Combination of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin with insulin-based regimens in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease

A cost-effectiveness analysis of linagliptin add-on to insulin treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease in Iran

Purpose

With the high prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), determining optimal treatment strategies has become a major concern. Linagliptin is aDPP-4 inhibitor that does not require dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adding linagliptin to insulin therapy in patients with T2DM and mild (stage 2) or moderate (stage 3) CKD from a health system perspective in Iran.

Methods

We developed a cost-utility model using a decision tree and ran it separately for T2DM patients with mild or moderate CKD. Clinical outcomes and health-state utility values were extracted from published studies. Direct medical costs were obtained from national tariffs in Iran in 2021. We adopted an annual time horizon and calculated the difference in costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to obtain the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). To capture parameter uncertainties, one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed.

Results

In T2DM patients with mild CKD, the linagliptin add-on strategy was associated with an additional $23.69 cost and 0.0148 QALYs per patient, resulting in an ICER of 1600.37 USD/QALY. In moderate CKD, the strategy was associated with $22.59 more costs and 0.0191 more QALYs, and the ICER was estimated at 1182.72 USD/QALY. In both populations, the ICER was mainly driven by the impact of HbA1c on utility, cost of linagliptin, and the reduction in insulin usage by adding linagliptin to the treatment.

Conclusion

With a cost-effectiveness threshold of $1550 USD/QALY in Iran, adding linagliptin to insulin is cost-effective in patients with T2DM and moderate CKD. However, for those with mild CKD, it seems that the associated costs outweigh the expected benefits.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-023-01243-z.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and insulin combination treatment in type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: A meta-analysis

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

The union of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease provides satisfactory glucose management without increasing adverse events (AEs). This research appraised the therapeutic effect and safety of combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to analyze AEs, hypoglycemia, serious AEs, severe hypoglycemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate, fasting plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin, insulin dose, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, uric acid and weight between combination treatment groups and control groups by searching the Cochrane Library, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PubMed and Web of Science databanks until October 2020.

RESULTS

Five studies (6 trials, 1,278 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The evidence quality ranged from moderate to high. Glycated hemoglobin (standardized mean difference -0.29, 95% confidence interval -0.44 to -0.14) and insulin dose (standardized mean difference -0.16, 95% confidence interval -0.29 to -0.02) were obviously smaller in the combination cure patients than in the control patients. Compared with the control groups, combination treatment did not increase AEs, hypoglycemia, serious AEs or severe hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed the effectiveness and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors bonded with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, but the protective actions of this cure on kidney and cardiovascular outcomes, as well as the functions of other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, need to be affirmed by more good-quality randomized controlled trials.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Linagliptin in a Japanese Population with Type 2 Diabetes Aged ≥ 60 Years Treated with Basal Insulin: A Randomised Trial

INTRODUCTION

An estimated 4.3 million people aged ≥ 65 years with diabetes live in Japan. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in older Japanese patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

In this phase 4, randomised, placebo-controlled national study (part of a global study) conducted in Japan over a period of 52 weeks, 102 patients on stable treatment with basal insulin ± metformin/alpha-glucosidase inhibitors were randomised (1:1) to receive linagliptin 5 mg qd or placebo. The primary end point was the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) after 24 weeks of treatment, with additional analyses at 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Mean age and HbA1c of the study population were 71 years and 8.1%, respectively. Approximately two-thirds of participants were aged ≥ 70 years, two-thirds had macrovascular complications, approximately half had a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/min/1.73 m², and two-thirds had a time since diagnosis of diabetes > 10 years. Significant HbA1c reductions with linagliptin vs. placebo were observed at 24 weeks, - 0.71% (95% CI - 0.96, - 0.45, p < 0.0001), and maintained at 52 weeks, - 0.58% (95% CI - 0.82, - 0.34, p < 0.0001). Linagliptin improved the chances of achieving a categorical HbA1c target (< 8.0% and < 7.0%) at 24 and 52 weeks in patients who were not at their respective target at the beginning of the study. Addition of linagliptin to insulin was associated with a numerical increase in the risk of any hypoglycaemia, but not in the risk of clinically significant hypoglycaemia, severe hypoglycaemia or recurring hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSION

Linagliptin was effective in improving glucose control in Japanese patients aged ≥ 60 years with T2DM on stable glucose-lowering therapy with basal insulin. Linagliptin was well tolerated and no new safety concerns were raised. The results presented here are highly consistent with the results from the global study, which was conducted over a 24-week period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02240680.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company Diabetes Alliance.

