Role of vildagliptin in managing type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly

Update on the management of diabetes in long-term care facilities

The number of patients with diabetes is increasing among older adults in the USA, and it is expected to reach 26.7 million by 2050. In parallel, the percentage of older patients with diabetes in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) will also rise. Currently, the majority of LTCF residents are older adults and one-third of them have diabetes. Management of diabetes in LTCF is challenging due to multiple comorbidities and altered nutrition. Few randomized clinical trials have been conducted to determine optimal treatment for diabetes management in older adults in LTCF. The geriatric populations are at risk of hypoglycemia since the majority are treated with insulin and have different levels of functionality and nutritional needs. Effective approaches to avoid hypoglycemia should be implemented in these settings to improve outcome and reduce the economic burden. Newer medication classes might carry less risk of developing hypoglycemia along with the appropriate use of technology, such as the use of continuous glucose monitoring. Practical clinical guidelines for diabetes management including recommendations for prevention and treatment of hypoglycemia are needed to appropriately implement resources in the transition of care plans in this vulnerable population.

Ten years of experience with DPP-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Achieving and maintaining recommended glycemic targets without causing adverse e ffects, including hypoglycemia, is challenging, especially in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The introduction of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, more than 10 years ago, has provided an alternative to conventional medications for the intensification of glucose-lowering treatment after failure of metformin monotherapy, and therefore, marked an important advance in the management of T2DM. By prolonging the activity of incretin hormones, DPP-4 inhibitors induce insulin release and decrease glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner. This results in a more physiologic glycemic control as compared to that ensured by insulin secretagogues (sulfonylureas and glinides). Overall, DPP-4 inhibitors have a favorable safety profile and can be used without dose adjustments in older adults and in patients with mild renal impairment; they have a neutral effect on body weight and do not cause hypoglycemia by themselves. Safety issues, reported mainly in post-marketing surveillance programs and including cardiovascular outcomes and the risk of acute pancreatitis, are being extensively investigated. The aim of this review is to discuss the impact of DPP-4 inhibitors on the treatment of T2DM, after 10 years of experience, with an emphasis on diabetes care in Italy. We will first describe T2DM treatment in Italy and then provide an overview of the main findings from randomized controlled trials, real-world studies and post-marketing surveillance programs with DPP-4 inhibitors.

Management of diabetes in older adults

Type 2 diabetes prevalence is high in older adults and is expected to rise in the next decades. Diabetes in the population of frail older adults is accompanied by functional disability, several comorbidities, and premature mortality. A comprehensive geriatric assessment, including functional, cognitive, mental and social status, is advisable for identifying the glycemic targets and glucose-lowering therapies, focused on patient preferences, needs, and risks. The therapeutic options for older adults with diabetes are like those for the adult population. However, the pharmacological treatments must be carefully prescribed and monitored, taking into consideration the patient cognitive capacities, the potentially life-threatening drug-drug interactions, the cardiovascular risk, and with the main goal of avoiding hypoglycemia. Also, a careful nutritional evaluation with appropriate tools, as well as a balanced and periodically monitored physical activity, contribute to an effective tailored care plan, as needed by older adults with diabetes. This review evaluates the currently available hypoglycemic drugs and the current indications to the Italian diabetology community, specifically with regard to the treatment of adults aged 75 years or older with diabetes, including the unmet needs by the guidelines.

Vildagliptin efficacy in combination with metformin among Jordanian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Methods: This was a 12-week prospective observational study where vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily was added to patients with T2DM inadequately controlled (glycosylated hemoglobin type A1c (Hba1c) 7–10%) by a daily dose of metformin ≥1700 mg between June 2012 and May 2013. Efficacy was assessed by change in Hba1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels, and safety was assessed by reported adverse events (AEs).

