Comparison of vildagliptin-metformin and glimepiride-metformin treatments in type 2 diabetic patients

Efficacy and safety of dorzagliatin for type 2 diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dorzagliatin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by using meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA).

Method

Search for clinical trials of dorzagliatin for T2DM in eight databases, with a time limit of build to July 2022. The included studies that met the requirements were carried out for meta-analysis and TSA.

Results

In terms of efficacy endpoints, meta-analysis showed that dorzagliatin decreased glycated hemoglobin A1c(HbA1c) [mean difference (MD) -0.65%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.76 ~ -0.54, P < 0.00001], fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (MD -9.22 mg/dL, 95% CI -9.99 ~ -8.44, P < 0.00001), 2 h postprandial glucose (2h-PPG) (MD -48.70 mg/dL, 95% CI -55.45 ~ -41.96, P < 0.00001), homeostasis model assessment 2 of insulin resistance (HOMA2-IR) (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.14 ~ -0.01, P = 0.03) and increased homeostasis model assessment 2 of ß-cells function (HOMA2-β) (MD 2.69, 95% CI 1.06 ~ 4.31, P = 0.001) compared with placebo. And TSA revealed that the benefits observed for the current information set were conclusive, except for HOMA2-IR. In comparison with placebo, dorzagliatin increased triglyceride(TG) (MD 0.43 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.30 ~ 0.56, P < 0.00001), total cholesterol (TC) (MD 0.13 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.05 ~ 0.21, P = 0.001), body weight (MD 0.38 kg, 95% CI 0.12-0.63, P = 0.004) and body mass index (BMI) (MD 0.14 kg/m², 95% CI 0.05-0.24, P = 0.003), while low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were comparable. And TSA demonstrated that TG, TC, body weight, and BMI were conclusive. In terms of safety endpoints, dorzagliatin increased total adverse events (AEs) [risk ratio (RR) 1.56, 95% CI 1.06 ~ 2.30, P = 0.03], while serious AEs, hyperlipidemia, and hypoglycaemia were all comparable. And TSA indicated that the results need to be confirmed by additional studies. Harbord regression showed no publication bias.

Conclusion

Dorzagliatin was effective in lowering glycemia, reducing insulin resistance and improving islet ß-cells function without affecting blood pressure, LDL-C, and HDL-C. Although dorzagliatin caused a mild increase in TG and TC, it did not increase the incidence of hyperlipidemia, and the small increases in body weight and BMI were not clinically significant enough. In terms of safety, the total AEs caused by dorzagliatin may be a cumulative effect of single AEs, with no drug-related adverse event being reported at a higher incidence than placebo alone. Dorzagliatin's serious AEs, hyperlipidemia, and hypoglycemia are comparable to that of placebo, and dorzagliatin has a good safety profile.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=371802 identifier: CRD42022371802.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Glimepiride-Metformin and Vildagliptin- Metformin Treatment in Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetic Patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of glimepiride and vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This 24-week, prospective, comparative, observational study was conducted among newly diagnosed patients with T2DM. The primary endpoint was a change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postpradinal glucose (PPG), and HbA1c from the baseline to week 24. The key secondary endpoints were monitoring treatment-emergent adverse events such as hypoglycemia, overall gastrointestinal symptoms and weight gain, and electrocardiogram (ECG) findings.

RESULTS

A total of 100 eligible patients were divided into two groups: group A (n = 50) received vildagliptin plus metformin and group B (n = 50) received glimepiride plus metformin. The mean age of the patients was 49.98 years and 52.12 years in group A and group B, respectively. Electrocardiographic findings were within normal limits in all the patients from group A, whereas 47 patients from group B showed normal ECG findings. A significant decrease in HbA1c, fasting and post-prandial plasma glucose was observed with group A and group B from the baseline to week-24. However, at week-24, reduction in HbA1c and blood glucose parameters were comparable between the groups. Safety outcomes did not show any events of hypoglycemia with vildagliptin. Mild hypoglycemia was reported with glimepiride in five patients.

CONCLUSION

Vildagliptin-metformin appeared to be equally effective to glimepiride-metformin in reducing HbA1c level and blood glucose parameters, however, resulted in better adverse event profiles with lower risks of hypoglycemia.

