Glycemic effectiveness and medication adherence with fixed-dose combination or coadministered dual therapy of antihyperglycemic regimens: a meta-analysis

Bioequivalence Evaluation in Healthy Volunteers: New Generic Formulations of Sitagliptin and Sitagliptin-Metformin Fixed-Dose Combination Compared with the Originator Products

INTRODUCTION

Three studies compared the bioequivalence (BE) of new generic tablet formulations of sitagliptin (100 mg; fasting) and the fixed-dose combination (FDC) of sitagliptin/metformin (50/850 mg, 50/1000 mg; both fed) in healthy volunteers with the same tablet strengths of the reference products Januvia and Janumet.

METHODS

The study design was open-label, single-dose, randomized with two-way crossover periods. Blood sampling was performed for 72/48 h in the sitagliptin/FDC studies, respectively. Primary pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters for sitagliptin and metformin were area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to last timepoint of measurable concentration (AUC_0-t) and maximum plasma concentration (C_max). Test (T) and reference (R) formulations proved bioequivalent if 90% confidence interval (CI) of geometric least-squares mean ratio for AUC_0-t and C_max were within BE acceptance range of 80.00-125.00%. Safety evaluations included vital signs, clinical laboratory tests, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Treated/evaluable volunteers for BE per study were: 30/28 (sitagliptin 100 mg), 26/25 (FDC 50/850 mg), and 26/24 (FDC 50/1000 mg). The 90% CI of the geometric means of T/R ratios for primary PK parameters were within predefined BE limits: CI for AUC_0-t and C_max were 95.83-100.37% and 91.85-109.56% (sitagliptin 100 mg); 100.84-103.69% and 93.44-105.10% (FDC 50/850 mg), and 101.26-105.20% and 98.71-112.89% (FDC 50/1000 mg); respective values for metformin were 94.23-101.89% and 91.66-99.38% (FDC 50/850 mg) and 98.45-104.89% and 96.79-105.62% (FDC 50/1000 mg). All AEs were nonserious, transient, and mostly mild. Safety evaluations did not reveal any relevant difference between T and R formulations.

CONCLUSIONS

The new generic tablet formulations of sitagliptin 100 mg and the FDCs sitagliptin/metformin 50/850 mg and 50/1000 mg demonstrated bioequivalence to originator reference products. Therefore, the new products are expected to provide efficacy and tolerability similar to those of the reference products in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT EU Clinical Trials Registry (2014-005437-31); ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05549570 and NCT05549583, both retrospectively registered on 20 September 2022).

Medication adherence with fixed-dose versus free-equivalent combination therapies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: We conducted a large-scale meta-analysis and subgroup analysis to compare the effect of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with that of free-equivalent combination (FEC) therapy on medication adherence. Methods: Studies published in Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Embase up to May 2022 were identified according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary assessed outcomes were the medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC). We investigated the probability of being adherent to the prescribed treatment (MPR or PDC ≥80%) or the average estimate of these two parameters. Studies reporting such results were included in this meta-analysis. The summary measures were reported as the risk ratio (RR) and the weighted mean difference (MD) with 95% of confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. The quality of the cohort studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Of the 1,814 screened studies, 61 met the predefined inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of the results showed that compared to FEC, FDC significantly improved the medication compliance of patients by 1.29 times (95% CI:1.23-1.35, p < 0.00001). I² of 99% represent high heterogeneity across studies. The mean difference in medication adherence between FDC and FEC was 0.10 (95% CI: 0.06-0.14, p < 0.00001) with an I² estimate of 100%. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies that reported adherence outcomes according to disease type, period of evaluation and compliance indicators. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to exclude the results of low-quality studies, as well as studies in which there was ambiguity in the method of calculating the estimator. Conclusion: Analysis of the assessed parameters for the intention-to-treat and subgroup populations suggests that FDC can improve adherence to treatment and its advantages over FEC may increase over time. Further research is needed to better understand how medical conditions affect the impact of reduced pill burden on adherence, particularly in diseases other than cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Long-term clinical outcomes of oral antidiabetic drugs as fixed-dose combinations: A nationwide retrospective cohort study

AIM

To compare treatment patterns and clinical outcomes of single-pill fixed-dose combination (FDC) and two-pill combination (TPC) therapies using real-world data.

METHODS

We conducted a nationwide retrospective cohort study using South Korea's healthcare database (2002-2015). We identified two cohorts of incident patients with type 2 diabetes who initiated FDC or TPC therapy within 4 months of their first prescription for metformin or sulphonylurea. We examined persistence and adherence patterns and the clinical outcome of a composite endpoint of death or hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure or stroke and compared the differences in treatment patterns and clinical outcomes using Cox models.

RESULTS

Of 5143 and 10 973 patients who initiated FDC and TPC therapy, respectively, we identified 5143 patient pairs after propensity score matching. The FDC group exhibited greater median time to treatment discontinuation (163 vs. 146 days), and proportion of days covered at 12 months (mean 0.60 vs. 0.57, P < .0001) and at 24 months (0.53 vs. 0.51, P = .014) than the TPC group. The FDC group, compared with the TPC group, had reduced risks of the composite clinical outcome (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence intervals 0.77-0.97) and hospitalization for stroke (0.80, 0.67-0.96).

CONCLUSION

FDC therapy may provide favourable cardiovascular benefits, especially reducing the risk of hospitalization for stroke, and has better medication adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes.

Bioequivalence Studies of New Generic Formulations of Vildagliptin and Fixed-Drug Combination of Vildagliptin and Metformin Versus Respective Originator Products in Healthy Volunteers

INTRODUCTION

Vildagliptin and metformin are two well-established oral antidiabetics with a complementary mechanism of action. Two new generic products, vildagliptin and its fixed-drug combination (FDC) with metformin, were tested for bioequivalence versus the approved originator reference products (Galvus® and Eucreas®).

