination may permit the use of lower doses of pioglitazone with reduced adverse effects. There are no cardiovascular outcome studies with the combination but the cardiovascular benefits of pioglitazone and additional glucose lowering effects of alogliptin provide a useful combination with convenient once daily dosing.

Cancer Biology and Prevention in Diabetes

The available evidence suggests a complex relationship between diabetes and cancer. Epidemiological data suggest a positive correlation, however, in certain types of cancer, a more complex picture emerges, such as in some site-specific cancers being specific to type I diabetes but not to type II diabetes. Reports share common and differential mechanisms which affect the relationship between diabetes and cancer. We discuss the use of antidiabetic drugs in a wide range of cancer therapy and cancer therapeutics in the development of hyperglycemia, especially antineoplastic drugs which often induce hyperglycemia by targeting insulin/IGF-1 signaling. Similarly, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4), a well-known target in type II diabetes mellitus, has differential effects on cancer types. Past studies suggest a protective role of DPP-4 inhibitors, but recent studies show that DPP-4 inhibition induces cancer metastasis. Moreover, molecular pathological mechanisms of cancer in diabetes are currently largely unclear. The cancer-causing mechanisms in diabetes have been shown to be complex, including excessive ROS-formation, destruction of essential biomolecules, chronic inflammation, and impaired healing phenomena, collectively leading to carcinogenesis in diabetic conditions. Diabetes-associated epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EndMT) contribute to cancer-associated fibroblast (CAF) formation in tumors, allowing the epithelium and endothelium to enable tumor cell extravasation. In this review, we discuss the risk of cancer associated with anti-diabetic therapies, including DPP-4 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors, and the role of catechol-o-methyltransferase (COMT), AMPK, and cell-specific glucocorticoid receptors in cancer biology. We explore possible mechanistic links between diabetes and cancer biology and discuss new therapeutic approaches.

Abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of cancer: a world observational post-marketing study

Objectives

We aimed to investigate whether abatacept used in patients for RA was associated with an increased risk of reporting overall cancer and specific cancers, including breast, lung, lymphoma, melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer when compared with other biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs).

Methods

We performed an observational study within VigiBase, the World Health Organization’s global database of individual case safety reports, from 2007 to 2017 to compare the cases of cancer reported in RA patients exposed to abatacept with those reported in RA patients exposed to other bDMARDs. We conducted disproportionality analyses allowing the estimation of reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% CIs of the exposure odds among spontaneous reporting of cancers to the exposure odds among other reported adverse effects.

Results

We identified 15 846 adverse effects reported in RA patients who received abatacept and 290 568 adverse effects reported in RA patients treated with other bDMARDs. Compared with other bDMARDs, the use of abatacept was not associated with an increased risk of reporting cancer overall [ROR 0.98 (95% CI 0.91, 1.05)]. Analyses by specific cancer sites showed a significantly increased ROR for melanoma [1.58 (95% CI 1.17, 2.08)], but not for other specific cancer sites.

Conclusion

Compared with other bDMARDs, exposure to abatacept in RA patients was only significantly associated with an increased risk of reporting melanoma. This increased risk is consistent with the properties of abatacept (CTLA-4 agonist) since it has an opposite action than ipilimumab, an antibody that blocks CTLA-4 and is approved for the treatment of malignant melanoma.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT03980639.

Association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and aspiration pneumonia: disproportionality analysis using the spontaneous reporting system in Japan

PURPOSE

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4-Is), a kind of drug used for the treatment of diabetes, is considered to prevent the degradation of substance P that suppresses the occurrence of dysphagia. On the other hand, DPP-4 inhibitors are also known to act on the immune system. In this study, we used a spontaneous reporting system to evaluate the signals for dysphagia and aspiration pneumonia with DPP-4-Is.

METHODS

We calculated reporting odds ratio (ROR) and information coefficients (IC) as disproportionality analysis to evaluate DPP-4-Is induced dysphagia and aspiration pneumonia using the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) database.