Results: A total of 58 patients were enrolled in this study. Their age ranged between 39.0 and 71.0 years, with a mean of 52.6 years, and a standard deviation (SD) of 7.8. The average duration of diabetes mellitus (DM) was 4.0 years (SD 3.0) and half of the patients have had DM for more than three years. The mean baseline levels of Hba1c and FPG were 8% and 10.8 mmol/L, respectively. Patients treated with vildagliptin achieved clinically significant reductions in Hba1c of 1.1% (p value <.005) and reduction in FPG of 1.8 mmol/L (p value <.005) from baseline. Overall, 62.1% had achieved the target of Hba1c of <7% after vildagliptin use. Greater reductions in Hba1c were linked to higher baseline levels as well as to the daily frequency of metformin use. Mild AEs were reported by 16 patients. There was no incidence of hypoglycemia and there were no significant changes in body weight after treatment.

Conclusions: Vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin improved glycemic control and was highly tolerable in T2DM patients who were inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy.

Diabetes mellitus in elderly

Diabetes mellitus (DM) frequency is a growing problem worldwide, because of long life expectancy and life style modifications. In old age (≥60-65 years old), DM is becoming an alarming public health problem in developed and even in developing countries as for some authors one from two old persons are diabetic or prediabetic and for others 8 from 10 old persons have some dysglycemia. DM complications and co-morbidities are more frequent in old diabetics compared to their young counterparts. The most frequent are cardiovascular diseases due to old age and to precocious atherosclerosis specific to DM and the most bothersome are visual and cognitive impairments, especially Alzheimer disease and other kind of dementia. Alzheimer disease seems to share the same risk factors as DM, which means insulin resistance due to lack of physical activity and eating disorders. Visual and physical handicaps, depression, and memory troubles are a barrier to care for DM treatment. For this, old diabetics are now classified into two main categories as fit and independent old people able to take any available medication, exactly as their young or middle age counterparts, and fragile or frail persons for whom physical activity, healthy diet, and medical treatment should be individualized according to the presence or lack of cognitive impairment and other co-morbidities. In the last category, the fundamental rule is "go slowly and individualize" to avoid interaction with poly medicated elder persons and fatal iatrogenic hypoglycemias in those treated with sulfonylureas or insulin.

Hypoglycemia hospitalization frequency in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a comparison of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and insulin secretagogues using the French health insurance database

Aim

We aimed to compare the frequency of severe hypoglycemia leading to hospitalization (HH) and emergency visits (EV) for any cause in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus exposed to dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors (DPP4-i) versus those exposed to insulin secretagogues (IS; sulfonylureas or glinides).

Methods

Data were extracted from the EGB (Echantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires) database, comprising a representative sample of ~1% of patients registered in the French National Health Insurance System (~600,000 patients). Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients exposed to regimens containing either a DPP4-i (excluding treatment with IS, insulin, or glucagon-like peptide 1 analog) or IS (excluding treatment with insulin and any incretin therapy) between 2009 and 2012 were selected. HH and EV during the exposure periods were identified in both cohorts. A similar analysis was conducted considering vildagliptin alone versus IS. Comparative analyses adjusting for covariates within the model (subjects matched for key characteristics) and using multinomial regression models were performed.

Results

Overall, 7,152 patients exposed to any DPP4-i and 1,440 patients exposed to vildagliptin were compared to 10,019 patients exposed to IS. Eight patients (0.11%) from the DPP4-i cohort and none from the vildagliptin cohort (0.0%) were hospitalized for hypoglycemia versus 130 patients (1.30%) from the IS cohort (138 hospitalizations) (P=0.02 and P<0.0001, respectively). Crude rates of HH/1,000 patient-years were 1.4 (95% CI: 0.7; 2.4) in the DPP4-i cohort, 0.0 in the vildagliptin cohort (95% CI: 0.0; 4.0), versus 5.6 (95% CI, 4.7; 6.6) in the IS cohort (P<0.0001). After adjustments, rates per 1,000 patient-years of HH were 1.4 (95% CI: 0.7; 2.4) with DPP4-i versus 7.5 (95% CI: 6.0; 9.2) with IS (P<0.0001), and 0.0 (95% CI: 0.0; 4.0) with vildagliptin versus 13.6 (95% CI: 10.4; 17.5) with IS (P<0.0001). Adjusted EV rates were also significantly lower with all DPP4-i or with vildagliptin, as compared to IS (P<0.0001). Consistent results were found when considering only treatment initiations for all compared cohorts.