METHODS

Three randomized studies with two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence crossover design were conducted in healthy adults. One study evaluated vildagliptin 50 mg tablets as single dose under fasting conditions. Vildagliptin-metformin FDC tablet strengths of 50/850 mg and 50/1000 mg were evaluated in separate studies as single dose under fed conditions, given 30 min after a standardized high-fat, high-calorie breakfast following 10 h overnight fasting. Blood samples for analysis were collected until 24 h after dosing in each study period. Bioequivalence between test (T) and reference (R) products required 90% confidence interval (CIs) for the geometric least square (LS) mean T/R ratio to be within 80-125% for the pharmacokinetic parameters, maximum plasma concentration (C_max), and area under the curve (AUC_0-t).

RESULTS

The 90% CIs of geometric LS means of T/R ratio for C_max and AUC_0-t with vildagliptin tablets of 50 mg were 92.22-103.94% and 99.00-102.66%, respectively; corresponding results with FDC tablets for 50/850 mg tablets were 94.81-115.41% and 95.28-106.00% for vildagliptin and 90.87-101.18% and 90.56-100.09% for metformin; for 50/1000 mg tablets C_max and AUC_0-t were 105.56-122.30% and 98.30-107.55%, respectively, for vildagliptin and 92.14-103.73% and 94.60-101.81%, respectively, for metformin. Other parameters such as AUC_0-∞, time to maximum concentration (T_max), and terminal half-life (t_1/2) were comparable between test and reference products. Adverse events (AEs), mainly vomiting, were reported without relevant difference between test and reference products in each study. AEs were generally mild and transient. No severe or serious AEs occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The new generic drug products of vildagliptin and the FDCs of vildagliptin and metformin demonstrated bioequivalence to the approved originator products and are therefore expected to provide similar therapeutic effects.

Real-World Evidence of Treatment with Teneligliptin/Canagliflozin Combination Tablets for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Post-Marketing Surveillance in Japan

Introduction

Teneligliptin/canagliflozin combination tablets, which combine a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor (teneligliptin) and a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor (canagliflozin), are a treatment option for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan. This post-marketing surveillance evaluated the real-world safety and effectiveness of teneligliptin/canagliflozin combination tablets, and changes in self-reported adherence to oral antihyperglycaemic agents.

Methods

Japanese patients with T2DM who were prescribed the combination tablets for the first time between December 2017 and June 2018 were registered and followed up for 12 months. Safety and effectiveness were assessed in terms of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and the changes in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight from baseline to 12 months with the last observation carried forward, respectively. Adherence was assessed using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale 8.

Results

Overall, 821 patients were eligible for the analyses, including 733 who were prescribed the combination tablets for 12 months. ADRs and serious ADRs were reported in 4.38% and 0.85% of patients, respectively. Gastrointestinal disorders (0.97%) were the most common class of ADRs. No new safety concerns were identified beyond those described in the Japanese package insert. The changes in HbA1c and body weight from baseline to 12 months were − 0.43 ± 0.93% and − 1.29 ± 5.57 kg, respectively. The reductions in HbA1c at 12 months tended to be greater among patients who switched from either DPP-4 inhibitors (− 0.71 ± 0.89%) or SGLT2 inhibitors (− 0.51 ± 1.00%) relative to patients who switched from both (− 0.22 ± 0.88%). The decrease in body weight was greatest among patients who switched from DPP-4 inhibitors. An improvement in self-reported adherence to oral antihyperglycaemic agents occurred after switching to the combination tablets.

Conclusion

Teneligliptin/canagliflozin combination tablets were effective and associated with an improvement in adherence without new safety concerns in Japanese patients with T2DM in real-world clinical practice.

Trial Registration

JapicCTI-173778.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-02038-5.

Teneligliptin/canagliflozin combination tablets are used as an option for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan. We performed this surveillance to obtain data on the frequency of side effects (adverse drug reactions) and effectiveness (in terms of changes in haemoglobin A1c and body weight) in Japanese patients treated with teneligliptin/canagliflozin combination tablets in real-world clinical practice. We also asked patients to evaluate their adherence to oral antihyperglycaemic agents as part of their prescribed therapies. We collected data for up to 12 months. We detected no new safety concerns, other than those already described in the Japanese package insert for the combination tablets. In terms of effectiveness, we observed improvements in both haemoglobin A1c and body weight over 12 months of treatment. Furthermore, self-reported adherence to oral antihyperglycaemic agents improved after treatment with the combination tablets.

Behavioral Sciences in the Optimization of Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is one of the main chronic diseases worldwide, with a significant impact on public health. Behavioral changes are an important step in disease prevention and management, so the way in which individuals adapt their lifestyle to new circumstances will undoubtedly be a predictor of the success of the treatments instituted, contributing to a reduction in the morbidity and mortality that may be associated with them. It is essential to prepare and educate all diabetic patients on the importance of changing behavioral patterns in relation to the disease, with health professionals assuming an extremely important role in this area, both from a pharmacological and non-pharmacological point of view, and also ensuring the monitoring of the progress of these measures. Diabetes is a chronic disease that requires a high self-management capacity on the part of patients in order to achieve success in treating the disease, and non-adherence to therapy or non-compliance with the previously defined plan, together with an erratic lifestyle, will contribute to failure in controlling the disease. The lower adherence to pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment in diabetes is mainly correlated to socio-economic aspects, lower health literacy, the side effects associated with the use of antidiabetic therapy or even the concomitant use of several drugs. This article consists of a narrative review that aims to synthesize the findings published in the literature, retrieved by searching databases, manuals, previously published scientific articles and official texts, following the methodology of the Scale for Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA). We aim to address the importance of behavioral sciences in the treatment of diabetes, in order to assess behavior factors and barriers for behavior changes that have an impact on the therapeutic and non-therapeutic optimization in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus control.

