Initial combination therapy with alogliptin and pioglitazone in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes

Initial Combination Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive disease in which it is challenging to achieve long-term durable glycemic control. However, intensive glycemic control is crucial for preventing diabetes-related complications. Previous studies showed that monotherapy with a stepwise add-on approach was seldom effective for long-term durable glycemic control. Combination therapy, which refers to the use of two or more drugs to control hyperglycemia, has multiple benefits, including the ability to target a variety of pathophysiological processes underlying hyperglycemia. In clinical trials, initial combination therapy showed better glycemic control than monotherapy or a stepwise approach. Emerging evidence indicates that initial combination therapy is associated with preserved β-cell function and fewer complications in T2D. However, cost-effectiveness and adverse events with combination therapy are issues that should be considered. Therefore, initial combination therapy is an important option for patients with T2D that clinicians should consider with a view toward balancing benefits and potential harms. In this review, we summarize the literature addressing initial combination therapy in T2D, and we suggest optimal strategies based on clinical situations and patient characteristics.

Benefits and risks of drug combination therapy for diabetes mellitus and its complications: a comprehensive review

Diabetes is a chronic metabolic disease, and its therapeutic goals focus on the effective management of blood glucose and various complications. Drug combination therapy has emerged as a comprehensive treatment approach for diabetes. An increasing number of studies have shown that, compared with monotherapy, combination therapy can bring significant clinical benefits while controlling blood glucose, weight, and blood pressure, as well as mitigating damage from certain complications and delaying their progression in diabetes, including both type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes (T2D) and related complications. This evidence provides strong support for the recommendation of combination therapy for diabetes and highlights the importance of combined treatment. In this review, we first provided a brief overview of the phenotype and pathogenesis of diabetes and discussed several conventional anti-diabetic medications currently used for the treatment of diabetes. We then reviewed several clinical trials and pre-clinical animal experiments on T1D, T2D, and their common complications to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different classes of drug combinations. In general, combination therapy plays a pivotal role in the management of diabetes. Integrating the effectiveness of multiple drugs enables more comprehensive and effective control of blood glucose without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or other serious adverse events. However, specific treatment regimens should be tailored to individual patients and implemented under the guidance of healthcare professionals.

Slow and Steady Wins the Race: 25 Years Developing the GLP-1 Receptor as an Effective Target for Weight Loss

Recent evidence from clinical trials supports the efficacy and tolerability of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists as useful agents for weight loss. Although originally developed as glucose lowering agents for people with type 2 diabetes, progress in research over the last 3 decades has demonstrated that GLP-1 receptor agonists act in the central nervous system to reduce food intake. This minireview summarizes key aspects of GLP-1 biology and the clinical studies supporting the utility of the GLP-1 receptor signaling system as a therapeutic target for weight loss.

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.

An overview of alogliptin + pioglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive condition, and sequential additions of therapy are usually required to maintain glycemic control. The options for glucose lowering therapies have increased considerably in recent years. Fixed-dose combinations such as alogliptin with pioglitazone provide a convenient choice which can improve medication adherence.

AREAS COVERED

The authors performed a literature search to identify publications describing the efficacy and safety of alogliptin and pioglitazone when used separately and in combinations.

EXPERT OPINION

Pioglitazone activates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma which improves insulin sensitivity and helps to preserve β-cell function with a durable improvement in glycemic control. Pioglitazone can retard the progression of atherosclerosis and reduce cardiovascular events, but it is associated with adverse events including weight gain, fluid retention, and increased risk of fractures. Alogliptin improves glycemic control and appears neutral in terms of cardiovascular events. It does not appear to increase the adverse events associated with pioglitazone and use of the combination may permit the use of lower doses of pioglitazone with reduced adverse effects. There are no cardiovascular outcome studies with the combination but the cardiovascular benefits of pioglitazone and additional glucose lowering effects of alogliptin provide a useful combination with convenient once daily dosing.

Evaluating the Evidence behind the Novel Strategy of Early Combination from Vision to Implementation

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a complex and progressive chronic disease characterised by elevating hyperglycaemia and associated need to gradually intensify therapy in order to achieve and maintain glycaemic control. Treating hyperglycaemia with sequential therapy is proposed to allow holistic assessment of the efficacy and risk-to-benefit ratio of each added component. However, there is an array of evidence supporting the scientific rationale for using synergistic, earlier, modern drug combinations to achieve glycaemic goals, delay the deterioration of glycaemic control, and, therefore, potentially preserve or slow down the declining β-cell function. Additionally, implementation of early combination(s) may lead to opportunities to combat clinical inertia and other hurdles to optimised disease management outcomes. This review aims to discuss the latest empirical evidence for long-term clinical benefits of this novel strategy of early combination in people with newly diagnosed T2DM versus the current widely-implemented treatment paradigm, which focuses on control of hyperglycaemia using lifestyle interventions followed by sequentially intensified (mostly metformin-based) monotherapy. The recent reported Vildagliptin Efficacy in combination with metfoRmin For earlY treatment of T2DM (VERIFY) study results have provided significant new evidence confirming long-term glycaemic durability and tolerability of a specific early combination in the management of newly diagnosed, treatment-naïve patients worldwide. These results have also contributed to changes in clinical treatment guidelines and standards of care while clinical implementation and individualised treatment decisions based on VERIFY results might face barriers beyond the existing scientific evidence.

Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Interaction Between Evogliptin and Pioglitazone in Healthy Male Subjects

Aim

Evogliptin is a newly developed oral glucose-lowering medication of the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class for type 2 diabetes mellitus. The combination of a DPP-4 inhibitor with pioglitazone is a promising therapeutic option. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interaction between evogliptin and pioglitazone.

Materials and Methods

A randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, three-treatment, three-period, six-sequence crossover study was conducted in healthy Korean male subjects. All subjects received evogliptin 5 mg once daily for 7 days (EVO), pioglitazone 30 mg once daily for 7 days (PIO) and co-administration of evogliptin 5 mg and pioglitazone 30 mg once daily for 7 days (EVO+PIO) according to the assigned sequence and period. Serial blood samples were collected for 24 hours for pharmacokinetic analysis and 3 hours after the oral glucose tolerance test for the pharmacodynamic analysis.

Results

Thirty-four subjects completed the study. EVO+PIO and EVO showed a similar maximum plasma concentration at steady state (C_max,ss) and area under the concentration-time curve during the dosing interval at the steady state (AUC_τ,ss) of evogliptin, with geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (90% confidence interval (CI)) of 1.01 (0.97–1.05) and 1.01 (0.98–1.04), respectively. EVO+PIO and PIO showed a similar C_max,ss and AUC_τ,ss of pioglitazone, with GMRs (90% CI) of 1.07 (0.99–1.17) and 1.08 (0.99–1.17), respectively. Reduction of the glucose level after EVO+PIO was larger compared to PIO and similar with EVO.