Conclusion

HH and EV were significantly less frequent in patients exposed to any DPP4-i or to vildagliptin versus IS. These real-life data should be considered in the benefit/risk evaluation of the drugs.

Use of metformin and vildagliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes in the elderly

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to describe the clinical (treatment adherence, metabolic control, hypoglycemia, and macrovascular complications) and economic (resource use and costs) consequences of using a combination of metformin + vildagliptin to treat type 2 diabetes in elderly patients seen in daily clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, observational study that included patients aged ≥65 years treated with metformin who started a second oral antidiabetic therapy during the years 2008-2009. There were two groups of patients: a study group receiving metformin + vildagliptin and a reference group receiving metformin + other oral antidiabetics (sulfonylureas or glitazones). The main measures were comorbidity, compliance/persistence, metabolic control (glycosylated hemoglobin <7%), complications (hypoglycemic, macrovascular), and total costs. The patients were followed for 2 years.

RESULTS

We recruited 987 patients (49.1% male) of mean age 74.2 years. There were 270 (27.4%) patients in the metformin + vildagliptin group and 717 (72.6%) in the reference group. Vildagliptin-treated patients had significantly (P<0.05) improved compliance (68.3% versus 62.5%, respectively), persistence (61.5% versus 55.1%), and metabolic control (63.3% versus 57.6%). They also had lower rates of hypoglycemia (17.4% versus 42.8%) and cardiovascular events (4.4% versus 8.6%) and lower total costs (€2,544 versus €2,699, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with metformin and vildagliptin showed better adherence and metabolic control and lower rates of hypoglycemia, resulting in lower health care costs for the national health system.

Use of Vildagliptin in Management of Type 2 Diabetes: Effectiveness, Treatment Persistence and Safety from the 2-Year Real-Life VILDA Study

INTRODUCTION

There is an increasing interest for real-life data on drug use in many countries. Reimbursement authorities more and more request observational studies to assess the conditions of use of the products but also to improve knowledge about efficacy and safety in the real world and on a longer term than in clinical trials.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness, treatment persistence and tolerability of vildagliptin in clinical practice.

METHODS

This observational, 2-year prospective cohort study was conducted in France on request of the Health Authorities [Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS)]. Type 2 diabetic mellitus (T2DM) patients initiating vildagliptin (including the fixed combination vildagliptin-metformin) or treated for <6 months were recruited through a national representative sample of general practitioners (GPs) (n = 482) and diabetologists (n = 84) between March 2010 and December 2011. At inclusion and each follow-up visit at ~ 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, a questionnaire was completed by the physician collecting information on socio-demographic, clinical and biological data, treatments and adverse events.

RESULTS

1,700 patients were included: 60% were males, aged 63 ± 11 years, with diabetes duration 7 ± 6 years and body mass index (BMI) 30 ± 6 kg/m(2). 45% were obese, 70% treated for hypertension and 66% for dyslipidemia. 64% of the patients received vildagliptin in dual therapy with metformin. 82% of patients completed the 2-year follow-up. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) decreased from a mean baseline of 7.8 ± 1.2% when vildagliptin was started, to 7.0 ± 1.1% at 6 months and remained stable thereafter over 2 years. Mean weight, glomerular filtration rate, liver enzymes, and lipid parameters were unchanged over the study period. Eight patients (0.5%), all concomitantly treated with insulin and/or sulphonylureas, reported one severe hypoglycemia and 47 (2.9%) patients reported 64 non-severe symptomatic hypoglycemia (59% occurred when patients were treated with insulin and/or sulphonylureas). At 6 months, 44.9% of vildagliptin-treated patients reached an HbA1c <7% without hypoglycemia and no weight gain, and this percentage increased to 49.7% at 24 months. Vildagliptin treatment maintenance at 2 years was 88.8% [95% CI (87.2%; 90.4%)], with 4% of patients discontinuing for adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In everyday conditions of care, vildagliptin efficacy was in line with existing data from randomized clinical trials, sustained over 2 years, with low discontinuation rate and low hypoglycemia risk.