Non-adherence to antidiabetic and cardiovascular drugs in type 2 diabetes mellitus and its association with renal and cardiovascular outcomes: A narrative review

Cardiovascular and renal complications are a major burden for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Besides lifestyle interventions, current guidelines recommend combination drug therapy to prevent or delay the incidence and progression of comorbidities. However, non-adherence to pharmacotherapy is common in chronic conditions such as T2DM and a barrier to successful disease management. Numerous studies have associated medication non-adherence with worse outcome as well as higher health care costs. This narrative review provides (i) an overview on adherence measures used within and outside research settings, (ii) an estimate on the prevalence of non-adherence to antidiabetic and cardiovascular drugs in T2DM, and (iii) specifically focuses on the association of non-adherence to these drugs with renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

Insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed-ratio combination (iGlarLixi) compared with premix or addition of meal-time insulin to basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine 100 U/mL and lixisenatide, relative to premix insulin and other insulin options through network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing iGlarLixi, premix insulin or basal insulin (BI) in combination with meal-time insulin, in people inadequately controlled with BI. Eligible RCTs were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, some open-label, involving 3538 participants, with a study duration of 24-30 weeks were included. The estimated difference in HbA1c reduction with iGlarLixi compared with premix insulin was -0.50%-units (95% credible interval: -0.93 to -0.06) with 98% probability of iGlarLixi being superior to premix. Estimates for iGlarLixi versus meal-time + BI (thrice-daily meal-time insulin + basal) and basal-plus (once-daily meal-time insulin + BI) were -0.35 (-0.89 to +0.13)%-units and -0.68 (-1.18 to -0.17)%-units with probabilities of real difference of 94% and 99%, respectively. Safety outcome analysis suggested that iGlarLixi had lower rates of both confirmed and documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia compared with premix insulin (probabilities of 85% and 93%, respectively) and lower weight gain (probability 98%).

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi showed similar or improved efficacy and safety versus other intensification choices from BI included in this study, providing a clinically relevant treatment option in people with type 2 diabetes not well controlled on BI.

Does the Polypill Improve Patient Adherence Compared to Its Individual Formulations? A Systematic Review

Many patients, especially those with a high pill burden and multiple chronic illnesses, are less adherent to medication. In medication treatments utilizing polypills, this problem might be diminished since multiple drugs are fused into one formulation and, therefore, the therapy regimen is simplified. This systematic review summarized evidence to assess the effect of polypills on medication adherence. The following databases were searched for articles published between 1 January 2000, and 14 May 2019: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Medication adherence was the only outcome assessed, regardless of the method of measuring it. Sixty-seven original peer-reviewed articles were selected. Adherence to polypill regimens was significantly higher in 56 articles (84%) compared to multiple pill regimens. This finding was also supported by the results of 13 out of 17 selected previously published systematic reviews and meta-analyses dealing with this topic. Adherence can be improved through the formulation of polypills, which is probably why the interest in researching them is growing. There are many polypills on the market, but the adherence studies so far focused mainly on a small range of medical conditions.

Fixed-Dose and Fixed-Ratio Combination Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes

The progressive natural history underlying type 2 diabetes often necessitates the use of multiple anti-hyperglycemic medications to achieve therapeutic goals and targets. The associated complexity of these regimens presents significant challenges to both physicians and patients. Fixed-dose oral and fixed-ratio injectable combination agents offer significant potential to simplify and consolidate therapy and lessen barriers to adherence.

Fixed-dose combination of ertugliflozin and metformin hydrochloride for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Combining antihyperglycemic agents in order to rapidly and safely achieve the best possible glycemic control is the standard of care today for the management of type 2 diabetes. Agents should ideally have mechanisms of actions that are complementary and that improve glycemic control without unacceptable gain in body weight or hypoglycemia. Areas covered: Ertugliflozin and metformin hydrochloride (ertugliflozin/metformin, SEGLUROMET) is a recently approved fixed-dose combination tablet containing the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor ertugliflozin and metformin. This review summarizes key characteristics of ertugliflozin and metformin, as well as the efficacy and safety results of co-administration of these agents in the ertugliflozin clinical development program. This information comes from the ertugliflozin/metformin prescribing information as well as published clinical trials obtained through a PubMed search. Expert commentary: SGLT-2 inhibitors are an important class of antihyperglycemic agents that are efficacious as monotherapy and in combination with other antihyperglycemic agents. Given their favorable effects on glycemia control as well as 'extra-glycemic' parameters such as body weight and blood pressure, they are ideal agents for appropriate patients with type 2 diabetes. The fixed-dose combination of ertugliflozin with metformin is an effective combination that is conveniently administered and may improve medication adherence and persistence.