Conclusion

Concomitant administration of evogliptin and pioglitazone showed similar glucose-lowering effects with those of evogliptin alone without pharmacokinetic interactions when compared to the intake of each drug alone.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Alogliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) alogliptin is an oral, antidiabetic treatment that is approved in many countries to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), including the USA, Europe, and Japan. Alogliptin is efficacious both as monotherapy and as add-on/combination therapy with other commonly prescribed T2DM treatments, such as metformin and pioglitazone. Overall, alogliptin is well-tolerated in patients with T2DM, including older patients, those with renal and/or hepatic impairment, and those at high risk of cardiovascular events. There is a low risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, acute pancreatitis, and gastrointestinal adverse events with alogliptin treatment, as demonstrated in long-term trials (lasting up to 4.5 years) and in a real-world setting. Additionally, alogliptin has a generally favorable or similar safety profile in comparison to other antidiabetic agents (metformin, thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, and insulin). However, further evaluation would be required to determine the mechanism and effect of alogliptin on heart failure, bullous pemphigoid, and inflammatory bowel disease. Of note, due to the ethnic diversity in the epidemiology of T2DM, alogliptin has been shown to be more efficacious in Asian patients than in non-Asian patients with T2DM, but with a similar tolerability profile. These data indicate that DPP-4is, including alogliptin, are important treatment options, especially for Asian patients with T2DM, for whom they have potential as a first-line therapy. This benefit-risk assessment aims to place alogliptin within the current armamentarium of T2DM and aid physicians when choosing optimal diabetes treatment for their patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Pioglitazone Monotherapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Pioglitazone, the only thiazolidinedione drug in clinical practice is under scrutiny due to reported adverse effects, it's unique insulin sensitising action provides rationale to remain as a therapeutic option for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing pioglitazone monotherapy with monotherapies of other oral antidiabetic drugs for assessing its efficacy and safety in T2DM patients. Mean changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and mean changes in fasting blood sugar (FBS) level, body weight (BW) and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) were primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Safety outcomes were changes in lipid parameters, blood pressure and incidences of adverse events. Metafor package of R software and RevMan software based on random-effects model were used for analyses. We included 16 randomised controlled trials. Pioglitazone monotherapy showed equivalent efficacy as comparators in reducing HbA1c by 0.05% (95% CI: -0.21 to 0.11) and greater efficacy in reducing FBS level by 0.24 mmol/l (95% CI: -0.48 to -0.01). Pioglitazone showed similar efficacy as comparators in reducing HOMA-IR (WMD: 0.05, 95% CI: -0.49 to 0.59) and increasing high-density lipoprotein level (WMD: 0.02 mmol/l, 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.10). Improved blood pressure (WMD: -1.05 mmHg, 95% CI: -4.29 to 2.19) and triglycerides level (WMD: -0.71 mmol/l, 95% CI: -1.70 to 0.28) were also observed with pioglitazone monotherapy. There was a significant association of pioglitazone with increased BW (WMD: 2.06 kg, 95% CI: 1.11 to 3.01) and risk of oedema (RR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.48 to 3.31), though the risk of hypoglycaemia was absolutely lower (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.80). Meta-analysis supported pioglitazone as an effective treatment option for T2DM patients to ameliorate hyperglycaemia, adverse lipid metabolism and blood pressure. Pioglitazone is suggested to prescribe following individual patient's needs. It can be a choice of drug for insulin resistant T2DM patients having dyslipidaemia, hypertension or history of cardiovascular disease.

Investigation of a Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor/Thiazolidinedione Combination Drug for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Poor Glycemic Control: Difficulty With Patient Enrollment

Background

One of the treatment options for type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is a combination drug (CD) that contains the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4I) alogliptin (AG) together with pioglitazone (PG). This CD can improve impaired insulin secretion and insulin resistance, which are the two major pathologic factors for type 2 DM, and is also expected to increase adherence to treatment. We conducted a multicenter open-label prospective study to examine the usefulness of this CD for routine management of type 2 DM.

Methods

In type 2 DM patients with poor glycemic control who had been taking a DPP4I for ≥ 1 month, PG (15 mg/day) was added (first point). When the safety of PG was confirmed after 1 - 3 months, the DPP4I and PG were switched to the CD containing AG (25 mg) and PG (15 mg) (second point). Three months after switching to the CD was defined as the final point. Evaluation of objective findings, laboratory test results, and medication adherence was performed at these three points.

Results

Nineteen subjects completed the study, but this was far short of the target (160 subjects). Compared to the first point, white blood cell count (WBC), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (γ-GTP), and fasting blood glucose (FBG) all showed a significant decrease at both the second and final points. No change in medication adherence was observed throughout the study period. The most notable point about this study was the extremely small number of subjects enrolled. As a possible explanation, we considered whether the preferences of the study doctors for antidiabetic drugs differed between specialties. The study doctors were mainly gastroenterologists, followed by endocrinologists/diabetologists and cardiologists in equal numbers. As an additional investigation, we determined the percentages of specialist doctors prescribing DPP4Is, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is), PG, or biguanides (BGs) as the main treatment for DM in 1 month at our hospital. We found that a low percentage of endocrinologists/diabetologists prescribing PG compared to other drugs, while cardiologists prescribed PG frequently.

Conclusions

It was confirmed that the combination of DPP4I with PG was effective for the treatment of type 2 DM and improving metabolic function. Our data also showed that prescription of antidiabetic drugs differed between specialties, suggesting differences in their response to the results of various clinical studies and adverse reaction reports.

Comparison of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and pioglitazone combination therapy versus pioglitazone monotherapy in type 2 diabetes: A system review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor and pioglitazone combination therapy have been widely used for patients with inadequate glycemic control on monotherapy. This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of this combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on DPP-4 inhibitor and pioglitazone combination therapy in patients with T2DM through the end of February 2016, using the keywords "alogliptin," "dutogliptin, " "linagliptin," "saxagliptin," "sitagliptin," "vildagliptin," "gliptins," "DPP-4 inhibitor," and "pioglitazone." RCTs were selected if they compared DPP-4 inhibitors and pioglitazone as combination therapy; treatment duration was ≥12 weeks; and the reported data included hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) change, total or any other system Adverse Events (AEs). We estimated effect size with random-effects or fixed-effects meta-analysis, I statistic was used to estimate heterogeneity of results.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included. Compared with pioglitazone monotherapy, combination DPP-4 inhibitor and pioglitazone therapy were associated with increased reduction in HbA1c ([MD]-0.64%;-0.73 to -0.55) and FPG ([MD] -0.94; -1.12 to -0.76) levels, more patients in the combination therapy groups versus pioglitazone monotherapy groups had an A1c of < 7% ([OR]2.52; 2.18, 3.17) at the end of the studies, but was not associated with further reduction in higher risk of hypoglycaemia, edema, or any other system AEs. We also noticed that DPP-4 inhibitor and pioglitazone combination therapy were associated with better improvement of pancreatic β-cell function.

CONCLUSIONS

DPP-4 inhibitor and pioglitazone combination therapy provided better glycemic control, both according to HbA1c and FPG levels, than pioglitazone monotherapy. Safety analysis showed well tolerance of combination therapy, even in hypoglycemic and edema AEs. However, additional large-scale, high quality, long-term follow-up clinical trials are necessary to confirm its long-term effectiveness.