Optimal therapy of type 2 diabetes: a controversial challenge

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the most common chronic disorders in older adults and the number of elderly diabetic subjects is growing worldwide. Nonetheless, the diagnosis of T2DM in elderly population is often missed or delayed until an acute metabolic emergency occurs. Accumulating evidence suggests that both aging and environmental factors contribute to the high prevalence of diabetes in the elderly. Clinical management of T2DM in elderly subjects presents unique challenges because of the multifaceted geriatric scenario. Diabetes significantly lowers the chances of "successful" aging, notably it increases functional limitations and impairs quality of life. In this regard, older diabetic patients have a high burden of comorbidities, diabetes-related complications, physical disability, cognitive impairment and malnutrition, and they are more susceptible to the complications of dysglycemia and polypharmacy. Several national and international organizations have delivered guidelines to implement optimal therapy in older diabetic patients based on individualized treatment goals. This means appreciation of the heterogeneity of the disease as generated by life expectancy, functional reserve, social support, as well as personal preference. This paper will review current treatments for achieving glycemic targets in elderly diabetic patients, and discuss the potential role of emerging treatments in this patient population.

Experience with vildagliptin in patients ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes and moderate or severe renal impairment

INTRODUCTION

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are at increased risk for renal impairment (RI) and, in addition, there is an age-related decline in renal function. At the same time, T2DM treatment is more complex and treatment options are more limited in elderly patients as well as patients with RI, with the patient population ≥75 years with moderate or severe RI posing unique challenges, in particular, the high risk and more severe consequences of hypoglycemia. It was, therefore, of interest to assess the efficacy and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin in patients with T2DM ≥75 years who also have moderate or severe RI.

METHODS

In this sub-analysis of data derived from a previously described randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week study, 105 patients (50 randomized to vildagliptin 50 mg qd and 55 to placebo) ≥75 years (mean age ~78 years) with T2DM and moderate or severe RI (mean baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate ~35 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) were included.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with vildagliptin was -1.0% from a baseline of 7.8% (between-group difference -0.8%; p < 0.001). This improvement in glycemic control was not associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia; the rate of confirmed hypoglycemia was 0.49 events per patient-year with vildagliptin and 0.96 events per patient-year with placebo (not significant). Weight remained stable with vildagliptin treatment. Adverse events (AEs) (58.0% vs. 72.7%), serious AEs (14.0% vs. 16.4%), discontinuations due to AEs (4.0% vs. 9.1%) and deaths (0% vs. 5.5%) were reported at a comparable or lower frequency in patients receiving vildagliptin versus patients receiving placebo.

CONCLUSION

In this uniquely fragile elderly population ≥75 years with T2DM and moderate or severe RI, vildagliptin was well tolerated and efficacious, with no increase in the rate of hypoglycemia compared to placebo despite the marked improvement in glycemic control.

Tolerability and efficacy of glycemic control with saxagliptin in older patients (aged ≥ 65 years) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus

Purpose

To assess safety and efficacy of saxagliptin in older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Patients and methods

This was a post hoc analysis of pooled data from older patients (≥65 years of age) from five 24-week phase III trials: three studies of saxagliptin versus placebo as an add-on therapy to metformin, glyburide, or a thiazolidinedione; and two studies of saxagliptin versus placebo as monotherapy in drug-naïve patients. Separate analyses were conducted on one study of initial combination therapy with saxagliptin plus metformin versus metformin monotherapy in drug-naïve patients. The safety analysis population for the five-study pool included 428 patients ≥ 65 years of age with baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) 7.0% to 10.5% who received saxagliptin 2.5 or 5 mg or placebo, and for the study of initial combination therapy included 69 patients ≥ 65 years of age with baseline HbA_1c 8.0% to 12.0% who received saxagliptin 5 mg in combination with metformin or metformin monotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline HbA_1c.