Different daily glycemic profiles after switching from once-daily alogliptin plus twice-daily metformin to their once-daily fixed-dose combination in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients

The aim of this study was to investigate whether daily glycemic profiles and treatment satisfaction would be changed after switching from once-daily 25-mg alogliptin plus twice-daily 250-mg metformin to the fixed-dose combination of 25-mg alogliptin and 500-mg metformin once daily in type 2 diabetic patients. Twenty adult Japanese type 2 diabetic patients in whom once-daily 25-mg alogliptin plus twice-daily 250-mg metformin were switched to the fixed-dose combination of 25-mg alogliptin and 500-mg metformin once daily participated. Before and one month after the switch, participants were asked to perform one day of seven-point self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), to wear a sensor of flash glucose monitoring for up to 14 days, and to respond to a questionnaire for treatment satisfaction. As a result, the SMBG profiles were significantly changed after the switch (p = 0.021); blood glucose levels 2 hours after breakfast were significantly elevated (p = 0.022), whereas those 2 hours after lunch were significantly reduced (p = 0.036). The flash glucose monitoring also demonstrated a significant change of daily glucose profiles (p < 0.001). The risk of glucose levels <80 mg/dL were decreased from evening to morning, while the risk of glucose levels ≥140 mg/dL were increased. Mean 24-hour glucose values were increased by 5 mg/dL on average (p < 0.001). Treatment satisfaction was significantly improved after the switch (p < 0.001). In conclusion, daily glycemic profiles were significantly changed after switching from once-daily 25-mg alogliptin plus twice-daily 250-mg metformin to the once-daily fixed-dose combination in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients. Treatment satisfaction was significantly improved after the switch.

Persistence to Treatment with Novel Antidiabetic Drugs (Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors, Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter-2 Inhibitors, and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists) in People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Nationwide Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Adequate persistence to antidiabetic treatment is highly important to achieve proper glycemic control. In this study we evaluate the persistence to treatment with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in a nationwide cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Using a central database in Hungary, we analyzed the persistence to the treatment with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (n = 59,900), sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (n = 26,052), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (n = 17,332) at treatment intensification between 2014 and 2016. We also compared the persistence of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (n = 9163) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (n = 1257) in initial therapy to that of metformin (n = 79,305) or sulfonylureas (n = 29,057). The rates of persistence to treatment and risk of non-persistence are reported.

RESULTS

The persistence rates of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists at treatment intensification were 69.6%, 67.8%, and 66.3% at year 1 which decreased to 57.3%, 56.8%, and 52.1% by year 2, respectively. The risk of non-persistence was higher by 6.6% (95% CI 3.6-9.6) for sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and by 8.3% (95% CI 5.0-11.5) for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists as compared to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Novel oral antidiabetic drugs in fixed versus free add-on combinations with metformin had higher persistence. The persistence to treatment with novel oral antidiabetic drugs in initial therapy was better (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, 59.6% and 47.6%; sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, 61.9% and 47.0%) than that of initial monotherapy with metformin (47.0% and 39.1%) or sulfonylureas (52.4% and 41.8%) at years 1 and 2, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of persistence of treatment with novel glucose-lowering medications revealed differences between drug classes, favoring dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors vs. sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Persistence data of novel antihyperglycemic agents may be useful for guiding the decision at initiation of antidiabetic treatment.

FUNDING

Hungarian Diabetes Association. Plain language summary available for this article.

Adherence to antihyperglycemic medications and glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: clinical consequences and strategies for improvement

Adherence to antihyperglycemic medications is often suboptimal in patients with type 2 diabetes, and this can contribute to poor glycemic control, increased hospitalization, and the development of diabetic complications. Reported adherence rates to antihyperglycemics vary widely among studies, and this may be related to differences in methodology for measuring adherence, patient populations, and other factors. Poor adherence may occur regardless of the specific regimen used and whether therapy is oral or injectable, and can be especially common in chronic, asymptomatic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes. More convenient drug-administration regimens and advances in formulations and delivery devices are among strategies shown to improve adherence to antihyperglycemic therapy, especially for injectable therapy. This is exemplified by technological developments made in the drug class of glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, which are a focus of this narrative review. Dulaglutide, albiglutide, and prolonged-release exenatide have an extended duration of action and can be administered once weekly, whereas such agents as liraglutide require once-daily administration. The convenience of once-weekly versus once-daily administration is associated with better adherence in real-world studies involving this class of agent. Moreover, provision of a user-friendly delivery device has been shown to overcome initial resistance to injectable therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes. This suggests that recent innovations in drug formulation (eg, ready-to-use formulations) and delivery systems (eg, single-dose prefilled pens and hidden, ready-attached needles) may be instrumental in encouraging patient acceptance. For physicians who aim to improve their patients' adherence to antihyperglycemic medications, it is thus important to consider the patient's therapeutic experience (treatment frequency, drug formulation, delivery device). Better adherence, powered by recent technological advances in the delivery of glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, may thus lead to improved clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes.

Initiating therapy in patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes: Combination therapy vs a stepwise approach

There is clear evidence that achieving glycaemic targets reduces the risk of developing complications as a result of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Many patients, however, continue to have suboptimal glycaemic control because of issues that include unclear advice on how to achieve these targets as well as clinical inertia. The two management approaches recommended for patients newly diagnosed with T2D are stepwise and combination therapy, each of which has advantages and disadvantages. Stepwise therapy may result in good patient adherence and allow greater individualization of therapy, and minimization of side effects and cost, and so may be appropriate for patients who are closer to goal. Stepwise therapy, however, may also lead to frequent delays in achieving glycaemic goals and longer exposure to hyperglycaemia. Combination therapy, which is now emerging as an important therapy option, has a number of potential advantages over stepwise therapy, including reduction in clinical inertia and earlier and more frequent achievement of glycated haemoglobin goals by targeting multiple pathogenic mechanisms simultaneously, which may more effectively delay disease progression. Compared with stepwise therapy, the disadvantages of combination therapy include reduced patient adherence resulting from complex, multi-drug regimens, difficulty determining the cause of poor efficacy and/or side effects, patient refusal to accept disease, and higher cost. Fixed-dose and fixed-ratio combinations are novel therapeutic approaches which may help address several issues of treatment complexity and patient burden associated with combination therapy comprising individual drugs. The choice of which drugs to administer and the decision to use stepwise vs combination therapy, however, should always be made on an individualized basis.