Comparative clinical study evaluating the effect of adding Vildagliptin versus Glimepiride to ongoing Metformin therapy on diabetic patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) remain the most identified cause of death in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of adding Vildagliptin versus Glimepiride to ongoing Metformin on the biomarkers of inflammation, thrombosis, and atherosclerosis in T2DM patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

This study included 80 patients with uncontrolled T2DM and symptomatic CAD who were randomized to add either Vildagliptin 50 mg/day "group I" or Glimepiride 4 mg/day "group II" to ongoing Metformin therapy (1000 mg/day). Blood samples were collected at baseline and 3 months after intervention for biochemical analysis of HbA1c %, IL-1β, adiponectin, hsCRP and lipid profile. Additionally atherogenic index (AI) and coronary risk index (CRI) were determined.

RESULTS

Three months after intervention and as compared to group II (Glimepiride/Metformin), group 1 (Vildagliptin/Metformin) showed significantly lower BMI (28.73 ± 3.48 versus 30.55 ± 3.15; p = 0.02), HbA1c (6.05 ± 0.72 versus 7.06 ± 0.89; p < 0.0001), hsCRP (0.96 ± 0.20 versus 1.72 ± 0.38; p < 0.0001), IL-1β (34.95 ± 10.01 versus 45.13 ± 10.26; p < 0.0001), TC (136 ± 23.45 versus 169 ± 35.72; p < 0.0001), TG (116 ± 29.10 versus 146 ± 56.58; p = 0.005), and CRI (2.47 ± 0.90 versus 3.65 ± 1.19; p < 0.0001) which was associated with significantly higher adiponectin and HDL-C (4.42 ± 1.29 versus 2.52 ± 1.86; p < 0.0001 and 61 ± 23.04 versus 48 ± 12.92; p = 0.003 respectively).

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM and symptomatic CAD, the addition of Vildagliptin to ongoing metformin showed better glycemic control, lower inflammatory markers (IL-1β and hsCRP), higher protective markers (adiponectin and HDL-C) and improved lipid profile compared to Glimepiride/metformin therapy.

A safety and tolerability profile comparison between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sulfonylureas in diabetic patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The first treatment approach for type 2 diabetes mellitus is lifestyle change and metformin, but it is usually not sufficient. For some time, the anti-hyperglycemic classes of sulfonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors were considered second-line of treatment, since they show similar efficacy effect. However, the recent ADA-EASD consensus gives the preference to DPP-4 inhibitors compared to sulfonylureas, except if cost is a major problem. We performed a meta-analysis for safety and tolerability profile to comprehend which treatment has less adverse events.

METHODS

PUBMED and EMBASE databases were searched from inception until July 2017 to retrieve RCT studies comparing DPP-4 inhibitors and sulfonylureas treatments in adult type 2 diabetes patients. There was no language restriction. We extracted and combined data from studies comparison that reported safety profile and weight change. A random effect, meta-analytic model was applied to all calculations. Cochrane collaboration tool was used to assess quality and bias of the included studies. Trial registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017075823).

FINDINGS

Out of 1472 articles identified in our search and screened for eligibility, 36 studies comparing DPP-4 inhibitors and sulfonylureas were identified. DPP-4 inhibitors in combination with metformin had less overall adverse events (RR: 0·90; 95% CI, 0·86-0·94; p < 0·0001; I² = 83%; 17 studies), cardiovascular events (RR: 0·54; 95% CI, 0·37-0·79; p = 0·002; I² = 0%; 6 studies), hypoglycemia (RR: 0·17; 95% CI, 0·13-0·22; p < 0·00001; I² = 76%; 17 studies) and severe hypoglycemic events (RR: 0·10; 95% CI, 0·05-0·19; p < 0·00001; I² = 0%; 12 studies). The mean difference of the weight change was 1·92 kg in favor of DPP-4 inhibitors in combination with metformin in relation to sulfonylureas in combination with metformin. Monotherapy with DPP-4 inhibitors also had less rates of hypoglycemia (RR: 0·31; 95% CI, 0·24-0·41; p < 0·00001; I² = 0%; 8 studies) and severe hypoglycemic events (RR: 0·26; 95% CI, 0·10-0·66; p = 0·004; I² = 0%; 8 studies) and patients did not gain 1·19 kg.