Results

In the five-study pool, the differences in the adjusted mean change from baseline HbA_1c among older patients receiving saxagliptin versus placebo were −0.60% (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.99% to −0.21%) for saxagliptin 2.5 mg and −0.55% (−0.97% to −0.14%) for saxagliptin 5 mg; in the initial combination study, the difference was −1.22% (−2.27% to −0.17%) among older patients receiving saxagliptin 5 mg plus metformin versus metformin monotherapy. The results were generally similar in older and younger patients. Saxagliptin was well tolerated; the incidence and types of adverse events were similar for saxagliptin and comparators. Hypoglycemia was reported in 3.0% to 9.4% of patients receiving saxagliptin (0%–8.0% for comparators) and was confirmed (finger stick glucose ≤ 50 mg/dL, with associated symptoms) in 0% to 0.7% (0%–0.7% for comparators); hypoglycemic episodes did not vary by age category and did not require medical intervention.

Conclusion

Saxagliptin was effective and well tolerated, with a low risk of hypoglycemia, when used as monotherapy, add-on therapy, or initial combination therapy with metformin in older patients with T2DM.

Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in clinical practice-results of the PROVIL-study

AIM: To investigate efficacy and safety of vildagliptin compared to other oral antidiabetics in clinical practice in Germany.

METHODS: In this prospective, open, observational study, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) previously on oral monotherapy were selected by their treating physician to receive either vildagliptin add-on to metformin (cohort 1), vildagliptin + metformin single-pill combination (SPC) (cohort 2) or another dual combination therapy with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) (cohort 3). According to routine clinical practice, interim examinations occurred every 3 mo: at baseline, after approximately 3 mo and after approximately 6 mo. Parameters documented in the study included demographic and diagnostic data, history of T2DM, data on diabetes control, vital signs, relevant prior and concomitant medication and disease history. Efficacy was assessed by changes in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 3 mo and 6 mo after initiation of dual combination therapy. Safety was assessed by adverse event reporting and measurement of specific laboratory values (serum creatinine, total bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, creatine kinase).

RESULTS: Between October 2009 and January 2011, a total of 3881 patients were enrolled in this study. Since 47 patients were withdrawn due to protocol violations, 3834 patients were included in the statistical analysis. There were no relevant differences between the three cohorts concerning age, body weight and body mass index. Average diabetes duration was approximately 6 years and mean HbA1c was between 7.6% and 7.9% at baseline. Antidiabetic treatment was recorded in 3648 patients. Patients were treated with vildagliptin add-on to metformin (n = 603), vildagliptin + metformin (SPC) (n = 2198), and other oral OADs including combinations of metformin with sulfonylurea (n = 370), with glitazones (n = 123), other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (n = 99). After 6 mo of treatment, the absolute decrease in HbA1c (mean ± SE) was significantly more pronounced in patients receiving vildagliptin add-on to metformin (-0.9% ± 0.04%) and vildagliptin + metformin (SPC) (-0.9% ± 0.03%) than in patients receiving other OADs (-0.6% ± 0.04%; P < 0.0001). In addition, significant cohort differences were observed for the improvement in FPG after 6 mo treatment (vildagliptin add-on to metformin: -291 mg/L ± 18.3 mg/L; vildagliptin +metformin (SPC): -305 mg/L ± 9.6 mg/L; other antidiabetic drugs: -209 mg/L ± 14.0 mg/L for (P < 0.0001). Moderate decreases in body weight (absolute difference between last control and baseline: mean ± SE) were observed for patients in all cohorts (vildagliptin add-on to metformin: -1.4 kg ± 0.17 kg; vildagliptin + metformin (SPC): -1.7 kg ± 0.09 kg; other OADs: -0.8 kg ± 0.13 kg). No significant differences in adverse events (AEs) and other safety measures were observed between the cohorts. When performing an additional analysis by age (patients < 65 years vs patients ≥ 65 years), there was no relevant difference in the most common AEs between the two age groups and the AE profile was similar to that of the overall patient population.