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

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

Glycemic Improvement with a Fixed-dose combination of DPP-4 inhibitor + metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes (GIFT study)

This study investigates changes in A1C following a switch from dual therapy of metformin and DPP-4 inhibitor to a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of metformin + DPP-4 inhibitor following the introduction of the FDC in the provincial formulary. The LMC Diabetes Registry was queried retrospectively for patients with type 2 diabetes, aged between 18 and 80 years with at least one A1C recorded prior and ≥3 months post-switch. Five hundred and sixty-eight subjects with mean age 64 ± 12 years and mean A1C 7.7% ± 1.2% met study criteria. Overall, A1C was 0.3% lower post-switch to FDC (P < .01). In stratified analysis, subjects with baseline A1C between 7% and 10% had 0.4% lower A1C (P < .01), with 31% of these subjects reaching target A1C ≤7%, post-switch. A1C reduction was greater among patients with a higher baseline pill burden: 0.4% among those using ≥10 pills/day vs. 0.1% for those with <10 pills/day (P = .02). In this real-world study, switching to FDC of metformin + DPP-4 inhibitor was associated with a significant improvement in A1C. Switching to FDC, especially in patients with high pill burden, can improve A1C goal achievement in clinical practice.

Dapagliflozin and saxagliptin tablets for adults with type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Saxagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, DPP-4i) and dapagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitor, SGLT2i) improve glucose control in type 2 diabetes (T2D) through different potentially complementary mechanisms, thus offering the opportunity for a combined therapy. Area covered: The characteristics of the saxagliptin/dapagliflozin combination are analysed, focusing on: 1) pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties; 2) efficacy and safety in phase III trials with concurrent and sequential add-on therapy; and 3) potential use in clinical practice, including in special populations (cardiovascular disease, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, elderly). Expert commentary: Conclusions drawn from clinical trials investigating combination with the separate drugs are considered to apply to the fixed-dose combination (FDC) that demonstrates bioequivalence. Dual saxagliptin/dapagliflozin therapy is more potent than either monotherapy and can be used as an initial combination or a stepwise sequential approach. Dual therapy is generally well tolerated and may be used in special populations, with some limitations because of the presence of dapagliflozin. However, the latter may offer some advantages because of multiple effects attributed to SGLT2i. The best place of this dual combination for the management of T2D and the profile of patients who will make the most of this combined therapy remains to be defined.

Early Combination Therapy with Oral Glucose-Lowering Agents in Type 2 Diabetes

Despite the considerable burden of disease associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), most patients are not at, or are unable to achieve, recommended glycemic targets. This is partly because of the relentless progressive nature of the disease, but it may also be attributable to the current diabetes treatment paradigm. The recommended stepwise approach may lead to frequent early treatment failure with prolonged periods of elevated glucose as a consequence of clinical inertia and delays in achieving optimal glycemic control. Thus, it is most appropriate to consider the current treatment paradigm for T2DM in the context of a more aggressive initial therapy with early combination therapy. Current guidelines advise that initial combination therapy should be used for patients presenting with elevated glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c). However, several studies and recent meta-analyses suggest a potential benefit from initial combination therapy on glycemic outcomes in diabetes compared with metformin monotherapy across a wide range of baseline HbA_1c levels. Indeed, combination therapy can increase the number of patients achieving glycemic goals, and the newer glucose-lowering agents may reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and body weight gain. Moreover, our improving understanding of the complex pathophysiology of T2DM and the availability of treatments tackling specific mechanisms contributing to hyperglycemia should lead to more pathophysiologically sound combination therapy. We discuss the rationale behind and evidence for early combination therapy as well as what is needed in the future to better understand its potential.

Pharmacokinetic drug evaluation of saxagliptin plus dapagliflozin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Combining a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor and a sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitor is an attractive option to treat hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes. Areas covered: The saxagliptin plus dapagliflozin combination is carefully analysed, focusing on: 1) pharmacokinetic properties, 2) pharmacodynamics data, and 3) results of randomised controlled trials (dual combination versus either monotherapy, sequential therapy saxagliptin added to dapagliflozin or dapagliflozin added to saxagliptin). Expert opinion: Pharmacokinetic findings demonstrate the absence of drug-drug interaction and the bioequivalence of the FDC compared with separated tablets. Pharmacodynamic observations confirm a complementary mode of action of the two agents. Dual saxagliptin-dapagliflozin therapy is more potent than either monotherapy. It may be used as an initial combination, although this approach remains debatable and should probably be reserved in case of high glycated hemoglobin, or a stepwise strategy, according to a personalized approach. The developed saxagliptin-dapagliflozin FDC may simplify anti-hyperglycemic therapy and improve drug compliance.

Management of type 2 diabetes: the current situation and key opportunities to improve care in the UK

In common with global trends, the number of individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK is rising, driven largely by obesity. The increasing prevalence of younger individuals with type 2 diabetes is of particular concern because of the accelerated course of diabetes-related complications that is observed in this population. The importance of good glycaemic control in the prevention of microvascular complications of diabetes is widely accepted, and there is a growing body of evidence to support a benefit in the reduction of cardiovascular events in the long term. Despite the importance of maintaining a healthy weight for the prevention of type 2 diabetes, the results from trials of lifestyle intervention strategies to reduce body weight have been disappointing. New glucose-lowering agents offer some promise in this regard, offering an opportunity to combat the dual burden of hyperglycaemia and obesity simultaneously. The timing and appropriate choice of glucose-lowering therapy has never been more complex as a result of rising prevalence of obesity in the young, concomitant obesity in some 90% of adults with type 2 diabetes and an ever-increasing range of therapeutic options. The present review evaluates performance measures specific to weight and glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes in the UK using data from the Quality and Outcomes Framework in England and Wales, and the Scottish Diabetes Survey. Potential barriers to improvement in standards of care for people with type 2 diabetes are considered, including patient factors, clinical inertia and the difficulties in translating therapeutic guidelines into everyday clinical practice.