Efficacy and Safety of Initial Combination Therapy in Treatment-Naïve Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy compared with monotherapy in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized clinical trials of initial combination therapy with hypoglycemic agents compared with monotherapy. Those which satisfied the search criteria were included in the meta-analysis. Weighted mean difference and relative risks were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin plus another anti-diabetes drug exhibited significant reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (p < 0.001). Most of the combination therapies had a similar risk of hypoglycemia (p > 0.05), with the exception of combinations of sulfonylurea/glinide and metformin or combinations of thiazolidinedione and metformin. Compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor monotherapy, initial combination therapy with DPP-4 inhibitor plus another anti-diabetes drug showed a significant decrease in HbA1c (p < 0.001) and a similar risk of hypoglycemia (p > 0.05). Compared with monotherapy with other anti-diabetes drugs, initial combination therapies also resulted in significant HbA1c reductions, a similar risk of hypoglycemia and similar risks of other adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Compared with monotherapy, all initial combination therapies resulted in significant HbA1c reductions. Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial combination therapies with DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin, sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and metformin, respectively, were associated with similar risks of hypoglycemia, but initial combination therapies with sulfonylurea plus metformin, thiazolidinedione and metformin, respectively, were associated with higher risks of hypoglycemia.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca Ltd. (China).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration number CRD42017060717 in PROSPERO.

Practical strategies for improving outcomes in T2DM: The potential role of pioglitazone and DPP4 inhibitors

T2DM is a complex disease underlined by multiple pathogenic defects responsible for the development and progression of hyperglycaemia. Each of these factors can now be tackled in a more targeted manner thanks to glucose-lowering drugs that have been made available in the past 2 to 3 decades. Recognition of the multiplicity of the mechanisms underlying hyperglycaemia calls for treatments that address more than 1 of these mechanisms, with more emphasis placed on the earlier use of combination therapies. Although chronic hyperglycaemia contributes to and amplifies cardiovascular risk, several trials have failed to show a marked effect from intensive glycaemic control. During the past 10 years, the effect of specific glucose-lowering agents on cardiovascular risk has been explored with dedicated trials. Overall, the cardiovascular safety of the new glucose-lowering agents has been proven with some of the trials summarized in this review, showing significant reduction of cardiovascular risk. Against this background, pioglitazone, in addition to exerting a sustained glucose-lowering effect, also has ancillary metabolic actions of potential interest in addressing the cardiovascular risk of T2DM, such as preservation of beta-cell mass and function. As such, it seems a logical agent to combine with other oral anti-hyperglycaemic agents, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i). DPP4i, which may also have a potential to preserve beta-cell function, is available as a fixed-dose combination with pioglitazone, and could, potentially, attenuate some of the side effects of pioglitazone, particularly if a lower dose of the thiazolidinedione is used. This review critically discusses the potential for early combination of pioglitazone and DPP4i.

Ethnic Differences in Efficacy and Safety of Alogliptin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Alogliptin is a highly selective, potent, and orally available dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. This study compared the glucose-lowering efficacy and safety of alogliptin between Asian and non-Asian patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science databases for articles published June 2017 and earlier in English. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with type 2 diabetes that compared alogliptin with placebo as either monotherapy or add-on therapy. We divided subgroups by ethnicity, and compared the results of alogliptin use in Asian and non-Asian-dominant studies.

RESULTS

A total of 15 RCTs with 4456 patients with type 2 diabetes were included in this study. Alogliptin lowered glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) to a much greater extent in Asian-dominant studies [- 0.75% (95% CI - 0.84 to - 0.65)] than in non-Asian-dominant studies [- 0.61% (95% CI - 0.68 to - 0.54)] (P = 0.02). The risk ratio of achieving HbA1c goal was larger in Asian-dominant studies [2.88 (95% CI 2.15-3.87)] than in non-Asian-dominant studies [1.93 (95% CI 1.55-2.41)] (P = 0.03). The postprandial blood glucose-lowering efficacy was higher in Asian-dominant studies [- 2.42 mmol/l (95% CI - 2.99 to - 1.85)] than in non-Asian-dominant studies [- 0.60 mmol/l (95% CI - 1.60 to 0.40)] (P = 0.002), while the fasting blood glucose and body weight changes were similar between the two subgroups. The incidence of adverse events, including hypoglycemia, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and diarrhea, were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin is more effective in improving glycemic levels in Asians than in other ethnic populations. Future studies are required to explore the potential mechanisms.

Add on DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin alone or in combination with pioglitazone improved β-cell function and insulin sensitivity in metformin treated PCOS

PURPOSE

Impaired β-cell function remains unaddressed in PCOS. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor alogliptin (ALO) alone or in combination with pioglitazone (PIO) improves β-cell function along with insulin resistance (IR) in metformin (MET) treated obese women with PCOS with persistent IR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 12-week randomized study, ALO 25 mg QD (n=15) or ALO 25 mg QD and PIO 30 mg QD (n=15) was added to MET 1000 mg BID in PCOS women (aged 34.4 ± 6.5 years, BMI 39.0 ± 4.9 kg/m², HOMA-IR 4.82 ± 2.52, mean ± SD). Model derived parameters of glucose homeostasis from the meal tolerance test (MTT) were determined. The ability of the β-cell function was assessed by the adaptation index (AI).

RESULTS

MET-ALO and MET-ALO-PIO resulted in a significant decrease of HOMA-IR (by 1.6±2.3 (p=0.039) and 2.9±3.3 (p=0.001), respectively) and an increase in insulin sensitivity (IS) after meal ingestion (oral glucose IS) by 31.4±97.5 ml·min^-1·m^-2 (p=0.007) vs 39.0±58.1 ml·min^-1·m^-2 (p=0.039), respectively. AI across the entire group was significantly improved from 329.6±200.6 to 442.5±303.9 (p=0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

ALO alone and in combination with PIO improved IR along with dynamic IS and meal related β-cell function when added to MET treated PCOS.

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.

Efficacy and safety of alogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A multicentre randomized double-blind placebo-controlled Phase 3 study in mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

This study determined the efficacy and safety of once-daily oral alogliptin in patients from mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

In this Phase 3 multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled 16-week trial, 506 patients were randomized to receive once-daily alogliptin 25 mg or placebo: 185 in the monotherapy group, 197 in the add-on to metformin group, and 124 in the add-on to pioglitazone group. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline (CFB) in HbA1c at Week 16; other efficacy measures included CFB to Week 16 in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), incidence of marked hyperglycemia (FPG ≥11.1 mmol/L), and the incidence of clinical HbA1c ≤6.5 % (48 mmol/mol) and ≤7.0 % (53 mmol/mol) at Week 16. Safety was assessed throughout the trial.

RESULTS

Alogliptin monotherapy provided a significantly greater decrease in HbA1c from baseline to Week 16 compared with placebo (-0.58 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.78 %, -0.37 %; P < 0.001). As an add-on to metformin or pioglitazone, alogliptin also significantly decreased HbA1c compared with placebo (-0.69 % [95 % CI -0.87 %, -0.51 %; P < 0.001] and -0.52 % [95 % CI -0.75 %, -0.28 %; P < 0.001], respectively). In any treatment group versus placebo, alogliptin led to greater decreases in FPG (P ≤ 0.004) and a higher percentage of patients who achieved an HbA1c target of ≤6.5 % and ≤7.0 % (P ≤ 0.003). No weight gain was observed in any treatment group. A similar percentage of patients experienced drug-related, treatment-emergent adverse events in the alogliptin and placebo arms. Four and two patients in the alogliptin and placebo arms, respectively, experienced mild or moderate hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin 25 mg once daily reduced HbA1c and FPG and enhanced clinical response compared with placebo when used as monotherapy or as an add-on to metformin or pioglitazone. Therapy with alogliptin was well tolerated.