RESULTS

For DPP-4-Is as a class, no signals were detected for dysphagia, but the signal for aspiration pneumonia was detected at ROR 1.67 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.20 to 2.34) and IC 0.70 (95% CI: 0.21 to 1.19). For aspiration pneumonia, trelagliptin was the only drug among the DPP-4-Is for which both ROR and IC signals were detected (ROR 9.99, 95% CI: 4.10 to 24.36; IC: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.78 to 3.18). ROR signals, but not IC signals, were detected for linagliptin (ROR 2.66, 95% CI: 1.19 to 5.94; IC: 1.09, 95% CI: - 0.004 to 2.19) and sitagliptin (ROR 1.84, 95% CI: 1.04 to 3.25; IC: 0.78, 95% CI: - 0.03 to 1.58).

CONCLUSION

Since DPP-4 inhibitors prevent the degradation of substance P involved in swallowing reflex, DPP-4 inhibitors were expected to prevent dysphagia and aspiration pneumonia. However, this study revealed that DPP-4 inhibitors strongly were associated with onset rather than preventing aspiration pneumonia. This result suggests that DPP-4 inhibitors may affect the immune function associated with the development of aspiration pneumonia. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the amount of DPP-4-Is used clinically cannot increase the amount of substance P in sufficient quantity to prevent aspiration pneumonia.

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

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

Nationwide Trends in Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Cancer Risk Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are useful incretin-based antidiabetes drugs. However, there is a concern that DPP-4i may adversely impact the exocrine pancreas, owing to their pleiotropic effects. In this study, we investigated whether DPP-4i are associated with pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer using a nationwide population-based cohort study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We included patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes who were treated with antidiabetes drugs (n = 33,208) from 2007 to 2013. The data were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-Health Screening Cohort database (n = 514,866). Risk was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model with time-dependent covariates. A 6-month lag time was used to account for a possible latency time. The risk across various time segments since the first prescription of DPP-4i was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of 33,208 subjects, 10,218 were new users of DPP-4i and 22,990 were new users of other antidiabetes drugs. DPP-4i significantly increased the risks of pancreatitis (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.24, 95% CI 1.01-1.52; P = 0.037) and pancreatic cancer (aHR 1.81, 95% CI 1.16-2.82; P = 0.009) with a 6-month drug use lag period. The risk of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer was generally consistent in the first 12 months and 1 year after the initial prescription without showing an increasing trend according to exposure duration.

CONCLUSIONS

DPP-4i use is associated with increased risks of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. However, the absence of increasing trend according to exposure duration suggests the chances of reverse causality, and long-term pancreatic safety of DPP-4i has to be further investigated.

Immunohistochemistry for Anti-diabetes Drug, Alogliptin Using a Newly Prepared Monoclonal Antibody: Its Precise Localization in Rat Small Intestine

Knowledge of time sequence of localization of drugs in cells and tissues of animals may help in developing a better understanding of the actual overall pharmacokinetics of the drugs. We produced monoclonal antibody (mAb) against alogliptin (AG), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, conjugated to BSA with N-(γ-maleimidobutyryloxy)-succinimide. The mAb was specific for AG and did not cross-react with sitagliptin, vancomycin or amoxicillin. The mAb enabled us to develop an immunohistochemical method for detecting the localization of AG in the rat small intestine. One hour after a single oral administration of AG, immunohistochemistry revealed that the immunoreactivity of AG was observed in almost all of cells and tissues of the duodenum. The microvilli of the absorptive epithelial cells were moderately stained. The staining pattern of AG at jejunum and ilium was almost the same as that of duodenum, but the staining intensity, especially at absorptive epithelial cells and intestinal gland epithelial cells, became stronger towards the distal part of the small intestine. These results suggested that AG may be more actively absorbed from the lower part of the small intestine than in the upper part. It may affect the function of cells with membrane-bound DPP-4 because it was reported that membrane-bound form of DPP-4 exists in the microvilli of the absorptive epithelial cells.

Effect of incretin-based therapies on cancers of digestive system among 101 595 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and network meta-analysis combining 84 trials with a median duration of 30 weeks

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the risk of cancers of digestive system with incretin-based therapies among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials that compared incretin-based drugs with placebo or other antidiabetic drugs. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was performed, followed by subgroup analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to assess the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 84 studies (n=101 595) involving cancers of digestive system were identified (a median follow-up of 30 weeks). The risk of cancers of digestive system with incretin-based therapies was comparable with insulin (OR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.69), metformin (OR: 0.32, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.38), sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (OR: 5.26, 95% CI 0.58 to 47.41), sulfonylureas (OR: 1.27, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.39), thiazolidinediones (OR: 0.42, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.42), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (OR: 2.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.80), and placebo (OR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.05). The results of subgroup analysis based on the type of digestive system cancers indicated that incretin-based therapies did not increase the risk of gastrointestinal cancers, respectively. The results of subgroup analysis based on age, duration, mean HbA1c, trial duration, and sample size did not indicate the risk of digestive system cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate to high Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence suggests that incretin-based therapies were not associated with an increased risk of cancer of digestive system in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Inhibition of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Accelerates Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition and Breast Cancer Metastasis via the CXCL12/CXCR4/mTOR Axis

Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 is a multifunctional glycoprotein involved in various biological and pathologic processes. DPP-4 has been widely recognized as a therapeutic target for type 2 diabetes mellitus but is also implicated in the development of human malignancies. Here, we show that inhibition of DPP-4 accelerates breast cancer metastasis via induction of CXCL12/CXCR4, which activates mTOR to promote epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). In cultured cells, DPP-4 knockdown induced EMT and cell migration. Treatment with the DPP-4 inhibitor KR62436 (KR) promoted primary tumor growth and lung metastasis in a 4T1 tumor allograft mouse model; DPP-4 knockdown in 4T1 cells displayed similar phenotypes in vivo and in vitro. KR treatment enhanced the levels of CXCL12/CXCR4 and phosphorylated mTOR, which were associated with the induction of EMT in metastatic cancer cells. KR-induced EMT in cancer cells was inhibited by treatment with the CXCR4 inhibitor AMD3100 or the mTOR inhibitor rapamycin, and AMD3100 suppressed KR-induced metastasis in vivo. Our findings suggest that DPP-4 plays a significant role in cancer biology and that inhibition of DPP-4 promotes cancer metastasis via induction of the CXCL12/CXCR4/mTOR/EMT axis. SIGNIFICANCE: These findings reveal that inhibition of DPP-4 increases the metastatic potential of breast cancer. This is especially important given the potential use of DPP-4 inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for type 2 diabetes.

The influence of diabetes and antidiabetic medications on the risk of pancreatic cancer: a nationwide population-based study in Korea

This study investigated the effects of diabetes and antidiabetic medications on the risk of pancreatic cancer(PaC). We extracted data on Koreans with newly diagnosed diabetes and selected age- and sex-matched controls provided by the National Health Insurance Corporation. Incident PaC was defined as a new registration in the Korea Central Cancer Registry under ICD-10 C25 with admission history until 2015. During 19,429,617.1 person-years, 8,589 PaCs were identified in 1,005,409 subjects for diabetes group and 4,021,636 subjects for control group. The diabetes group showed more than a two-fold risk for PaC compared with the control group. Among antidiabetic medications, metformin, thiazolidinedione, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor exposure was associated with decreased risk for future PaC(hazard ratio[95% confidence interval] = 0.86[0.77–0.96], 0.82[0.68–0.98], 0.57[0.51–0.64], respectively), whereas sulfonylurea and insulin exposure was related to increased risk(hazard ratio[95% CI] = 1.73[1.57–1.91], 2.86[1.43–5.74], respectively) compared to subjects with no drug exposure. Moreover, subjects with dual exposure history to metformin plus thiazolidinedione or metformin plus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor had a lower risk of PaC compared to metformin-only treated subjects. In conclusion, Korean adults with diabetes are at higher risk of PaC compared with nondiabetic individuals, and this risk may be modified by antidiabetic medications.

Diabetes drugs and the incidence of solid cancers: a survey of the current evidence

INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of the relationship between the use of antidiabetic drug and the occurrence of cancer is extremely challenging, both from the clinical and pharmacoepidemiological standpoint. This narrative review described the current evidence supporting a relationship between the use of antidiabetic drugs and the incidence of solid cancers. Areas covered: Data from pharmacoepidemiological studies on cancer incidence were presented for the main antidiabetic drugs and drug classes, including human insulin and insulin analogues, metformin, sulfonylureas, glinides, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, incretin mimetics, and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. The relationship between the use of antidiabetics and the incidence of solid cancer was described in strata by any cancer and by organ-specific cancer and by drug and by drug classes. Information supporting biological evidence and putative mechanisms were also provided. Expert opinion: The history of exploration of the relationship between antidiabetic drugs and the risk of solid cancers has showed several issues. Unrecognized biases and misinterpretations of study results have had important consequences that delayed the identification of actual risk and benefits of the use of antidiabetic drugs associated with cancer occurrence or progression. The lesson learned from the past should address the future research in this area, since in the majority of cases findings are controversial and confirmatory studies are warranted.