CONCLUSION: Clinical practice confirms that vildagliptin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment in combination with metformin in T2DM patients.

Evidence to support the use of vildagliptin monotherapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

The efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, as monotherapy have been widely confirmed in a large body of clinical studies of up to 2 years’ duration in various populations with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This paper reviews the data supporting the use of vildagliptin in monotherapy. Consideration based on baseline glycated hemoglobin levels and age is given to patient segments where metformin is not appropriate. In addition, although prediabetes is not an indication, this manuscript briefly reviews some of the existing data showing that the mechanisms at work in diabetic populations are active in patients currently classified as prediabetic, with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose. Finally, the rationale for vildagliptin dosing frequency in monotherapy is discussed. In summary, this review aims to define where in community practice the use of vildagliptin as monotherapy is most desirable, focusing on segments of the population with type 2 diabetes mellitus that might receive the greatest benefit from vildagliptin in the management of their disease.

Minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia with vildagliptin: Clinical experience, mechanistic basis, and importance in type 2 diabetes management

Even if the true incidence of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains difficult to estimate, with highly variable rates reported in the literature, it is likely more common than previously thought. While most hypoglycemic episodes in T2DM are considered "mild," they still have a substantial clinical impact. Severe hypoglycemia also exists in T2DM, with recent landmark studies prompting much debate about the potential role of severe hypoglycemia in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, even though there is currently no definitive evidence for causality. The challenge in the treatment of T2DM remains the achievement of optimal glycemic control to lower the risk for long-term complications while avoiding hypoglycemia. Successful treatment strategies should therefore include careful selection of therapies to prevent hypoglycemia, starting early in the disease management process, in order to best preserve counterregulation. The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, is a good treatment option to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia over time, while maintaining good glucose control. Extensive clinical experience is available for vildagliptin, with data published for all stages of the condition and with the low hypoglycemic potential stemming from a solid mechanistic basis.

Vildagliptin: a review of its use in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Vildagliptin (Galvus®, Jalra®, Xiliarx®) is an orally administered dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily is indicated for use in combination with metformin or a thiazolidinedione, and vildagliptin 50 mg once daily is indicated for use in combination with a sulfonylurea. A fixed-dose combination of vildagliptin/metformin (Eucreas®, Icandra®, Zomarist®) is also available. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes, as well as summarizing its pharmacological properties. The efficacy of monotherapy or combination therapy with oral vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes has been examined in randomized, double-blind, multicentre trials. Monotherapy with vildagliptin 50 mg once or twice daily reduced glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline to a significantly greater extent than placebo, according to the results of 12- to 52-week trials in patients with type 2 diabetes. In terms of the reduction from baseline in HbA(1c) seen in active comparator trials of 12-104 weeks' duration, the noninferiority of vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily was established versus acarbose or rosiglitazone, the noninferiority of vildagliptin 100 mg once daily (an off-label dosage) versus metformin was established in elderly patients and vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily was more effective than voglibose; however, the noninferiority of vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily versus metformin or gliclazide was not established in two other trials. Combination therapy with vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily plus metformin improved HbA(1c) to a significantly greater extent than monotherapy with metformin and/or vildagliptin alone in patients with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy or who were treatment naive, according to the results of 12- or 24-week trials. In addition, vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily plus metformin demonstrated noninferiority to pioglitazone plus metformin, glimepiride plus metformin or gliclazide plus metformin in terms of the change from baseline in HbA(1c) after 24 or 52 weeks' therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. The addition of vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily to pioglitazone or vildagliptin 50 mg once daily to glimepiride improved HbA(1c) to a significantly greater extent than a thiazolidinedione or glimepiride alone in patients with type 2 diabetes whose disease was inadequately controlled, according to the results of 24-week trials. Oral vildagliptin 50 mg once or twice daily was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes. In particular, vildagliptin was associated with a low risk of hypoglycaemia and was weight neutral. Increases in transaminase levels were sometimes observed with a vildagliptin dosage of 100 mg once daily in clinical trials, and liver function should be monitored in patients receiving vildagliptin. However, meta-analyses of clinical trial data suggested that vildagliptin 50 mg once or twice daily was not associated with an increased risk of hepatic adverse events, transaminase elevations ≥3 × the upper limit of normal, pancreatitis, cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, infections or skin-related toxicity. In conclusion, vildagliptin is an important option for use in combination with metformin, a sulfonylurea or a thiazolidinedione in patients with type 2 diabetes who require combination therapy.