Linagliptin plus metformin in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycemia

OBJECTIVES

Few studies of oral glucose-lowering drugs exist in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with marked hyperglycemia, and insulin is often proposed as initial treatment. We evaluated the oral initial combination of metformin and linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in this population.

METHODS

We performed a pre-specified subgroup analysis of a randomized study in which newly diagnosed T2D patients with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 8.5%-12.0% received linagliptin/metformin or linagliptin monotherapy. Subgroups of baseline HbA1c, age, body-mass index (BMI), renal function, race, and ethnicity were evaluated, with efficacy measured by HbA1c change from baseline after 24 weeks.

RESULTS

HbA1c reductions from baseline (mean 9.7%) at week 24 in the overall population were an adjusted mean -2.81% ± 0.12% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 132) and -2.02% ± 0.13% with linagliptin (n = 113); treatment difference -0.79% (95% CI -1.13 to -0.46, P < 0.0001). In patients with baseline HbA1c ≥9.5%, HbA1c reduction was -3.37% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 76) and -2.53% with linagliptin (n = 61); difference -0.84% (95% CI -1.32 to -0.35). In those with baseline HbA1c <9.5%, HbA1c reduction was -2.08% with linagliptin/metformin (n = 56) and -1.39% with linagliptin (n = 52); difference -0.69% (95% CI -1.23 to -0.15). Changes in HbA1c and treatment differences between the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups were of similar magnitudes to the overall population across patient subgroups based on age, BMI, renal function, and race. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.8% and 5.7% of linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin patients, respectively; no severe hypoglycemia occurred.

CONCLUSION

Linagliptin/metformin combination in newly diagnosed T2D patients with marked hyperglycemia was well tolerated and elicited substantial improvements in glycemic control regardless of baseline HbA1c, age, BMI, renal function, or race. Thus, newly diagnosed, markedly hyperglycemic patients may be effectively treated by combinations of oral agents.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT01512979.

Prescription Factors Associated with Medication Non-adherence in Japan Assessed from Leftover Drugs in the SETSUYAKU-BAG Campaign: Focus on Oral Antidiabetic Drugs

BACKGROUND

Medication adherence has an important influence on health outcomes in patients with chronic diseases. However, few studies have been performed in Japan to determine factors related to medication non-adherence.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify prescription factors related to medication non-adherence by investigating patient characteristics, all prescriptions, and prescriptions for oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional survey of prescription data about implementation of dosing regimen was performed at community pharmacies engaged in appropriate use of leftover drugs. We evaluated the amount of drugs originally prescribed and the reduced amount after use of leftover drugs, and then calculated prescription reduction ratio (PRR). We analyzed prescription factors contributing to non-adherence based on the PRR.

RESULTS

Prescription information for 1207 patients was reviewed, revealing that patients were non-adherent to 58% of prescriptions. Lack of a drug copayment, fewer concurrent drugs, and drugs not in single-dose packaging were associated with non-adherence. Among the 1207 patients, 234 prescriptions for diabetes and 452 OAD formulations were included. Forty-seven percent of prescriptions and 29% of the formulations were non-adherent. A higher dosing frequency and preprandial administration were associated with non-adherence. Among the OADs, adherence was lower for α-glucosidase inhibitors and biguanides than for sulfonylureas.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors related to patient characteristics, general drug prescriptions, and OAD prescriptions were associated with non-adherence. Further consideration will be needed to improve adherence to medication in Japan. Health care providers should perform more careful monitoring of adherence in patients with the factors identified by this study.

Patient-Centered Outcomes of Medication Adherence Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Using meta-analytic procedures to synthesize changes in patient-centered outcomes after medication adherence interventions.

METHODS

Strategies to locate studies included online searches of 13 databases and 19 research registries, hand searches of 57 journals, and author and ancestry searches of all eligible studies. Search terms included patient compliance, medication adherence, and related terms. Searches were conducted for all studies published since 1960. Eligible published or unpublished primary studies tested medication adherence interventions and reported medication knowledge, quality of life, physical function, and symptom outcomes. Primary study attributes and outcome data were reliably coded. Overall standardized mean differences (SMDs) were analyzed using random-effects models. Dichotomous and continuous moderator analyses and funnel plots were used to explore risks of bias.

RESULTS

Thorough searching located 141 eligible reports. The reports included 176 eligible comparisons between treatment and control subjects across 23,318 subjects. Synthesis across all comparisons yielded statistically significant SMDs for medication knowledge (d = 0.449), quality of life (d = 0.127), physical function (d = 0.142), and symptoms (d = 0.182). The overall SMDs for studies focusing on subsamples of patients with specific illnesses were more modest but also statistically significant. Of specific symptoms analyzed (depression, anxiety, pain, energy/vitality, cardiovascular, and respiratory), only anxiety failed to show a significant improvement after medication adherence interventions. Most SMDs were significantly heterogeneous, and risk of bias analyses suggested links between study quality and SMDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Modest but significant improvements in patient-centered outcomes were observed after medication adherence interventions.

Pharmacokinetics and clinical evaluation of the alogliptin plus pioglitazone combination for type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes is a complex disease with multiple defects, which generally requires a combination of several pharmacological approaches to reach glucose control targets. A unique fixed-dose combination combines a thiazolidinedione (pioglitazone) and a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (alogliptin).