Dipeptidyl-peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 analogues for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people at increased risk for the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The projected rise in the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) could develop into a substantial health problem worldwide. Whether dipeptidyl-peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 analogues are able to prevent or delay T2DM and its associated complications in people at risk for the development of T2DM is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues on the prevention or delay of T2DM and its associated complications in people with impaired glucose tolerance, impaired fasting blood glucose, moderately elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or any combination of these.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; PubMed; Embase; ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials. The date of the last search of all databases was January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 12 weeks or more comparing DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues with any pharmacological glucose-lowering intervention, behaviour-changing intervention, placebo or no intervention in people with impaired fasting glucose, impaired glucose tolerance, moderately elevated HbA1c or combinations of these.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed quality and extracted outcome data independently. One review author extracted data which were checked by a second review author. We resolved discrepancies by consensus or the involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses, we planned to use a random-effects model with investigation of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven completed RCTs; about 98 participants were randomised to a DPP-4 inhibitor as monotherapy and 1620 participants were randomised to a GLP-1 analogue as monotherapy. Two trials investigated a DPP-4 inhibitor and five trials investigated a GLP-1 analogue. A total of 924 participants with data on allocation to control groups were randomised to a comparator group; 889 participants were randomised to placebo and 33 participants to metformin monotherapy. One RCT of liraglutide contributed 85% of all participants. The duration of the intervention varied from 12 weeks to 160 weeks. We judged none of the included trials at low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains and did not perform meta-analyses because there were not enough trials.One trial comparing the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin with placebo reported no deaths (very low-quality evidence). The incidence of T2DM by means of WHO diagnostic criteria in this trial was 3/90 participants randomised to vildagliptin versus 1/89 participants randomised to placebo (very low-quality evidence). Also, 1/90 participants on vildagliptin versus 2/89 participants on placebo experienced a serious adverse event (very low-quality evidence). One out of 90 participants experienced congestive heart failure in the vildagliptin group versus none in the placebo group (very low-quality evidence). There were no data on non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, health-related quality of life or socioeconomic effects reported.All-cause and cardiovascular mortality following treatment with GLP-1 analogues were rarely reported; one trial of exenatide reported that no participant died. Another trial of liraglutide 3.0 mg showed that 2/1501 in the liraglutide group versus 2/747 in the placebo group died after 160 weeks of treatment (very low-quality evidence).The incidence of T2DM following treatment with liraglutide 3.0 mg compared to placebo after 160 weeks was 26/1472 (1.8%) participants randomised to liraglutide versus 46/738 (6.2%) participants randomised to placebo (very low-quality evidence). The trial established the risk for (diagnosis of) T2DM as HbA1c 5.7% to 6.4% (6.5% or greater), fasting plasma glucose 5.6 mmol/L or greater to 6.9 mmol/L or less (7.0 mmol/L or greater) or two-hour post-load plasma glucose 7.8 mmol/L or greater to 11.0 mmol/L (11.1 mmol/L). Altogether, 70/1472 (66%) participants regressed from intermediate hyperglycaemia to normoglycaemia compared with 268/738 (36%) participants in the placebo group. The incidence of T2DM after the 12-week off-treatment extension period (i.e. after 172 weeks) showed that five additional participants were diagnosed T2DM in the liraglutide group, compared with one participant in the placebo group. After 12-week treatment cessation, 740/1472 (50%) participants in the liraglutide group compared with 263/738 (36%) participants in the placebo group had normoglycaemia.One trial used exenatide and 2/17 participants randomised to exenatide versus 1/16 participants randomised to placebo developed T2DM (very low-quality evidence). This trial did not provide a definition of T2DM. One trial reported serious adverse events in 230/1524 (15.1%) participants in the liraglutide 3.0 mg arm versus 96/755 (12.7%) participants in the placebo arm (very low quality evidence). There were no serious adverse events in the trial using exenatide. Non-fatal myocardial infarction was reported in 1/1524 participants in the liraglutide arm and in 0/55 participants in the placebo arm at 172 weeks (very low-quality evidence). One trial reported congestive heart failure in 1/1524 participants in the liraglutide arm and in 1/755 participants in the placebo arm (very low-quality evidence). Participants receiving liraglutide compared with placebo had a small mean improvement in the physical component of the 36-item Short Form scale showing a difference of 0.87 points (95% CI 0.17 to 1.58; P = 0.02; 1 trial; 1791 participants; very low-quality evidence). No trial evaluating GLP-1-analogues reported data on stroke, microvascular complications or socioeconomic effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no firm evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 analogues compared mainly with placebo substantially influence the risk of T2DM and especially its associated complications in people at increased risk for the development of T2DM. Most trials did not investigate patient-important outcomes.