Management of hyperglycemia in geriatric patients with diabetes mellitus: South Asian consensus guidelines

Asia is home to four of the world's five largest diabetic populations, two of them being South Asian nations, namely, India and Pakistan. This problem is compounded by a substantial rise in the elderly population in Asian countries. On the other hand, the heterogeneous health condition and multiple co-morbidities make the care of chronic disease in the elderly a challenging task. The aim of the South Asian Consensus Guidelines is to provide evidence-based recommendations to assist healthcare providers in the rational management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly population. Current Guidelines used systematic reviews of available evidence to form its key recommendations. No evidence grading was done for the purpose of this manuscript. The clinical questions of the guidelines, the methodology of literature search, and medical writing strategy were finalized by consultations in person and through mail. The South Asian Consensus guideline emphasizes tailoring of glycemic goals for patients based on age, co-morbid conditions especially that of cardiovascular system, risk of hypoglycemia, and life expectancy. It also recommends cautious use of available pharmacotherapy in geriatric patients with diabetes. The primary principle of diabetes therapy should be to achieve euglycemia, without causing hypoglycemia. Appropriate use of modern insulins and oral drugs, including incretin mimetics will help physicians achieve this aim.

Clinical experience with vildagliptin in the management of type 2 diabetes in a patient population ≥75 years: a pooled analysis from a database of clinical trials

AIM

To report the experience with vildagliptin in a patient population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) ≥75 years.

METHODS

Efficacy data from seven monotherapy and three add-on therapy to metformin studies, respectively, of ≥24 weeks duration were pooled; effects of 24 weeks of treatment with vildagliptin (50 mg bid) in patients ≥75 years were assessed in these two pooled datasets. Safety data were pooled from 38 studies of ≥12 to ≥104 weeks duration; adverse events (AEs) profiles of vildagliptin (50 mg bid) were evaluated relative to a pool of comparators; 301 patients ≥75 years were analysed. Data in patients <75 years are provided as a reference.

RESULTS

Mean age of the elderly population was 77 years. Changes in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) with vildagliptin in the patient group ≥75 years were -0.9% from a baseline of 8.3% in monotherapy (p < 0.0001) and -1.1% from a baseline of 8.5% in add-on therapy to metformin (p = 0.0004), and these reductions were similar to those seen in the younger patients. The corresponding weight changes in the elderly patients were -0.9 kg (p = 0.0277) and -0.2 kg [not significant (NS)], respectively, and no confirmed hypoglycaemic events, including no severe events, were reported. AEs, drug-related AEs, serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths were reported with a lower frequency in older patients receiving vildagliptin than comparators [133.9 vs. 200.6, 14.5 vs. 21.8, 8.8 vs. 16.5 and 0.0 vs. 1.7 events per 100 subject year exposure (SYE), respectively], and the incidence of discontinuations due to AEs was similar in the two groups (7.2 vs. 7.5 events per 100 SYE, respectively). The safety profile of vildagliptin was overall similar in younger and older patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin was effective and well-tolerated in type 2 diabetic patients ≥75 years (mean age 77 years).