Safety, Efficacy, and Bioavailability of Fixed-Dose Combinations in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Updated Review

Purpose

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a multifactorial disease characterized by insulin resistance. As time progresses, monotherapy often does not provide effective glycemic control, generating the need for an add-on therapy. Hence, multiple oral hypoglycemic agents formulated as a single-dose form called fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) play an essential role in glycemic control. The purpose of this systematic review is to appraise the recently published evidence on the safety, efficacy, and bioavailability of FDCs.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of PUBMED, Scopus, ScienceDirect.com, ProQuest, SpringerLink, clintrials.gov, Embase, and EBSCO using the key words FDCs, combination therapy, T2DM management, and add-on therapy was conducted. Studies on the safety profile/tolerability, efficacy, and bioavailability of various FDCs of oral hypoglycemic agents were preferred.

Findings

The systematic review of all the publications suggests that FDCs of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) significantly reduce HbA_1c and fasting plasma glucose values, thereby efficiently reducing hyperglycemia in patients in whom monotherapy fails. FDCs are the bioequivalent of the concomitant drugs administered as individual components. Improved adherence to FDCs and the absence of serious adverse drug reactions compared with dual therapy play an important role in decreasing the incidence of hyperglycemia in patients with T2DM.

Implications

From this updated review, it was found that metformin was the most widely used component of FDCs with other OHAs. Studies on the safety and efficacy of newly approved OHAs such as sodium glucose cotransporter inhibitors were limited. An increasing number of randomized trials on the safety and efficacy of newly emerging FDCs suggests that they would be better treatment options for T2DM patients.

•

Comprehensive analysis of current fixed-dose combinations used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

•

Most widely used component of fixed-dose combinations is metformin with other oral hypoglycemic agents (eg, like glimepiride, pioglitazone, rosiglitazone, acarbose, and sitagliptin.

•

Fixed-dose combinations help to reduce hyperglycemia efficiently; the long-term complication of diabetes could be minimized in these patients, thereby improving the quality of life of patients.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Given recent discrepant results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we examined the totality of RCT evidence assessing the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and heart failure.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched without language restrictions to August 2016 for RCTs comparing DPP-4 inhibitors to placebo or no therapy for a period of 24 weeks or more. We included all heart failure outcomes when listed either as a serious adverse event or adverse event. Pooled analyses used random-effects.

RESULTS

We identified 100 RCTs (n = 79 867) - 3 large cardiovascular-safety RCTs (SAVOR-TIMI 53[saxagliptin]/n = 16 492, EXAMINE[alogliptin]/n = 5380, and TECOS[sitagliptin]/n = 14 735), and 97 smaller RCTs with a primary outcome that was usually change in glycated hemoglobin. Virtually all RCTs were high-quality, multicentre, placebo-controlled trials. A total of 96% (1192/1244) of heart failure events were prespecified, blindly adjudicated and required hospital admission. Pooled results suggested a 13% increase in heart failure (relative risk [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.26, I2 = 0%; 32 RCTs, n = 54 640, 1244 events). When including only the 3 large RCTs, the increase was similar, but not significant (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97-1.32; 3 RCTs, n = 36 543, 1169 adjudicated events; number needed to harm 246) owing to heterogeneity (I2 = 42%), which lead to wider CIs, because SAVOR-TIMI 53 showed increased heart failure (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.49) and TECOS showed no effect (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83-1.19).

INTERPRETATION

Despite pooled data from 79 867 patients, whether DPP-4 inhibitors increase heart failure overall or exhibit within-class differences remains unresolved. Our results highlight the importance of ongoing trials that are comparing DPP-4 inhibitors to placebo, although no large cardiovascular-safety RCTs are comparing different DPP-4 inhibitors to each other; consequently, these will address the overall but not class-difference question.

NRF2 activation by antioxidant antidiabetic agents accelerates tumor metastasis

Cancer is a common comorbidity of diabetic patients; however, little is known about the effects that antidiabetic drugs have on tumors. We discovered that common classes of drugs used in type 2 diabetes mellitus, the hypoglycemic dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) saxagliptin and sitagliptin, as well as the antineuropathic α-lipoic acid (ALA), do not increase tumor incidence but increase the risk of metastasis of existing tumors. Specifically, these drugs induce prolonged activation of the nuclear factor E2-related factor 2 (NRF2)-mediated antioxidant response through inhibition of KEAP1-C151-dependent ubiquitination and subsequent degradation of NRF2, resulting in up-regulated expression of metastasis-associated proteins, increased cancer cell migration, and promotion of metastasis in xenograft mouse models. Accordingly, knockdown of NRF2 attenuated naturally occurring and DPP-4i-induced tumor metastasis, whereas NRF2 activation accelerated metastasis. Furthermore, in human liver cancer tissue samples, increased NRF2 expression correlated with metastasis. Our findings suggest that antioxidants that activate NRF2 signaling may need to be administered with caution in cancer patients, such as diabetic patients with cancer. Moreover, NRF2 may be a potential biomarker and therapeutic target for tumor metastasis.

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of alogliptin in children, adolescents, and adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Purpose

The aim of this study is to determine the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of a single 12.5- or 25-mg dose of alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, in pediatric (children and adolescents) and adult subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

A randomized, open-label, multicenter study was conducted in pediatric and adult subjects. Subjects in two pediatric groups (children and adolescents) were randomized 1:1 to receive a single oral dose of alogliptin 12.5 or 25 mg, respectively; all gender- and race-matched adult subjects received alogliptin 25 mg. Blood and urine samples were collected at prespecified time points for PK/PD analyses. A PK/PD model was developed using data from the study for steady-state simulations. Safety was also assessed.

Results

In pediatric subjects receiving the 25-mg dose, the mean alogliptin peak plasma concentrations (C_max) and AUC_0-inf values were 26 and 23% lower, respectively, than in adults receiving the 25-mg dose, but maximum observed DPP-4 inhibition effect (E_max) and AUEC_0–24 values were similar to those in adults. In pediatric subjects receiving the 12.5-mg dose, the mean alogliptin C_max and AUC_0-inf values were 58 and 54% lower, respectively, than those in adults, hence E_max and AUEC_0–24 values were also lower by 11 and 17%, respectively. The PK/PD model simulated data were consistent with study results. No safety concern was found.