Revisiting the reported signal of acute pancreatitis with rasburicase: an object lesson in pharmacovigilance

INTRODUCTION

There is an interest in methodologies to expeditiously detect credible signals of drug-induced pancreatitis. An example is the reported signal of pancreatitis with rasburicase emerging from a study [the 'index publication' (IP)] combining quantitative signal detection findings from a spontaneous reporting system (SRS) and electronic health records (EHRs). The signal was reportedly supported by a clinical review with a case series manuscript in progress. The reported signal is noteworthy, being initially classified as a false-positive finding for the chosen reference standard, but reclassified as a 'clinically supported' signal.

OBJECTIVE

This paper has dual objectives: to revisit the signal of rasburicase and acute pancreatitis and extend the original analysis via reexamination of its findings, in light of more contemporary data; and to motivate discussions on key issues in signal detection and evaluation, including recent findings from a major international pharmacovigilance research initiative.

METHODOLOGY

We used the same methodology as the IP, including the same disproportionality analysis software/dataset for calculating observed to expected reporting frequencies (O/Es), Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities Preferred Term, and O/E metric/threshold combination defining a signal of disproportionate reporting. Baseline analysis results prompted supplementary analyses using alternative analytical choices. We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify additional published case reports of rasburicase and pancreatitis.

RESULTS

We could not replicate positive findings (e.g. a signal or statistic of disproportionate reporting) from the SRS data using the same algorithm, software, dataset and vendor specified in the IP. The reporting association was statistically highlighted in default and supplemental analysis when more sensitive forms of disproportionality analysis were used. Two of three reports in the FAERS database were assessed as likely duplicate reports. We did not identify any additional reports in the FAERS corresponding to the three cases identified in the IP using EHRs. We did not identify additional published reports of pancreatitis associated with rasburicase.

DISCUSSION

Our exercise stimulated interesting discussions of key points in signal detection and evaluation, including causality assessment, signal detection algorithm performance, pharmacovigilance terminology, duplicate reporting, mechanisms for communicating signals, the structure of the FAERs database, and recent results from a major international pharmacovigilance research initiative.

Comparison of adherence and persistence among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus initiating saxagliptin or linagliptin

BACKGROUND

Adherence and persistence to antidiabetes medications are important to control blood glucose levels among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D).

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare adherence and persistence over a 12-month period between patients initiating saxagliptin and patients initiating linagliptin, two dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted in MarketScan(®) Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases. Patients with T2D initiating saxagliptin or linagliptin between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2013, were selected. Patients were required to be at least 18 years old and have 12 months of continuous enrollment prior to and following initiation. Adherence and persistence to initiated medication were measured over the 12 months after initiation using outpatient pharmacy claims. Patients were considered adherent if the proportion of days covered was ≥0.80. Patients were considered nonpersistent (or to have discontinued) if there was a gap of >60 days without initiated medication on hand. Multivariable logistic regression and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were fit to compare adherence and persistence, respectively, between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

There were 21,599 saxagliptin initiators (mean age 55 years; 53% male) and 5,786 linagliptin initiators (mean age 57 years; 54% male) included in the study sample. Over the 12-month follow-up, 46% of saxagliptin initiators and 42% of linagliptin initiators were considered adherent and 47% of saxagliptin initiators and 51% of linagliptin initiators discontinued their initiated medication. After controlling for patient characteristics, saxagliptin initiation was associated with significantly greater odds of being adherent (adjusted odds ratio =1.212, 95% CI 1.140-1.289) and significantly lower hazards of discontinuation (adjusted hazard ratio =0.887, 95% CI 0.850-0.926) compared with linagliptin initiation.

CONCLUSION

Compared with patients with T2D who initiated linagliptin, patients with T2D who initiated saxagliptin had significantly better adherence and persistence.