AREA COVERED

An extensive literature search was performed to analyze the pharmacokinetics of pioglitazone and alogliptin when used separately and in combination as well as to summarize clinical and toxicological considerations about the combined therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Pioglitazone, a potent insulin sensitizer, and alogliptin, an incretin-based agent that potentiates post-meal insulin secretion and reduces glucagon secretion, have complementary mechanisms of action. The clinical efficacy of a combined therapy is superior to any single therapy in patients treated with diet or with metformin (with or without sulphonylurea). These two drugs can be administered once daily, with or without a meal. No clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interactions between the two agents have been described and the fixed-dose combination has shown bioequivalence with alogliptin and pioglitazone given separately. Combining alogliptin with pioglitazone does not alter the safety profile of each compound. Weight gain observed with pioglitazone may be limited with the addition of alogliptin. The concern of an increased risk of heart failure remains to be better investigated.

Single-pill combination therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus: linagliptin plus empagliflozin

BACKGROUND

Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus invariably requires the use of multiple daily medications which can impact negatively on patient adherence. As a result, there is growing interest in the use of single-pill combinations that can reduce the pill burden. Many such formulations incorporate metformin, although this agent is not suitable for all patients. The single-pill combination of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin with the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin offers a new and attractive option, given their complementary mechanisms of action.

SCOPE

Publications with titles containing the keywords 'linagliptin' or 'empagliflozin' were identified from a non-systematic search of PubMed without date restrictions, together with abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes 2012-2014. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for entries containing these two keywords. Additional references known to the author were included.

FINDINGS

The efficacy and safety of linagliptin and empagliflozin as monotherapy or in combination with other oral antidiabetic drugs has been established through extensive clinical trial programs. Studies specifically evaluating the efficacy/safety of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor/sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor in combination are limited, but do include two studies of linagliptin/empagliflozin of up to 52 weeks in duration. These studies show that the single-pill combination of linagliptin and empagliflozin produced clinical improvements in glycemic control that were generally superior to the improvements seen with linagliptin and empagliflozin alone, but with a safety profile comparable to that of the individual constituents.

CONCLUSIONS

The single-pill combination of linagliptin and empagliflozin, with their complementary mechanisms of action, is a promising treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. It would reduce the daily pill burden in this population, potentially improving adherence to, and optimizing the benefits of, treatment of diabetes mellitus.

Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin compared with linagliptin monotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia: a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel group, multinational clinical trial

AIMS

To evaluate glucose-lowering treatment strategies with linagliptin and metformin in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia, a prevalent population for which few dedicated studies of oral antidiabetes drugs have been conducted.

METHODS

A total of 316 patients, with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for ≤12 months and with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration in the range 8.5-12.0%, were randomized 1:1 to double-blind, free-combination treatment with linagliptin 5 mg once daily and metformin twice daily (uptitrated to 2000 mg/day maximum) or to linagliptin monotherapy. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c concentration from baseline at week 24 (per-protocol completers' cohort: n = 245).

RESULTS

The mean (standard deviation) age and HbA1c at baseline were 48.8 (11.0) years and 9.8 (1.1)%, respectively. At week 24, the mean ± standard error (s.e.) HbA1c decreased from baseline by -2.8 ± 0.1% with linagliptin/metformin and -2.0 ± 0.1% with linagliptin; a treatment difference of -0.8% (95% confidence interval -1.1 to -0.5; p <0.0001). Similar results were observed in a sensitivity analysis based on intent-to-treat principles: adjusted mean ± s.e. changes in HbA1c of -2.7 ± 0.1% and -1.8 ± 0.1%, respectively; treatment difference of -0.9% (95% CI -1.3 to -0.6; p <0.0001). A treatment response of HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 61 and 40% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively. Few patients experienced drug-related adverse events (8.8 and 5.7% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 1.9 and 3.2% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively (no severe episodes). Body weight decreased significantly with the combination therapy (-1.3 kg between-group difference; p =0.0033).

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin in initial combination with metformin in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia, an understudied group, elicited significant improvements in glycaemic control with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia, weight gain or other adverse effects. These results support early combination treatment strategies and suggest that newly diagnosed patients with marked hyperglycaemia may be effectively managed with oral, non-insulin therapy.

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

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

Treatment Compliance with Fixed-Dose Combination of Vildagliptin/Metformin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled with Metformin Monotherapy: A 24-Week Observational Study

Objective. To evaluate the differences in treatment compliance with vildagliptin/metformin fixed-dose versus free-dose combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Greece. Design. Adult patients with T2DM, inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy, (850 mg bid), participated in this 24-week, multicenter, observational study. Patients were enrolled in two cohorts: vildagliptin/metformin fixed-dose combination (group A) and vildagliptin metformin free-dose combination (group B). Results. 659 patients were enrolled, 360 were male, with mean BMI 30.1, mean T2DM duration 59.6 months, and mean HbA1c at baseline 8%; 366 patients were assigned to group A and 293 to group B; data for 3 patients was missing. In group A, 98.9% of patients were compliant with their treatment compared to 84.6% of group B. The odds ratio for compliance in group A versus B was (OR) 18.9 (95% CI: 6.2, 57.7; P < 0.001). In group A mean HbA1c decreased from 8.1% at baseline to 6.9% (P < 0.001) at the study end and from 7.9% to 6.8% (P < 0.001) in group B. Conclusions. Patients in group A were more compliant than patients in group B. These results are in accordance with international literature suggesting that fixed-dose combination therapies lead to increased compliance to treatment.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin in Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pooled analysis from six randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trials

OBJECTIVE

The number of individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus is expected to rise disproportionately in Hispanic/Latino populations. We therefore aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin specifically in Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data from 745 patients who self-identified their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino were pooled from six randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials. Participants received linagliptin (5 mg/day) or placebo as monotherapy, or in combination with other oral antidiabetes drugs for 18 or 24 weeks.