Conclusions

A 25-mg dose of alogliptin in pediatric subjects achieved alogliptin exposures and DPP-4 inhibition similar to those in adult T2DM patients without safety concerns; therefore, this dose is recommended for a pediatric phase 3 trial.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00228-016-2175-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An update on the clinical pharmacology of the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor alogliptin used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor that is a class of relatively new oral hypoglycaemic drugs used in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), can be used as monotherapy or in combination with other anti-diabetic agents, including metformin, pioglitazone, sulfonylureas and insulin with a considerable therapeutic effect. Alogliptin exhibits favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles in humans. Alogliptin is mainly metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP2D6) and CYP3A4. Dose reduction is recommended for patients with moderate or worse renal impairment. Side effects of alogliptin include nasopharyngitis, upper-respiratory tract infections and headache. Hypoglycaemia is seen in about 1.5% of the T2DM patients. Rare but severe adverse reactions such as acute pancreatitis, serious hypersensitivity including anaphylaxis, angioedema and severe cutaneous reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome have been reported from post-marketing monitoring. Pharmacokinetic interactions have not been observed between alogliptin and other drugs including glyburide, metformin, pioglitazone, insulin and warfarin. The present review aimed to update the clinical information on pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, adverse effects and drug interactions, and to discuss the future directions of alogliptin.

Strategies for Diabetes Management: Using Newer Oral Combination Therapies Early in the Disease

INTRODUCTION

The duration of uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can adversely impact small and large vessels, eventually leading to microvascular and macrovascular complications. Failure of therapeutic lifestyle changes, monotherapy, and clinical inertia contribute to persistent hyperglycemia and disease progression. The aim was to review the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes and how different oral agents can be used effectively as first-line therapy in combination with metformin, as well as in patients not achieving glycemic goals with metformin therapy.

METHODS

For this review, a non-systematic literature search of PubMed, NCBI, and Google Scholar was conducted.

RESULTS

New oral agents have made it possible to improve glycemic control to near-normal levels with a low risk of hypoglycemia and without weight gain, and sometimes with weight loss. Early combination therapy is effective and has been shown to have a favorable legacy effect. A number of agents are available in a single-pill combination (SPC) that provides fewer pills and better adherence. Compared with adding a sulfonylurea, still the most common oral combination used, empagliflozin has been shown to decrease cardiovascular (CV) events in a dedicated CV outcome study, and pioglitazone has been effective in reducing the risk of secondary CV endpoints, whereas sulfonylureas have been associated with an increased risk of CV disease. In those failing metformin, triple oral therapy by adding a non-metformin SPC such as empagliflozin/linagliptin or pioglitazone/alogliptin is a good option for reducing glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) without significant hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians have a comprehensive armamentarium of medications to treat patients with T2DM. Clinical evidence has shown that dual or triple oral combination therapy is effective for glycemic control, and early treatment is effective in getting patients to goal more quickly. Use of SPCs is an option for double or triple oral combination therapy and may result in better adherence.

Adverse effects of incretin-based therapies on major cardiovascular and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Recent cardiovascular outcome trials of incretin-based therapies (IBT) in type 2 diabetes have not demonstrated either benefit or harm in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Earlier meta-analyses showed conflicting results but were limited in methodology. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of all available incretin therapies on the incidence of MACE plus arrhythmia and heart failure.

METHODS

We identified studies published through November 2014 by searching electronic databases and reference lists. We included RCTs in which the intervention group received incretin-based therapies and the control group received placebo or standard treatment; enrolled >100 participants in each group; interventions lasted >24 weeks; and reported data on one or more primary major adverse cardiovascular events endpoints plus terms for arrhythmia and heart failure. We used the Peto method for each CV event for individual IBT treatment.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis of 100 RCTs involving 54,758 incretin-based therapies users and 48,175 controls, exenatide was associated with increased risk of arrhythmia (OR 2.83; 95% CI, 1.06-7.57); saxagliptin was associated with an increased risk of heart failure (OR 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.46), and sitagliptin was associated with a significantly decreased risk of all cause death compared to active controls (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

In type 2 diabetes, exenatide may increase the risk of arrhythmia, and sitagliptin may reduce the risk of all cause death; however, the subgroup of patients most likely to experience harm or benefit is unclear. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

What Are We Learning from the FDA-Mandated Cardiovascular Outcome Studies for New Pharmacological Antidiabetic Agents?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is common in patients with diabetes. For these patients, clinicians should seek diabetes treatment that is beneficial rather than harmful in relation to CVD. Until recently, there have been many treatments for hyperglycemia, whose impact on CVD has been controversial. The aims of this review are to evaluate the effectiveness of antihyperglycemic medications on risk factors for CVD and to examine the impact of these drugs on CVD in cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials. In this article, we summarize current knowledge about the impacts of these drugs on various risk factors as well as CV outcomes. We identify the recent emergence of trials with antihyperglycemic agents showing newly discovered CV benefits as well as past trials with antihyperglycemic agents not showing much benefit on CV events. Rather than focusing on treatment strategies, we review the effects of individual drug classes on CV outcomes. We also briefly review goal-driven glycemia reduction and its impact on CVD. We conclude that antihyperglycemic agents are associated with improvement in CV risk factors in patients with diabetes and insulin resistance; in fact, a few drugs reduced CV events in randomized CV outcome trials. Therefore, the use of these drugs is appropriate for reducing glucose and decreasing CV event risk in a select subpopulation.

Clinical Considerations for Use of Initial Combination Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is a progressive disorder characterized by increasing hyperglycemia and the need to gradually intensify therapy in order to achieve and maintain glycemic control. Early initiation of combination therapy has been proposed as an approach to achieve glycemic goals earlier and delay the deterioration of glycemic control and with possible better preservation of β-cell function. We discuss in this article the pros and cons of this approach, focusing on individuals with HbA1c at diagnosis of 7.5-9.0%, where difference of opinion still exists on management. Initial combination therapy is proposed to lead to better and faster achievement of glycemic targets versus monotherapy and to impede clinical inertia and may possibly slow the deterioration of β-cell function. However, treating patients with sequential therapy is proposed to allow one to fully assess the efficacy and risk-to-benefit ratio of each drug as it is added. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support that rapid addition and titration of medications according to the glycemic profile achieved are inferior to initial combination therapy if glycemic targets are attained in a timely manner. Initial combination therapy is argued to postpone clinical inertia to the next decision point but does not eliminate it. Additionally, it may have been the agents chosen and not the timing of their initiation that led to improved β-cell function in the studies of initial combination therapy, and there are no data currently comparing use of the same drugs initiated simultaneously or sequentially. Heightened awareness of providers, individualization of therapy and setting, and reaching glycemic targets remain the mainstays of care.

Linagliptin and pioglitazone combination therapy versus monotherapy with linagliptin or pioglitazone: A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multinational clinical trial

Linagliptin plus pioglitazone single-pill combinations were evaluated. Patients (n = 936) with insufficient glycaemic control, despite lifestyle interventions, were randomised for 30 weeks to either monotherapy with linagliptin 5 mg; pioglitazone 15, 30 or 45 mg; or single-pill combination with linagliptin 5 mg plus pioglitazone 15, 30 or 45 mg. An extension (⩽54 weeks) planned to evaluate linagliptin plus pioglitazone 30 or 45 mg single-pill combinations was not completed due to a protocol amendment. Adjusted mean (95% confidence interval) differences in HbA1c change from baseline at week 30 for linagliptin plus pioglitazone 15, 30 and 45 mg were -0.17% (-0.41, 0.07), -0.37% (-0.60, -0.14) and -0.41% (-0.64, -0.18) versus pioglitazone monotherapies, respectively, and -0.44% (-0.67, -0.20), -0.68% (-0.91, -0.44) and -0.89% (-1.12, -0.66) versus linagliptin monotherapy, respectively. Single-pill combinations were generally well tolerated. Hypoglycaemia frequency was ⩽1.5% per group. Linagliptin plus pioglitazone combinations were efficacious, with safety profiles comparable to the individual monotherapies.

