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

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.

Observational studies with type 2 diabetes mellitus treatments in Spain: A systematic literature review

The aim of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to provide an overview of the Spanish research landscape of observational studies conducted with antidiabetic drugs in T2DM patients, published in the last five years, with special focus on the objectives, methodology and main research areas. Twenty-two articles, corresponding to 20 studies, were included in the analysis. Around 82% of the studies employed a longitudinal study design, collected data retrospectively (72.7%), and were based on secondary data use (63.6%). Pharmacotherapeutical groups most frequently studied were insulin (31.8%) and DPP4i (13.6%). Analytic design was employed most in the studies (68.2%), followed by descriptive analysis (22.7%). In the top five of the most studied variables are those related to effectiveness assessed according to glycaemic control (91%), treatment patterns (82%), safety (hypoglycaemia) (59%), the identification of effectiveness predictive factors (45%) and effectiveness according to other control measures such as anthropometric control or cardiovascular risk factors (36%).

Effectiveness and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors in the management of type 2 diabetes in older adults: a systematic review and development of recommendations to reduce inappropriate prescribing

Background

Preventable drug-related hospital admissions can be associated with drugs used in diabetes and the benefits of strict diabetes control may not outweigh the risks, especially in older populations. The aim of this study was to look for evidence on risks and benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors in older adults and to use this evidence to develop recommendations for the electronic decision support tool of the PRIMA-eDS project.

Methods

Systematic review using a staged approach which searches for systematic reviews and meta-analyses first, then individual studies only if prior searches were inconclusive. The target population were older people (≥65 years old) with type 2 diabetes. We included studies reporting on the efficacy and/or safety of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of type 2 diabetes. Studies were included irrespective of DPP-4 inhibitors prescribed as monotherapy or in combination with any other drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The target intervention was DPP-4 inhibitors compared to placebo, no treatment, other drugs to treat type 2 diabetes or a non-pharmacological intervention.

Results

Thirty studies (reported in 33 publications) were included: 1 meta-analysis, 17 intervention studies and 12 observational studies. Sixteen studies were focused on older adults and 14 studies reported subgroup analyses in participants ≥65, ≥70, or ≥75 years. Comorbidities were reported by 26 studies and frailty or functional status by one study. There were conflicting findings regarding the effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors in older adults. In general, DPP-4 inhibitors showed similar or better safety than placebo and other antidiabetic drugs. However, these safety data are mainly based on short-term outcomes like hypoglycaemia in studies with HbA1c control levels recommended for younger people. One recommendation was developed advising clinicians to reconsider the use of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of type 2 diabetes in older adults with HbA1c <8.5% because of scarce data on clinically relevant benefits of their use. Twenty-two of the included studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies and authored or co-authored by employees of the sponsor.

Conclusions

Other than the surrogate endpoint of improved glycaemic control, data on clinically relevant benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in older adults is scarce. DPP-4 inhibitors might have a lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared to other antidiabetic drugs but data show conflicting findings for long-term benefits. Further studies are needed that evaluate the risks and benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in older adults, using clinically relevant outcomes and including representative samples of older adults with information on their frailty status and comorbidities. Studies are also needed that are independent of pharmaceutical company involvement.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0571-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Metformin Improves Endothelial Function and Reduces Blood Pressure in Diabetic Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats Independent from Glycemia Control: Comparison to Vildagliptin

Metformin confers vascular benefits beyond glycemia control, possibly via pleiotropic effects on endothelial function. In type-1-diabetes-mellitus (T1DM-)patients metformin improved flow-mediated dilation but also increased prostaglandin(PG)-F_2α, a known endothelial-contracting factor. To explain this paradoxical finding we hypothesized that metformin increased endothelial-vasodilator mediators (e.g. NO and EDHF) to an even larger extent. Spontaneously-hypertensive-rats (SHR) display impaired endothelium-dependent relaxation (EDR) involving contractile PGs. EDR was studied in isolated SHR aortas and the involvement of PGs, NO and EDHF assessed. 12-week metformin 300 mg/kg/day improved EDR by up-regulation of NO and particularly EDHF; it also reduced blood pressure and increased plasma sulphide levels (a proxy for H₂S, a possible mediator of EDHF). These effects persisted in SHR with streptozotocin (STZ)-induced T1DM. Vildagliptin (10 mg/kg/day), targeting the incretin axis by increasing GLP-1, also reduced blood pressure and improved EDR in SHR aortas, mainly via the inhibition of contractile PGs, but not in STZ-SHR. Neither metformin nor vildagliptin altered blood glucose or HbA_1c. In conclusion, metformin reduced blood pressure and improved EDR in SHR aorta via up-regulation of NO and particularly EDHF, an effect that was independent from glycemia control and maintained during T1DM. A comparison to vildagliptin did not support effects of metformin mediated by GLP-1.

