A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by glimepiride and metformin

Efficacy and Safety of Omarigliptin, a Novel Once-Weekly Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor, in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGRUOUND

No recent meta-analysis has holistically analyzed and summarized the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We conducted a meta-analysis to address this knowledge gap.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included patients with T2DM who received omarigliptin in the intervention arm. The control arm consisted of either a placebo (passive control group [PCG]) or an active comparator (active control group [ACG]). The primary outcome assessed was changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), while secondary outcomes included variations in glucose levels, achievement of glycemic targets, adverse events (AEs), and hypoglycemic events.

RESULTS

From 332 initially screened articles, data from 16 RCTs involving 8,804 subjects were analyzed. Omarigliptin demonstrated superiority over placebo in reducing HbA1c levels (mean difference, -0.58%; 95% confidence interval, -0.75 to -0.40; P<0.00001; I2=91%). Additionally, omarigliptin outperformed placebo in lowering fasting plasma glucose, 2-hour postprandial glucose, and in the percentage of participants achieving HbA1c levels below 7.0% and 6.5%. The glycemic efficacy of omarigliptin was similar to that of the ACG across all measures. Although the omarigliptin group experienced a higher incidence of hypoglycemic events compared to the PCG, the overall AEs, serious AEs, hypoglycemia, and severe hypoglycemia were comparable between the omarigliptin and control groups (PCG and ACG).

CONCLUSION

Omarigliptin has a favorable glycemic efficacy and safety profile for managing T2DM.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and gallbladder or biliary disease in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and gallbladder or biliary diseases.

DESIGN

Systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL from inception until 31 July 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adult patients with type 2 diabetes who received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors compared with placebo or other antidiabetes drugs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases, cholecystitis, cholelithiasis, and biliary diseases.

DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework (GRADE) approach. The meta-analysis used pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 82 randomised controlled trials with 104 833 participants were included in the pairwise meta-analysis. Compared with placebo or non-incretin drugs, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were significantly associated with an increased risk of the composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases (odds ratio 1.22 (95%confidence interval 1.04 to 1.43); risk difference 11 (2 to 21) more events per 10 000 person years) and cholecystitis (odds ratio 1.43 (1.14 to 1.79); risk difference 15 (5 to 27) more events per 10 000 person years) but not with the risk of cholelithiasis and biliary diseases. The associations tended to be observed in patients with a longer duration of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor treatment. In the network meta-analysis of 184 trials, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors increased the risk of the composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases and cholecystitis compared with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors but not compared with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

CONCLUSIONS

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors increased the risk of cholecystitis in randomised controlled trials, especially with a longer treatment duration, which requires more attention from physicians in clinical practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021271647.

Efficacy of omarigliptin, once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Omarigliptin is one of several once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is). Despite the high frequency of switching from various daily DPP-4is to omarigliptin in actual clinical practice, data regarding its efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) after switching are limited.

AIM

To analyze the efficacy of omarigliptin in Japanese patients with T2D who had previously received treatment with other glucose-lowering agents.

METHODS

Forty-nine T2D patients treated for the first time with omarigliptin were recruited retrospectively and divided into four groups defined as either add-on or switched from daily DPP-4is: switched from linagliptin, switched from sitagliptin, and switched from vildagliptin. During a 3-mo follow-up, the clinical parameters among these groups were assessed and compared, with the impact of the switch on glycemic variability as measured by continuous glucose monitoring also being evaluated in the switched groups.

RESULTS

Hemoglobin A1c levels saw a significant decrease of -0.32% ± 0.41% in the add-on group (P = 0.002). However, the other groups’ variables depended on the pre-switch daily DPP-4i: switched from linagliptin, -0.05% ± 0.22%; switched from sitagliptin, -0.17% ± 0.33%; and switched from vildagliptin, 0.45% ± 0.42%, which saw significant worsening (P = 0.0007). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that switching from vildagliptin to omarigliptin was independently associated with worsening glycemic control (P = 0.0013). The mean and standard deviation of sensor glucose value, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions, and the mean of daily difference significantly improved when switching the patient from either linagliptin or sitagliptin to omarigliptin. However, in patients switched from vildagliptin, not only did the glucose variability indices see no improvements, the mean of daily difference even underwent significant worsening.

CONCLUSION

Administering omarigliptin as add-on therapy or switching to it from sitagliptin and linagliptin, but not vildagliptin, improves glycemic control and thus should help in decision making when selecting DPP-4is for T2D patients.

Age, sex, disease severity, and disease duration difference in placebo response: implications from a meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The placebo response in patients with diabetes mellitus is very common. A systematic evaluation needs to be updated with the current evidence about the placebo response in diabetes mellitus and the associated factors in clinical trials of anti-diabetic medicine.

METHODS

Literature research was conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published between the date of inception and June 2019. Randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in type 1and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) were included. Random-effects model and meta-regression analysis were accordingly used. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42014009373.