Clinical pharmacology of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of oral antidiabetic drugs that improve glycaemic control without causing weight gain or increasing hypoglycaemic risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The eight available DPP-4 inhibitors, including alogliptin, anagliptin, gemigliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, teneligliptin, and vildagliptin, are small molecules used orally with identical mechanism of action and similar safety profiles in patients with T2DM. DPP-4 inhibitors may be used as monotherapy or in double or triple combination with other oral glucose-lowering agents such as metformin, thiazolidinediones, or sulfonylureas. Although DPP-4 inhibitors have the same mode of action, they differ by some important pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties that may be clinically relevant in some patients. The main differences between the eight gliptins include: potency, target selectivity, oral bioavailability, elimination half-life, binding to plasma proteins, metabolic pathways, formation of active metabolite(s), main excretion routes, dosage adjustment for renal and liver insufficiency, and potential drug-drug interactions. The off-target inhibition of selective DPP-4 inhibitors is responsible for multiorgan toxicities such as immune dysfunction, impaired healing, and skin reactions. As a drug class, the DPP-4 inhibitors have become accepted in clinical practice due to their excellent tolerability profile, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia, a neutral effect on body weight, and once-daily dosing. It is unknown if DPP-4 inhibitors can prevent disease progression. More clinical studies are needed to validate the optimal regimens of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of T2DM when their potential toxicities are closely monitored.

Apparent subadditivity of the efficacy of initial combination treatments for type 2 diabetes is largely explained by the impact of baseline HbA1c on efficacy

AIM

To explain the subadditive efficacy typically observed with initial combination treatments for type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Individual subject data from 1186 patients with type 2 diabetes [mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) = 8.8%] treated with metformin, canagliflozin or canagliflozin + metformin were used. The baseline HbA1c versus ΔHbA1c relationships for monotherapy arms were determined using analysis of covariance and then used to predict efficacy in the combination arms by modelling how applying one treatment lowers the 'effective baseline HbA1c' for a second treatment. The model was further tested using data from several published combination studies.

RESULTS

The mean ΔHbA1c levels were -1.25, -1.33, -1.37, -1.77 and -1.81% with metformin, canagliflozin 100 mg, canagliflozin 300 mg, canagliflozin 100 mg/metformin and canagliflozin 300 mg/metformin, respectively. Using the monotherapy results, the predicted efficacy for the canagliflozin/metformin arms was within 10% of the observed values using the new model, whereas assuming simple additivity overpredicted efficacy in the combination arms by nearly 50%. For 10 other published initial combination studies, predictions from the new model [mean (standard error) predicted ΔHbA1c = 1.67% (0.14)] were much more consistent with observed values [ΔHbA1c = 1.72% (0.12)] than predictions based on assuming additivity [predicted ΔHbA1c = 2.19% (0.21)].

CONCLUSIONS

The less-than-additive efficacy commonly seen with initial combination treatments for type 2 diabetes can be largely explained by the impact of baseline HbA1c on the efficacy of individual treatments. Novel formulas have been developed for predicting the efficacy of combination treatments based on the efficacy of individual treatments and the baseline HbA1c of the target patients.

Initial Combination Therapy With Canagliflozin Plus Metformin Versus Each Component as Monotherapy for Drug-Naïve Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the efficacy/safety of canagliflozin (CANA), a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, plus metformin extended-release (MET) initial therapy in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This 26-week, double-blind, phase 3 study randomized 1,186 patients to CANA 100 mg (CANA100)/MET, CANA 300 mg (CANA300)/MET, CANA100, CANA300, or MET. Primary end point was change in HbA(1c) at week 26 for combinations versus monotherapies. Secondary end points included noninferiority in HbA(1c) lowering with CANA monotherapy versus MET; changes in fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and blood pressure; and proportion of patients achieving HbA(1c) <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol).

RESULTS

From mean baseline HbA(1c) of 8.8% (73 mmol/mol), CANA100/MET and CANA300/MET significantly lowered HbA(1c) versus MET (median dose, 2,000 mg/day) by -1.77%, -1.78%, and -1.30% (-19.3, -19.5, and -14.2 mmol/mol; differences of -0.46% and -0.48% [-5.0 and -5.2 mmol/mol]; P = 0.001) and versus CANA100 and CANA300 by -1.37% and -1.42% (-15.0 and -15.5 mmol/mol; differences of -0.40% and -0.36% [-4.4 and -3.9 mmol/mol]; P = 0.001). CANA100 and CANA300 monotherapy met noninferiority for HbA(1c) lowering and had significantly more weight loss versus MET (-2.8, -3.7, and -1.9 kg [-3.0%, -3.9%, and -2.1%]; P = 0.016 and P = 0.002). Greater attainment of HbA(1c) <7.0% (50%, 57%, and 43%) and significantly more weight loss (-3.2, -3.9, and -1.9 kg [-3.5%, -4.2%, and -2.1%]; P = 0.001) occurred with CANA100/MET and CANA300/MET versus MET. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) related to SGLT2 inhibition (genital mycotic infections, osmotic diuresis- and volume depletion-related AEs) was higher in the CANA arms (0.4-4.4%) versus MET (0-0.8%). AE-related discontinuation rates were 1.3-3.0% across groups. The incidence of hypoglycemia was 3.0-5.5% in the CANA arms and 4.6% with MET.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial therapy with CANA plus MET was more effective and generally well tolerated versus each monotherapy in drug-naïve type 2 diabetes. CANA monotherapy demonstrated noninferior HbA1c lowering versus MET.

Application of pharmacometric approaches to evaluate effect of weight and renal function on pharmacokinetics of alogliptin

AIMS

The aims of the study were to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) of alogliptin in healthy and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) subjects using a population PK approach and to assess the influence of various covariates on alogliptin exposure.

METHODS

Plasma concentration data collected from two phase 1 studies and one phase 3 study following administration of alogliptin (12.5-400 mg) were used for the PK model development. One- and two-compartment models were evaluated as base structural PK models. The impact of selected covariates was assessed using stepwise forward selection and backward elimination procedures. The predictability and robustness of the final model was evaluated using visual predictive check and bootstrap analyses. The final model was used to perform simulations and guide appropriate dose adjustments.