RESULTS

The placebo-adjusted mean change (95% CI) in glycated hemoglobin from baseline (mean 8.2%) was -0.63% (-0.77 to -0.48; p<0.0001) at week 18, and -0.58% (-0.74 to -0.42; p<0.0001) at week 24. The placebo-adjusted mean change (95% CI) in fasting plasma glucose from baseline was -11.7 mg/dL (-19.3 to -4.0; p=0.0028) at week 18 and -14.1 mg/dL (-22.0 to -6.3; p=0.0004) at week 24. Hypoglycemia incidence was 17.4% with linagliptin and 21% with placebo. In patients not receiving concomitant sulfonylurea, the hypoglycemia incidence was 10.1% with linagliptin and 19.4% with placebo. The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs), drug-related AEs, and serious AEs with linagliptin was similar to placebo (AEs 67.6% vs 68.9%; drug-related AEs 15.1% vs 18.7%; serious AEs 3.6% vs 3.0%). The mean body weight remained unchanged in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In Hispanic/Latino patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus, linagliptin provided clinically meaningful improvements in glycemic control without weight gain or increased risk of hypoglycemia.

Adherence to therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes

Adherence to therapy is defined as the extent to which a person's behavior in taking medication, following a diet, and/or executing lifestyle changes, corresponds with agreed recommendations from a healthcare provider. Patients presenting with type 2 diabetes mellitus are initially encouraged to maintain a healthy diet and exercise regimen, followed by early medication that generally includes one or more oral hypoglycemic agents and later may include an injectable treatment. To prevent the complications associated with type 2 diabetes, therapy frequently also includes medications for control of blood pressure, dyslipidemia and other disorders, since patients often have more than three or four chronic conditions. Despite the benefits of therapy, studies have indicated that recommended glycemic goals are achieved by less than 50% of patients, which may be associated with decreased adherence to therapies. As a result, hyperglycemia and long-term complications increase morbidity and premature mortality, and lead to increased costs to health services. Reasons for nonadherence are multifactorial and difficult to identify. They include age, information, perception and duration of disease, complexity of dosing regimen, polytherapy, psychological factors, safety, tolerability and cost. Various measures to increase patient satisfaction and increase adherence in type 2 diabetes have been investigated. These include reducing the complexity of therapy by fixed-dose combination pills and less frequent dosing regimens, using medications that are associated with fewer adverse events (hypoglycemia or weight gain), educational initiatives with improved patient-healthcare provider communication, reminder systems and social support to help reduce costs. In the current narrative review, factors that influence adherence to different therapies for type 2 diabetes are discussed, along with outcomes of poor adherence, the economic impact of nonadherence, and strategies aimed at improving adherence.

Acarbose plus metformin fixed-dose combination outperforms acarbose monotherapy for type 2 diabetes

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of acarbose plus metformin fixed-dose combination (FDC) versus acarbose monotherapy for type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Eligible T2D patients undergoing treatment with diet control only or oral antidiabetic medications were run-in on acarbose 50mg thrice-daily for 4 weeks, then randomised either to continue this monotherapy, or to acarbose 50mg plus metformin hydrochloride 500mg FDC (acarbose/metformin FDC), each thrice-daily for 16 weeks.

RESULTS

Acarbose/metformin FDC therapy significantly reduced HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) from baseline (all p<0.0001) with superior efficacy compared with acarbose monotherapy (between-group differences; HbA1c -1.35%; FPG -29.5mg/dl; PPG -41.6mg/dl; all p<0.0001). Proportionally more patients treated with acarbose/metformin FDC achieved HbA1c <7.0% (47.8% vs. 10.7%, p<0.0001). Both treatments reduced bodyweight (p<0.0001), with a significant between-group difference (-0.6kg, p<0.01) favouring acarbose/metformin FDC. Hypoglycaemia was not reported with either treatment, and the incidence of other adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with acarbose monotherapy, acarbose/metformin FDC has superior antihyperglycaemic efficacy, brings proportionally more T2D patients to HbA1c goal, and further reduces bodyweight. Acarbose/metformin FDC is well-tolerated without significant risk of hypoglycaemia and is a potentially advantageous therapy for T2D.

Phentermine and topiramate for the management of obesity: a review

Obesity is now a major public health concern worldwide with increasing prevalence and a growing list of comorbidities and complications. The morbidity, mortality and reduced productivity associated with obesity and its complications result in a major burden to health care costs. Obesity is a complex chronic medical syndrome often with multiple different etiologic factors in individual patients. The long term successful management of obesity remains particularly challenging and invariably requires a multifaceted approach including lifestyle and behavioral modification, increased physical activity, and adjunctive pharmacotherapy. Bariatric surgery remains a last resort though at present it has the best results for achieving sustained robust weight loss. Obesity pharmacotherapy has been very limited in its role for long term obesity management because of the past history of several failed agents as well as the fact that presently available agents are few, and generally utilized as monotherapy. The recent FDA approval of the fixed drug combination of phentermine and extended release topiramate (topiramate-ER) (trade name Qsymia™) marks the first FDA approved combination pharmacotherapeutic agent for obesity since the Phen-Fen combination of the 1990s. This review details the history and clinical trial basis for the use of both phentermine and topiramate in obesity therapeutics as well as the results of clinical trials of their combination for obesity treatment in humans. The initial clinical approval trials offer evidence that this fixed drug combination offers synergistic potential for effective, robust and sustained weight loss with mean weight loss of at least 10% of baseline achieved and sustained for up to 2 years in over 50% of subjects treated. It is anticipated that this agent will be the first in a new trend of multi-agent combination therapy for the chronic adjunctive management of obesity.