An update on DPP-4 inhibitors in the management of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

DPP-4 inhibitors are a class of compounds used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The drugs inhibit the degradation of GLP-1, thus amplifying the incretin effect. They have moderate glycemic efficacy, a low propensity of causing hypoglycaemia and are weight neutral. The drugs are often used as second line therapy after metformin. Areas covered: This review summarizes the available compounds in the market and discusses the novel compounds that are currently under development. Several large cardiovascular outcome trials with some of the compounds have been completed, and their results and implications are considered. Fixed dose combination pills are currently the main focus of research and the contribution of these to the care of patients with diabetes is further discussed. Expert opinion: The DPP-4 inhibitors have been a successful class in drug development for diabetes. Taken orally and available as fixed dose combinations with metformin or with SGLT-2 inhibitors, they have reached a large market share of over 7 billion dollars. Other than retagliptin, it does not appear that any additional compound will be launched soon. Currently, the main focus is on the development of additional fixed dose combinations with SGLT-2 inhibitors, but the success of these combinations remains to be seen.

Comparative effectiveness and costs of generic and brand-name gabapentin and venlafaxine in patients with neuropathic pain or generalized anxiety disorder in Spain

Objective

To explore adherence/persistence with generic gabapentin/venlafaxine versus brand-name gabapentin/venlafaxine (Neurontin^®/Vandral^®) in peripheral neuropathic pain (pNP) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), respectively, and whether it is translated into different costs and patient outcomes in routine medical practice.

Methods

A retrospective, new-user cohort study was designed. Electronic medical records (EMR) of patients included in the health plan of Badalona Serveis Assistencials SA, Barcelona, Spain were exhaustively extracted for analysis. Participants were beneficiaries aged 18+ years, followed between 2008 and 2012, with a pNP/GAD International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code, who initiated treatment with generic or brand-name gabapentin or venlafaxine. Assessments included 1-year treatment persistence and adherence (medication possession ratio), health care costs, and reduction in severity of pain and anxiety symptoms.

Results

A total of 2,210 EMR were analyzed; 1,369 on gabapentin (brand 400; generic 969) and 841 on venlafaxine (brand 370 and generic 471). Brand-name gabapentin and venlafaxine were both significantly associated with longer persistence than generic: 7.3 versus 6.3 months, P<0.001; and 8.8 versus 8.1 months, P<0.05, respectively. Brand-name was associated with higher adherence: 86.5% versus 81.3%, P<0.001; and 82.1% versus 79.0%, P<0.05, respectively. Adjusted average costs were higher with generic compared with brand: €1,277 versus €1,057 (difference of €220 per patient; P<0.001) for gabapentin; and €1,110 versus €928 (difference of €182 per patient; P=0.020) for venlafaxine, both because of more use of medical visits and concomitant medication. Compared with generic, brand-name was associated with higher reduction in pain (7.8%; P<0.001) and anxiety (13.2%; P<0.001).

Conclusion

Patients initiating brand-name gabapentin or venlafaxine were more likely to adhere and persist on treatment of pNP or GAD, have lower health care costs, and show further reduction of pain and anxiety symptoms than with generic drugs in routine medical practice.

Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in older participants in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety and cardiovascular (CV) effects of saxagliptin in the predefined elderly (≥65 years) and very elderly (≥75 years) subpopulations of the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53 (SAVOR-TIMI 53) trial.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Individuals ≥40 years (n = 16,492; elderly, n = 8,561; very elderly, n = 2,330) with HbA1c ≥6.5% (47.5 mmol/mol) and ≤12.0% (107.7 mmol/mol) were randomized (1:1) to saxagliptin (5 or 2.5 mg daily) or placebo in a double-blind trial for a median follow-up of 2.1 years.

RESULTS

The hazard ratio (HR) for the comparison of saxagliptin versus placebo for the primary end point (composite of CV mortality, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke) was 0.92 for elderly patients vs. 1.15 for patients <65 years (P = 0.06) and 0.95 for very elderly patients. The HRs for the secondary composite end points in the entire cohort, elderly cohort, and very elderly cohort were similar. Although saxagliptin increased the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in the overall saxagliptin population, there was no age-based treatment interaction (P = 0.76 for elderly patients vs. those <65 years; P = 0.34 for very elderly patients vs. those <75 years). Among saxagliptin-treated individuals with baseline HbA1c ≥7.6% (59.6 mmol/mol), the mean change from baseline HbA1c at 2 years was -0.69%, -0.64%, -0.66%, and -0.66% for those ≥65, <65, ≥75, and <75 years old, respectively. The incidence of overall adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs was similar between saxagliptin and placebo in all cohorts; however, hypoglycemic events were higher for saxagliptin versus placebo regardless of age.

CONCLUSIONS

The SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial supports the overall CV safety of saxagliptin in a robust number of elderly and very elderly participants, although the risk of heart failure hospitalization was increased irrespective of age category. AEs and serious AEs as well as glycemic efficacy of saxagliptin in elderly patients are similar to those found in younger patients.

Achieving glycemic control in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a critical comparison of current options

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing in the elderly. Because of the unique characteristics of elderly people with T2DM, therapeutic strategy and focus should be tailored to suit this population. This article reviews the guidelines and studies related to older people with T2DM worldwide. A few important themes are generalized: 1) the functional and cognitive status is critical for older people with T2DM considering their life expectancy compared to younger counterparts; 2) both severe hypoglycemia and persistent hyperglycemia are deleterious to older adults with T2DM, and both conditions should be avoided when determining therapeutic goals; 3) recently developed guidelines emphasize the avoidance of hypoglycemic episodes in older people, even in the absence of symptoms. In addition, we raise the concern of glycemic variability, and discuss the rationale for the selection of current options in managing this patient population.