Effects of 50 mg vildagliptin twice daily vs. 50 mg sitagliptin once daily on blood glucose fluctuations evaluated by long-term self-monitoring of blood glucose

A systematic review on the clinical pharmacokinetics of vildagliptin in healthy and disease populations

INTRODUCTION

Vildagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, is indicated to cure type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This systematic literature search aims to assess the current knowledge about the clinical pharmacokinetics (PK) of vildagliptin to provide recommendations for clinical use to prevent the harmful effects of this drug.

METHODS

The PubMed, Science Direct, EBSCO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar databases were screened for articles related to the clinical PK of vildagliptin using systematic search strategies.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 2118 records, among which 28 were subsumed in this systematic review that fulfilled the inclusion standards.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review can help dose optimization among critically ill patients (e.g. renal impairment) without exposing them to the drug's toxic effects.

The Association Between Antidiabetic Agents and Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients With Diabetes: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the impact of different antidiabetic agents on individuals with diabetes and COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to October 31, 2021 and included seven antidiabetic agents. The data were pooled via traditional pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The pairwise meta-analysis included 35 studies. Metformin (odds ratio (OR), 0.74; P=0.001), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) (OR, 0.88; P=0.04), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) (OR, 0.82; P=0.001), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) (OR, 0.91; P=0.02) treatment were associated with lower COVID-19 mortality in individuals with diabetes compared to respective non-users. However, insulin treatment resulted in higher mortality (OR, 1.8; P=0.001). Mortality did not significantly differ in sulfonylurea (OR, 0.97; P=0.56) and thiazolidinediones (TZDs) (OR, 1.00; P=0.96) users. Furthermore, due to limited data, we analyzed five antidiabetic agents (metformin, DPP4i, sulfonylurea, insulin, and SGLT2i) and found no association between them and severe disease risk (all P>0.05). The Bayesian network meta-analysis included 18 studies. GLP1RA and SGLT2i had the highest first and second rank probability (67.3% and 62.5%, respectively). Insulin showed the maximum probability of ranking seventh (97.0%). Metformin had the third and fourth highest rank probability of 44.8% and 38.9%, respectively. Meanwhile, DPP4i had the fifth-highest rank probability of 42.4%, followed by sulfonylurea at 45.1%.

CONCLUSION

Metformin, DPP4i, SGLT2i, and GLP1RA treatments were highly possible to reduced COVID-19 mortality risk in individuals with diabetes, while insulin might be related to increased mortality risk. Sulfonylurea and TZDs treatments were not associated with mortality. None of the antidiabetic agents studied were associated with the risk of severe disease. Additionally, GLP1RA probably had the most significant protective effect against death, followed by SGLT2i and metformin.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021288200).

Disentangling conflicting evidence on DPP-4 inhibitors and outcomes of COVID-19: narrative review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread all over the world, becoming pandemic. Several studies have shown that diabetes mellitus (DM) is an independent risk factor that increases mortality and other adverse outcomes of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Studies have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may bind dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) for entering cells of the respiratory tract. Besides, DPP4 takes part in immune system regulation. Thus, DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) may play a role against COVID-19.

METHODS

We focused on the impact of DPP4i treatment on COVID-19-related outcomes in people with DM. For this purpose, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the existing evidence on this topic.

RESULTS

Retrospective observational studies provide inconsistent results on the association between use of DPP4i and outcomes of COVID-19. While two studies reported significantly lower mortality rates among patients with DM who received DPP4i versus those who did not, a series of other studies showed no effect of DPP4i or even worse outcomes. A meta-analysis of 7 studies yielded a neutral estimate of the risk ratio of COVID-19-related mortality among users of DPP4i (0.81; 95% CI 0.57-1.15).

CONCLUSION

In the absence of randomized controlled trials, observational research available so far provides inconclusive results and insufficient evidence to recommend use of DPP4i against COVID-19.

The impact of vildagliptin on the daily glucose profile and coronary plaque stability in impaired glucose tolerance patients with coronary artery disease: VOGUE-A multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background

The impact of reduction in glycemic excursion on coronary plaques remains unknown. This study aimed to elucidate whether a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor could reduce the glycemic excursion and stabilize the coronary plaques compared with conventional management in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT).

Methods

This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial including CAD patients with IGT under lipid-lowering therapy receiving either vildagliptin (50 mg once a day) or no medication (control group) regarding glycemic treatment. The primary endpoint was changes in the minimum fibrous cap thickness and lipid arc in non-significant native coronary plaques detected by optical coherence tomography at 6 months after intervention. Glycemic variability expressed as the mean amplitude of glycemic excursion (MAGE) measured with a continuous glucose monitoring system was evaluated before and 6 months after intervention.

Results

A total of 20 participants with 47 lesions were allocated to either the vildagliptin group (10 participants, 22 lesions) or the control group (10 participants, 25 lesions). The adjusted difference of mean changes between the groups was − 18.8 mg/dl (95% confidence interval, − 30.8 to − 6.8) (p = 0.0064) for the MAGE (vildagliptin, − 20.1 ± 18.0 mg/dl vs. control, 2.6 ± 12.7 mg/dl), − 22.8° (− 40.6° to − 5.1°) (p = 0.0012) for the mean lipid arc (vildagliptin, − 9.0° ± 25.5° vs. control, 15.8° ± 16.8°), and 42.7 μm (15.3 to 70.1 μm) (p = 0.0022) for the minimum fibrous cap thickness (vildagliptin, 35.7 ± 50.8 μm vs. control, − 15.1 ± 25.2 μm).