RESULTS

A two-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination best described the alogliptin concentration vs. time profiles. Creatinine clearance and weight had a statistically significant effect on the oral clearance (CL/F) of alogliptin. The model predicted a lower CL/F (17%, 35%, 80%) and a higher systemic exposure (56%, 89%, 339%) for subjects with mild, moderate and severe renal impairment, respectively, compared with healthy subjects. Effect of weight on CL/F was not considered clinically relevant. Simulations at different doses of alogliptin support the approved doses of 12.5 mg and 6.25 mg for patients with moderate and severe renal impairment, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The PK of alogliptin was well characterized by the model. The analysis suggested an alogliptin dose adjustment for subjects with moderate-to-severe renal impairment and no dose adjustments based on weight.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and risk of heart failure in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the risk of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov searched up to 25 June 2015, and communication with experts.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared DPP-4 inhibitors against placebo, lifestyle modification, or active antidiabetic drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes, and explicitly reported the outcome of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Teams of paired reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data using standardised, pilot tested forms. Data from trials and observational studies were pooled separately; quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Eligible studies included 43 trials (n=68,775) and 12 observational studies (nine cohort studies, three nested case-control studies; n=1,777,358). Pooling of 38 trials reporting heart failure provided low quality evidence for a possible similar risk of heart failure between DPP-4 inhibitor use versus control (42/15,701 v 33/12,591; odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.56); risk difference 2 fewer (19 fewer to 28 more) events per 1000 patients with type 2 diabetes over five years). The observational studies provided effect estimates generally consistent with trial findings, but with very low quality evidence. Pooling of the five trials reporting admission for heart failure provided moderate quality evidence for an increased risk in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors versus control (622/18,554 v 552/18,474; 1.13 (1.00 to 1.26); 8 more (0 more to 16 more)). The pooling of adjusted estimates from observational studies similarly suggested (with very low quality evidence) a possible increased risk of admission for heart failure (adjusted odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.09) in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors (exclusively sitagliptin) versus no use.

CONCLUSIONS

The relative effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on the risk of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes is uncertain, given the relatively short follow-up and low quality of evidence. Both randomised controlled trials and observational studies, however, suggest that these drugs may increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure in those patients with existing cardiovascular diseases or multiple risk factors for vascular diseases, compared with no use.

Efficacy and safety of pioglitazone added to alogliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, comparative study

A phase IV, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, comparative study was conducted in Japanese subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycaemic control, despite treatment with alogliptin in addition to diet and/or exercise therapy. Subjects with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentrations of 6.9-10.5% were randomized to receive 16 weeks' double-blind treatment with pioglitazone 15 mg, 30 mg once daily or placebo added to alogliptin 25 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline at the end of treatment period (week 16). Both pioglitazone 15 and 30 mg combination therapy resulted in a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c than alogliptin monotherapy [-0.80 and -0.90% vs 0.00% (the least squares mean using analysis of covariance model); p < 0.0001, respectively]. The overall incidence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar among the treatment groups. Pioglitazone/alogliptin combination therapy was effective and generally well tolerated in Japanese subjects with T2DM and is considered to be useful in clinical settings.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in Diverse Patient Populations With Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to discuss the clinical evidence for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and to better define their use in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), including in special populations, such as the elderly. DPP-4 inhibitors are incretin-based therapies that can be used as monotherapy or in combination with other antidiabetes medications to treat T2DM. As monotherapy, DPP-4 inhibitors have demonstrated a modest and comparable glycated hemoglobin-lowering effect. As initial dual therapy with other antidiabetes agents, DPP-4 inhibitors significantly improved glycated hemoglobin when compared with monotherapy arms. Similarly, in triple combinations, DPP-4 inhibitors consistently provided additive glycemic benefits. In patients who were continuing insulin, glycemic parameters were improved with the addition of a DPP-4 inhibitor, and they required less insulin uptitration. In clinical trials, the overall occurrence of adverse events was similar between DPP-4 inhibitor groups and controls, and a low occurrence of hypoglycemia was observed, except when used in combination with a sulfonylurea. A neutral effect on weight was maintained, even in combination with insulin. Similar to outcomes observed in younger patients, DPP-4 inhibitors significantly improved glycemic efficacy in older patients, without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia. Efficacy and safety in patients with renal insufficiency are also documented.

CONCLUSION

DPP-4 inhibitors are therapeutically beneficial for a diverse population of patients with T2DM, including elderly patients, based on demonstrated efficacy, tolerability, and a low risk for hypoglycemia.

Clinical trial simulation methods for estimating the impact of DPP-4 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease

Introduction

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of oral antidiabetic agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, which lower blood glucose without causing severe hypoglycemia. However, the first cardiovascular (CV) safety trials have only recently reported their results, and our understanding of these therapies remains incomplete. Using clinical trial simulations, we estimated the effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in a population like that enrolled in the SAVOR-TIMI (the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus – Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) 53 trial.

Methods

We used the Archimedes Model to simulate a clinical trial of individuals (N=11,000) with diagnosed type 2 diabetes and elevated CV risk, based on established disease or multiple risk factors. The DPP-4 class was modeled with a meta-analysis of HbA_1c and weight change, pooling results from published trials of alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin. The study treatments were added-on to standard care, and outcomes were tracked for 20 years.

Results

The DPP-4 class was associated with an HbA_1c drop of 0.66% (0.71%, 0.62%) and a weight drop of 0.14 (−0.07, 0.36) kg. These biomarker improvements produced a relative risk (RR) for MACE at 5 years of 0.977 (0.968, 0.986). The number needed to treat to prevent one occurrence of MACE at 5 years was 327 (233, 550) in the elevated CV risk population.

Conclusion

Consistent with recent trial publications, our analysis indicates that DPP-4 inhibitors do not increase the risk of MACE relative to the standard of care. This study provides insights about the long-term benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors and supports the interpretation of the published CV safety trial results.

Clinical use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in combination therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To review the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of combination treatment regimens including a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor and/or sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Clinical trials of combination therapies including a DPP-4 and/or SGLT2 inhibitor were identified through a PubMed database search. To be included, studies had to have a primary end point of change from baseline to ≥24 weeks in glycated hemoglobin, include ≥1 other oral antidiabetic drug (OAD), and have randomized more than 200 patients. Results were limited to medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration at the time of the search (March 2015).

RESULTS

A total of 1534 articles for the DPP-4 inhibitor class and 434 articles for the SGLT2 inhibitor class were retrieved from PubMed. Of these, 33 articles from the DPP-4 inhibitor class and 24 articles from the SGLT2 inhibitor class were included for review. In each study, the addition of a DPP-4 or SGLT2 inhibitor as a second or third agent resulted in improved glycemic control versus comparator arms. Reductions in weight or lack of weight gain were consistently observed, as were low rates of hypoglycemic events, particularly when the combination regimen also included metformin. Overall, the pattern of adverse events observed in combination treatment groups was consistent with the known effects of the individual agents.

CONCLUSION

Combination treatment with a DPP-4 and/or SGLT2 inhibitor is an efficacious option for patients with T2DM starting pharmacological therapy, or for patients who have received treatment but require additional glycemic control. Study findings indicate that the underlying mechanisms of action of DPP-4 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors complement a variety of OADs.

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.

Efficacy of dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors and impact on β-cell function in Asian and Caucasian type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This work aimed to compare the efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitors and their impact on β-cell function in Asian and Caucasian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Databases were systematically searched and qualifying studies that compared DPP-4 inhibitors with other antidiabetic medications in type 2 diabetes were included.