Safety and Efficacy of DPP4 Inhibitor and Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes: An Updated Review and Challenging Clinical Scenarios

The safety and efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors as monotherapy or in combination with other oral antidiabetic agents or basal insulin are well established. DPP4 inhibitors stimulate glucose-dependent insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon production. As monotherapy, they reduce the hemoglobin A1c level by about 0.6-0.8%. The addition of a DPP4 inhibitor to basal insulin is an attractive option, because they lower both postprandial and fasting plasma glucose concentrations without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain. The present review summarizes the extensive evidence on the combination therapy of DPP4 inhibitors and insulin-based regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes. We focus our discussion on challenging clinical scenarios including patients with chronic renal impairment, elderly persons and hospitalized patients. The evidence indicates that these drugs are highly effective and safe in the elderly and in the presence of mild, moderate and severe renal failure improving glycemic control with low risk of hypoglycemia. In addition, several randomized-controlled trials have shown that the use of DPP4 inhibitors in combination with basal insulin represents an alternative to the basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.

Risk of hypoglycaemia in people aged ≥65 years receiving linagliptin: pooled data from 1489 individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIMS

To investigate the risk of hypoglycaemia in people aged ≥65 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with linagliptin, in the largest pooled analysis performed to date.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One thousand four hundred and eighty-nine patients aged ≥65 years with T2DM were pooled from 11 randomised, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trials evaluating linagliptin 5 mg alone, or in addition to various background therapies. The primary safety endpoint was the incidence of investigator-defined hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the risk of hypoglycaemia between linagliptin and placebo in the all-patient population at 24 weeks (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84, 1.36; P = 0.5943)-despite significant (P < 0.0001) improvements in glycaemic control-and 1 year (HR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.27; P = 0.8803). Similar findings were observed for linagliptin vs placebo in subgroup analyses by background medication (eg, sulphonylureas (SUs) and/or insulin vs no such drugs), age, baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), ethnicity, and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate. Patients with a baseline HbA1c ≥7.5% had significantly higher odds of achieving HbA1c <7.5% without hypoglycaemia in the linagliptin group compared with placebo at 24 weeks (34.1% vs 13.7%; 95% CI: 2.04, 4.12; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis indicates that linagliptin was effective in treating older people with T2DM towards their HbA1c targets with a favourable safety and tolerability profile and low risk of hypoglycaemia. The safety profile was maintained even on background therapies with known risk of hypoglycaemia, such as insulin and SU.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

A review of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Hot topics from randomized controlled trials

The first clinical study to investigate effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition was published in 2002, and since then, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that DPP-4 inhibitors are efficacious, safe and well-tolerated. This review will focus upon RCTs which have investigated DPP-4 inhibitors in patient groups which are often under-represented or excluded from typical phase 3 clinical trials. Large cardiovascular (CV) safety outcome trials in patients with established CV disease have confirmed that DPP-4 inhibitors are not associated with any additional CV risk in these already-at-high-risk individuals, while raising awareness of any uncommon adverse events, such as heart failure hospitalization seen in one of the trials. Studies in patients with kidney disease have shown DPP-4 inhibitors to be efficacious without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia, irrespective of the degree of renal impairment, while data from the large CV trials as well as smaller RCTs have even pointed towards potential renoprotective effects such individuals. The use of DPP-4 inhibitors with insulin when therapy requires intensification may be beneficial without affecting the incidence or severity of hypoglycaemia, with these effects also being replicated in patients with chronic kidney disease, for whom other agents may not be suitable. Attention is now turning towards exploring the potential utility of DPP-4 inhibitors in other circumstances, including for in-hospital management of hyperglycaemia and in other metabolic disorders. Together, these RCTs raise the possibility that in the future, DPP-4 inhibitors may have a broader use which may extend beyond glycaemic control in the typical type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patient seen in general practice and may encompass conditions other than T2DM.

The use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes & chronic kidney disease

There is a need for treatment options in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and kidney disease to achieve glucose targets without risk of hypoglycemia. This article describes management options for these patients using glucose-lowering therapies, in particular dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.

Insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether people with type 2 diabetes mellitus on insulin monotherapy who do not achieve adequate glycaemic control should continue insulin as monotherapy or can benefit from adding oral glucose-lowering agents to the insulin therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of insulin monotherapy compared with the addition of oral glucose-lowering agents to insulin monotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes already on insulin therapy and inadequate glycaemic control.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and reference lists of articles. The date of the last search was November 2015 for all databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials of at least two months' duration comparing insulin monotherapy with combinations of insulin with one or more oral glucose-lowering agent in people with type 2 diabetes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated overall quality of the evidence using GRADE. We summarised data statistically if they were available, sufficiently similar and of sufficient quality. We performed statistical analyses according to the statistical guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 trials with 40 treatment comparisons involving 3227 participants. The duration of the interventions ranged from 2 to 12 months for parallel trials and two to four months for cross-over trials.The majority of trials had an unclear risk of bias in several risk of bias domains. Fourteen trials showed a high risk of bias, mainly for performance and detection bias. Insulin monotherapy, including once-daily long-acting, once-daily intermediate-acting, twice-daily premixed insulin, and basal-bolus regimens (multiple injections), was compared to insulin in combination with sulphonylureas (17 comparisons: glibenclamide = 11, glipizide = 2, tolazamide = 2, gliclazide = 1, glimepiride = 1), metformin (11 comparisons), pioglitazone (four comparisons), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (four comparisons: acarbose = 3, miglitol = 1), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) (three comparisons: vildagliptin = 1, sitagliptin = 1, saxagliptin = 1) and the combination of metformin and glimepiride (one comparison). No trials assessed all-cause mortality, diabetes-related morbidity or health-related quality of life. Only one trial assessed patients' treatment satisfaction and showed no substantial differences between the addition of either glimepiride or metformin and glimepiride to insulin compared with insulin monotherapy.Insulin-sulphonylurea combination therapy (CT) compared with insulin monotherapy (IM) showed a MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of -1% (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.6 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 316 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. Insulin-metformin CT compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.9% (95% CI -1.2 to -0.5); P < 0.01; 698 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence. We could not pool the results of adding pioglitazone to insulin. Insulin combined with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.2); P < 0.01; 448 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). Insulin combined with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with IM showed a MD in HbA1c of -0.4% (95% CI -0.5 to -0.4); P < 0.01; 265 participants; 2 trials; low quality evidence. In most trials the participants with CT needed less insulin, whereas insulin requirements increased or remained stable in participants with IM.We did not perform a meta-analysis for hypoglycaemic events because the included studies used different definitions.. In most trials the insulin-sulphonylurea combination resulted in a higher number of mild episodes of hypoglycaemia, compared to the IM group (range: 2.2 to 6.1 episodes per participant in CT versus 2.0 to 2.6 episodes per participant in IM; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT also resulted in more mild to moderate hypoglycaemic episodes compared with IM (range 15 to 90 episodes versus 9 to 75 episodes, respectively; low-quality evidence. The trials that reported hypoglycaemic episodes in the other combinations found comparable numbers of mild to moderate hypoglycaemic events (low-quality evidence).The addition of sulphonylureas resulted in an additional weight gain of 0.4 kg to 1.9 kg versus -0.8 kg to 2.1 kg in the IM group (220 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). Pioglitazone CT caused more weight gain compared to IM: MD 3.8 kg (95% CI 3.0 to 4.6); P < 0.01; 288 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence. Metformin CT was associated with weight loss: MD -2.1 kg (95% CI -3.2 to -1.1), P < 0.01; 615 participants; 7 trials; low-quality evidence). DPP-4 inhibitors CT showed weight gain of -0.7 to 1.3 kg versus 0.6 to 1.1 kg in the IM group (362 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence). Alpha-glucosidase CT compared to IM showed a MD of -0.5 kg (95% CI -1.2 to 0.3); P = 0.26; 241 participants; 2 trials; low-quality evidence.Users of metformin CT (range 7% to 67% versus 5% to 16%), and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors CT (14% to 75% versus 4% to 35%) experienced more gastro-intestinal adverse effects compared to participants on IM. Two trials reported a higher frequency of oedema with the use of pioglitazone CT (range: 16% to 18% versus 4% to 7% IM).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of all oral glucose-lowering agents in people with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control who are on insulin therapy has positive effects on glycaemic control and insulin requirements. The addition of sulphonylureas results in more hypoglycaemic events. Additional weight gain can only be avoided by adding metformin to insulin. Other well-known adverse effects of oral glucose-lowering agents have to be taken into account when prescribing oral glucose-lowering agents in addition to insulin therapy.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Secular trends in antihyperglycaemic medication prescriptions in older adults with diabetes and chronic kidney disease: 2004-2013

AIM

To examine how antihyperglycaemic medications were prescribed to older adults with diabetes and chronic kidney disease over the last decade.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based study of 144 252 older adults with diabetes and chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) or receiving chronic dialysis) in Ontario, Canada. In each study quarter (3-month intervals from 1 April 2004 until 31 March 2013) we studied the proportion of treated and newly treated patients prescribed insulin, sulphonylureas, α-glucosidase inhibitors, metformin, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. We further examined prescription trends by stage of chronic kidney disease.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients increased slightly (from 76 to 78 years) over the study period and the percentage with comorbidities declined. Metformin was the predominant therapy prescribed (prescribed to a mean of 56.1% of treated patients). Glyburide (glibenclamide) and thiazolidinedione prescriptions decreased (glyburide prescriptions declined from 45.5 to 9.5%, rosiglitazone from 3.6 to 0.2% and pioglitazone from 1.9 to 1.7%), while gliclazide and DPP-4 inhibitor prescriptions increased (gliclazide prescriptions increased from 0.6 to 26.4%, sitagliptin from 0 to 15.3% and saxagliptin from 0 to 2.0%). Up to 48.6% of patients with stage 3a-5 chronic kidney disease or receiving chronic dialysis were prescribed glyburide, and up to 27.6% of patients with stage 4-5 disease or receiving chronic dialysis were prescribed metformin.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with chronic kidney disease, there were trends towards safer antihyperglycaemic medication prescribing. A considerable number of patients, however, continue to receive medications that should be avoided.