Conclusions

Vildagliptin could reduce the MAGE at 6 months and may be associated with the decreased lipid arc and increased minimum FCT of the coronary plaques in CAD patients with IGT as compared with the control group. These findings may represent its potential stabilization effect on coronary plaques, which are characteristic in this patient subset.

Trial registration Registered in the UMIN clinical trial registry (UMIN000008620), Name of the registry: VOGUE trial, Date of registration: Aug 6, 2012, URL: https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000010058

Anti-inflammatory properties of antidiabetic drugs: A "promised land" in the COVID-19 era?

Inflammation is implicated in the development and severity of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as well as in the pathophysiology of diabetes. Diabetes, especially when uncontrolled, is also recognized as an important risk factor for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, certain inflammatory markers [i.e. C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and ferritin] were reported as strong predictors of worse outcomes in COVID-19 positive patients. The same biomarkers have been associated with poor glycemic control. Therefore, achieving euglycemia in patients with diabetes is even more important in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the above, it is clinically interesting to elucidate whether antidiabetic drugs may reduce inflammation, thus possibly minimizing the risk for COVID-19 development and severity. The present narrative review discusses the potential anti-inflammatory properties of certain antidiabetic drugs (i.e. metformin, pioglitazone, sitagliptin, linagliptin, vildagliptin, alogliptin, saxagliptin, liraglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, lixisenatide, semaglutide, empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, canagliflozin), with a focus on CRP, IL-6 and ferritin.

Response of 1,5-anhydroglucitol level to intensive glucose- and blood-pressure lowering interventions, and its associations with clinical outcomes in the ADVANCE trial

AIMS

To evaluate 1,5-anhydroglucitol (1,5-AG) according to clinical outcomes and assess the effects of glucose- and blood pressure-lowering interventions on change in 1,5-AG levels in people with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We measured 1,5-AG in 6826 stored samples at baseline and in a random subsample of 684 participants at the 1-year follow-up visit in the ADVANCE trial. We examined baseline 1,5-AG [< 39.7, 39.7-66.2, ≥ 66.2 μmol/L (<6, 6-10, ≥10 μg/mL)] and microvascular and macrovascular events and mortality using Cox regression models during 5 years of follow-up. Using an intention-to-treat approach, we examined 1-year change in 1,5-AG (mean and percent) in response to the glucose- and blood pressure-lowering interventions in the subsample.

RESULTS

Low 1,5-AG level [<39.7 μmol/L vs ≥ 66.2 μmol/L (<6 μg/mL vs ≥10 μg/mL)] was associated with microvascular events (hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.60) after adjustment for risk factors and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c); however, the associations for macrovascular events and mortality were not independent of HbA1c. The glucose-lowering intervention was associated with a significant 1-year increase in 1,5-AG (vs standard control) of 6.69 μmol/L (SE 2.52) [1.01 μg/mL (SE 0.38)], corresponding to an 8.26% (SE 0.10%) increase from baseline. We also observed an increase in 1,5-AG of similar magnitude in response to the blood pressure intervention independent of the glucose-lowering effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that 1,5-AG is a marker of risk in adults with type 2 diabetes, but only for microvascular events independently of HbA1c. We found that 1,5-AG was improved (increased) in response to an intensive glucose-lowering intervention, although the independent effect of the blood pressure-lowering intervention on 1,5-AG suggests potential non-glycaemic influences.

The effects of vildagliptin compared with metformin on vascular endothelial function and metabolic parameters: a randomized, controlled trial (Sapporo Athero-Incretin Study 3)

BACKGROUND

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors may have protective effects in the early stage of atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes, although similar effects in advanced atherosclerosis were not shown in recent randomized placebo-controlled studies. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitor on endothelial function and glycemic metabolism compared with high-dose metformin.

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-labeled, prospective, randomized, parallel-group comparison study, patients with type 2 diabetes treated with low-dose metformin (500-750 mg/day) were enrolled and randomly assigned to a vildagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, add-on group (Vilda) or a double dose of metformin group (high Met) for 12 weeks. Flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and serum metabolic markers were assessed before and after treatment. In addition, glycemic control and metabolic parameters were also assessed.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven subjects (aged 58.7 ± 11.0 years; body mass index, 25.9 ± 4.4 kg/m2; HbA1c, 7.3 ± 0.5%; FMD, 5.8 ± 2.6%) were enrolled. Eight subjects dropped out by the end of the study. There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics. After 12 weeks, HbA1c was significantly improved in the Vilda group compared with the high Met group (- 0.80 ± 0.38% vs. - 0.40 ± 0.47%, respectively; p < 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in FMD (- 0.51 [- 1.08-0.06]% vs. - 0.58 [- 1.20-0.04]%). Although the apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A1 ratio was significantly reduced in the Vilda group compared with baseline (0.66-0.62; p < 0.01), the change did not differ significantly between the two groups (- 0.04 vs. 0.00; p = 0.27). Adiponectin levels were significantly increased in the Vilda group compared with the high Met group (0.75 μg/mL vs. 0.01 μg/mL; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of glycemic improvement, combination therapy of vildagliptin and metformin did not affect endothelial function but may exert favorable effects on adipokine levels and lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes without advanced atherosclerosis.