RESULTS

A total of 68 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison of DPP-4 inhibitors with placebo in Asian patients showed a decrease in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c ) favoring DPP-4 inhibitors (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.81%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.95% to -0.68%; P < 0.001). Comparison of HbA1c changes between Asian and Caucasian patients showed a significant between-group difference of -0.18% (95% CI, -0.32% to -0.04%; P = 0.011) when compared with placebo. In Asian patients, the homeostatic model assessment for β-cell function (HOMA-β) was increased with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with placebo (WMD, 7.90; 95% CI, 4.29 to 11.51; P < 0.001), although to a lesser extent in Caucasian patients. Comparisons between Asian and Caucasian patients showed a significant between-group difference of -4.97 (95% CI, -9.86 to -0.09; P = 0.046) compared with placebo. Body weight increase with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with placebo was comparable in Asian and Caucasian studies (WMD, 0.37 kg and 0.45 kg and 95% CI, 0.04-0.69 and 0.27-0.62, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The glucose-lowering efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors was greater in Asian patients than in Caucasian patients, although the effect on β-cell function was inferior in Asian patients. The effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on insulin resistance and body weight in Asian patients was comparable with that observed in Caucasian patients.

Alogliptin benzoate for management of type 2 diabetes

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, a new class of oral hypoglycemic agents, augment glucose-dependent insulin secretion and suppress glucagon levels through enhancement of the action of endogenous incretin by inhibiting DPP-4, an incretin-degrading enzyme. DPP-4 inhibitors are generally well tolerated because of their low risk of hypoglycemia and other adverse events. Moreover, with their potential to improve beta cell function, a core defect of type 2 diabetes, DPP-4 inhibitors are becoming a major component of treatment of type 2 diabetes. Alogliptin benzoate is a newly developed, highly selective DPP-4 inhibitor which has been approved in many countries throughout the world. Once-daily administration of alogliptin as either monotherapy or combination therapy with other oral antidiabetic drugs or insulin has a potent glucose-lowering effect which is similar to that of other DPP-4 inhibitors, with a low risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. The cardiovascular safety of this drug has been confirmed in a recent randomized controlled trial. This review summarizes the efficacy and safety of alogliptin, and discusses the role of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Combination Therapy When Metformin Is Not an Option for Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: Consensus on combination options for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) unable to use metformin is lacking. This review summarizes data describing–non-metformin based combination therapy. Data Sources: PubMed searches (January 1990 to August 2014) were conducted with terms for newer drug therapies alone and with the term combination; filters were applied for Clinical Trial, Meta Analysis, and English language. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Results were reviewed for multicenter, randomized controlled trials of non-metformin–based combination therapy conducted in the past 5 years and specific to the US or multinational populations. Data Synthesis: Although multiple injectable and oral agents have been studied in combination with metformin for management of T2DM, data are more limited for combinations without metformin. Combinations of incretins (injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists or oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 [DPP-4] inhibitors) with a sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, or insulin are well studied and provide greater glucose-lowering efficacy than monotherapy. Incretins are associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia when used as monotherapy; the dosage of sulfonylurea or insulin should be reduced when used in combination. Newer studies are investigating the combined use of an oral sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and a DPP-4 inhibitor. In a recent study, reductions in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) of 1.1% to 1.2% and reduced weight with no additive risk of hypoglycemia were observed. Conclusions: Selecting the most appropriate combination therapy for patients with T2DM requires balancing clinical benefits with the risks, such as weight gain and hypoglycemia. Treatment approaches should be individualized for vulnerable patient populations for whom metformin is not appropriate.

Pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes: oral medications

OBJECTIVE

To review the oral and injectable pharmacologic treatment options for type 2 diabetes.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted using PubMed electronic database for studies published in English between 1993 and September 2014. Search terms included diabetes mellitus, type 2 diabetes, and the individual name for each antidiabetic medication reviewed. In addition, manual searches were performed for cross-references from publications. Package inserts, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Web site, Institute for Safe Medication Practices Web site, American Diabetes Association Web site and scientific session poster presentations, and individual drug company Web pages were also reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

This review focused on information elucidated over the past 10 years to assist prescribers in choosing optimal therapy based on individual patient characteristics. Studies leading to the approval of or raising safety concerns for the antidiabetic medications reviewed in this article were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In the past 10 years, there have been 4 novel oral antidiabetic medication classes and 9 new injectable agents and insulin products approved by the FDA for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as well as new information regarding the safety and use of several older antidiabetic medication classes. The distinctions were reviewed for each individual agent, and a comparison was completed if there was more than one agent in a particular therapeutic class. Using current information available, select investigational agents in phase III trials or those with a pending new drug application were highlighted.

CONCLUSION

There are now 9 distinct oral pharmacologic classes and a variety of insulin and noninsulin injectable medications available for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Metformin remains the first-line treatment option for most patients. When considering options for alternative or additional treatment, prescribers must weigh the benefits and risks using individual patient characteristics.

Alogliptin benzoate for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus continues to be a global problem, placing an enormous burden on healthcare systems and resources. Effective treatment options to minimize the effects of hyperglycemia are essential. Most patients eventually need to take multiple drugs to maintain glycemic control, and many antidiabetic drugs are associated with adverse effects, such as hypoglycemia, weight gain or gastrointestinal effects. Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor is one of the newer classes of oral antidiabetic drug, and alogliptin is the most recently approved drug in this class.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of alogliptin and the results of clinical trials evaluating its efficacy at improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes both as monotherapy and in combination with other antidiabetic drugs. The drug's tolerability and safety profiles are also considered.

EXPERT OPINION

Alogliptin is a DPP-4 inhibitor that can help in improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, including the elderly. It is generally well tolerated and does not increase the risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain.

Evidence-based practice use of incretin-based therapy in the natural history of diabetes

The incretin class of anti-hyperglycemic agents, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-inhibitors, is an important addition to the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of appropriate patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as an adjunct to diet and exercise and/or with the agents metformin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, or any combination thereof. More recently, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications for incretins were expanded to include use with basal insulin. This review article takes an evidence-based practice approach in discussing the importance of aggressive treatment for diabetes, the principles of incretin physiology and pathophysiology, use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and patient types and contexts where incretin therapy has been found beneficial, from metabolic syndrome to overt diabetes.

Alogliptin: A new dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

PURPOSE

The pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, safety, efficacy, and place in therapy of alogliptin and its combinations for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus are reviewed.

SUMMARY

Alogliptin is a selective, orally bioavailable inhibitor of the enzymatic activity of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4). It works by slowing the inactivation of the incretin hormones, thereby increasing their concentrations in the bloodstream and reducing fasting and postprandial glucose concentrations in a glucose-dependent manner in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Alogliptin has a moderate degree of absorption, estimated to exceed 75%, and its absorption is not affected by food. No drug interactions are known to be associated with alogliptin monotherapy. It is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The clinical efficacy and safety of alogliptin have been demonstrated in several clinical trials, reducing patients' glycosylated hemoglobin level by 0.4-1.0% in 26 weeks. Alogliptin does not require any dosage adjustment when coadministered with ketoconazole, fluconazole, gemfibrozil, warfarin, metformin, glyburide, and pioglitazone. Alogliptin selectively binds to and inhibits DPP-4 in vitro at concentrations approximating therapeutic exposures. The most common adverse events associated with alogliptin are nasopharyngitis, headache, and upper respiratory tract infection. As with the other DPP-4 inhibitors, use of alogliptin may be associated with the development of pancreatitis during therapy.

CONCLUSION

Alogliptin, a selective DPP-4 inhibitor, does not differ greatly from the other DPP-4 inhibitors currently available. It can be used as monotherapy or in combination with metformin for the management of type 2 diabetes.