RESULTS

Significantly weight elevation (effect size (ES) = 0.33 kg, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.61 kg) was observed in patients with placebo treatments in T1DM subgroup while significantly HbA1c reduction (ES = - 0.12%, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.07%) and weight reduction (ES = - 0.40 kg, 95% CI, - 0.50 to - 0.29 kg) were observed in patients with placebo treatments in T2DM subgroup. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in patients with injectable placebo treatments (ES = - 0.22%, 95% CI, - 0.32 to - 0.11%) versus oral types (ES = - 0.09%, 95% CI, - 0.14 to - 0.04%) in T2DM (P = 0.03). Older age (β = - 0.01, 95% CI, - 0.02 to - 0.01, P < 0.01) and longer diabetes duration (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.03 to - 0.21 × 10^-2, P = 0.03) was significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T1DM. However, younger age (β = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.01), lower male percentage (β = 0.01, 95% CI, 0.22 × 10^-2, 0.01, P < 0.01), higher baseline BMI (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.04 to - 0.26 × 10^-2, P = 0.02), and higher baseline HbA1c (β = - 0.09, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.01, P = 0.02) were significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T2DM. Shorter diabetes duration (β = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.10, P < 0.01) was significantly associated with more weight reduction by placebo in T2DM. However, the associations between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response were insignificant after the adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The placebo response in diabetes mellitus was systematically outlined. Age, sex, disease severity (indirectly reflected by baseline BMI and baseline HbA1c), and disease duration were associated with placebo response in diabetes mellitus. The association between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response may be the result of regression to the mean.

Bullous pemphigoid and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

An increasing body of evidence suggests that dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors could play a role in the development of bullous pemphigoid. The knowledge regarding this association is based on case reports, pharmacovigilance database analyses, and observational studies. Data from randomized clinical trials are a relevant source of information on adverse events. Since no single trial has a sufficient power to assess the risk of very rare adverse events, such as pemphigoid, metanalyses of RCTs could be a useful tool for exploring this issue.

METHODS

An extensive Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database search for sitagliptin or vildagliptin, omarigliptin or saxagliptin or alogliptin or trelagliptin or anagliptin or linagliptin or gemigliptin or evogliptin or teneligliptin was performed up to September 30th, 2019. All trials performed on type 2 diabetes, with duration ≥24 weeks, and comparing DPP4i with placebo or active drugs were collected. The study has been registered on PROSPERO (#153344). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for pemphigoid.

RESULTS

A total of 138 eligible trials were identified (61,514 patients in DPP-4 inhibitors and 59,661 patients in the control group). Only six trials reported at least one case of pemphigoid (17 and 1 cases in DPP4i and control groups, respectively). DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of pemphigoid (MH-OR 4.44 [1.31, 15.00], p = 0.020). A separate analysis for trials with linagliptin showed a significant increase of BP with the active drug (MH-OR 4.69 [1.09, 20.22]; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, available data from randomized controlled trials seem to confirm the association between DPP-4 inhibitors and bullous pemphigoid. This association could be limited to one molecule of the class (i.e., linagliptin), although data on other DPP4-i (e.g., vildagliptin) are insufficient to rule out similar detrimental effects.

Discovery of an Orally Active and Long-Acting DPP-IV Inhibitor through Property-Based Optimization with an in Silico Biotransformation Prediction Tool

Long-acting dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors have emerged as promising molecules for interventions for type 2 diabetes. Once weekly dosing brings greater patient compliance and more stable glycemic control. Starting from our previous highly potent compound with a thienoprimidine scaffold, which is unfortunately severely hit by hepatic biotransformation, a lead compound was rapidly generated by drawing on the experience of our previously discovered long-acting compounds with pyrrolopyrimidine scaffold. With the aid of an in silico biotransformation prediction tool, (R)-2-((2-(3-aminopiperidin-1-yl)-4-oxo-6-(pyridin-3-yl)thieno[3,2-d]pyrimidin-3(4H)-yl)methyl)-4-fluorobenzonitrile was eventually generated and determined to have high potency, a fine pharmacokinetic profile, and a long-acting in vivo efficacy.

The efficacy and safety of once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) omarigliptin as monotherapy or add on to other antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is unclear.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception to January 24, 2018. Randomized controlled trials comparing omarigliptin with placebo or other AHAs in T2DM patients were included in our meta-analysis. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) were used to evaluate the outcomes.

RESULTS

Totally, 11 trials involving 8276 patients were satisfied with our inclusion criteria. Compared with control group, omarigliptin was associated with a significantly stronger reduction in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (MD 0.38%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.18, 0.58], P = .0002) and fasting plasma glucose (MD 0.48 mmol/L, 95% CI [0.14 mmol/L, 0.82 mmol/L], P = .006). Omarigliptin increased the number of participants who achieved HbA1c < 7.0% compared with control group (RR 2.03, 95% CI [1.38, 2.98], P = .0003). No significant difference was found in the aspect of adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI [0.97, 1.03], P = .99), serious adverse events (RR 1.02, 95% CI [0.91, 1.13], P = .75), hypoglycemic events (RR 0.86, 95% CI [0.48, 1.54], P = .61) between omarigliptin and control group. Omarigliptin has a homologous efficacy and safety background to other AHAs according to the results of subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review revealed that omarigliptin had a favorable efficacy and safety as monotherapy or add on to other AHAs in treating T2DM patients. It is a superior choice for T2DM patients who have a poor adherence to daily AHAs.