INTERPRETATION

These results suggest better safety profile for DPP-4 inhibitors than sulfonylureas for both comparisons, and it is more notable when the treatment regimen includes metformin.

FUNDING

This study was funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Brazil.

Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy compared with glimepiride in East-Asian patients with type 2 diabetes in a multicentre, double-blind, randomized, parallel-arm, active comparator, phase III trial

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg with glimepiride in East-Asian patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase III, multinational, multicentre, double-blind, randomized, parallel-arm, 26-week study, patients with inadequate glycaemic control were randomized 1:1:1 to once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 or 0.75 mg or daily glimepiride (1-3 mg/d). The primary endpoint was assessment of the non-inferiority of dulaglutide (1.5 mg), as measured by change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), compared with glimepiride using a 0.4% non-inferiority margin.

RESULTS

A total of 737 patients were randomized (dulaglutide 1.5 mg, n = 244; dulaglutide 0.75 mg, n = 248; glimepiride, n = 245). At week 26, both doses of dulaglutide were non-inferior and also superior to glimepiride for HbA1c reduction from baseline with a least squares mean difference of -6.34 mmol/mol (95% confidence interval [CI] -8.31, -4.26) or -0.58% (95% CI -0.76, -0.39) for dulaglutide 1.5 mg and -3.50 mmol/mol (95% CI -5.47, -1.42) or -0.32% (95% CI -0.50, -0.13) for dulaglutide 0.75 mg (P < .001). A greater proportion of patients in the dulaglutide 1.5 mg group achieved the HbA1c target of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) compared with the glimepiride group (74.1% vs 57.4%; P < .001). The mean body weight decreased (P < .005) and total hypoglycaemia rates were lower (P < .001) in the dulaglutide groups compared with the glimepiride group. The most common drug-related adverse events in both dulaglutide groups (≥5% of patients) included diarrhoea, nausea, increased lipase, decreased appetite, abdominal distension and vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide (both doses) demonstrated superior glycaemic control vs glimepiride, with a favourable tolerability and safety profile in East-Asian patients with T2D.

Efficacy of different antidiabetic drugs based on metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis involving eight eligible randomized-controlled trials

Diabetes mellitus is one of the most prevalent metabolic diseases globally and it is increasing in prevalence. It is one of the most expensive diseases with respect to total health care costs per patient as a result of its chronic nature and its severe complications. To provide a more effective treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), this study aims to compare different efficacies of six kinds of hypoglycemic drugs based on metformin, including glimepiride, pioglitazone, exenatide, glibenclamide, rosiglitazone, and vildagliptin, in T2DM by a network meta-analysis that were verified by randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). Eight eligible RCT in consistency with the aforementioned six hypoglycemic drugs for T2DM were included. The results of network meta-analysis demonstrated that the exenatide + metformin and vildagliptin + metformin regimens presented with better efficacy. Patients with T2DM with unsatisfactory blood glucose control based on diet control, proper exercise, and metformin treatment were included. The original regimen and dose of medication were unchanged, followed by the addition of glimepiride, pioglitazone, exenatide, glibenclamide, rosiglitazone, and vildagliptin. The results of RCTs showed that all these six kinds of drugs reduced the HbA1c level. Compared with other regimens, exenatide + metformin reduced fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), total cholesterol (TC), and homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) levels, but increased the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) level; vildagliptin + metformin decreased FPI and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels; glibenclamide + metformin decreased the FPG level, but promoted HDL; and glimepiride + metformin decreased the TC level and rosiglitazone + metformin reduced the LDL level. Our findings indicated that exenatide + metformin and vildagliptin + metformin have better efficacy in T2DM since they can improve insulin sensitivity.

Cost effectiveness of vildagliptin versus glimepiride as add-on treatment to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 patients in Greece

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to assess the cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in the Greek healthcare setting.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model was designed, using MS Excel, to compare two treatment strategies. Strategy 1 consisted of first-line metformin, followed by metformin + vildagliptin in second-line, while strategy 2 consisted of first line metformin, followed by metformin + glimepiride in second line. Subsequent lines were the same in both strategies and consisted of metformin + basal insulin and metformin + basal + rapid insulin. Clinical data and utility decrements relating to diabetes complications were taken from the published literature. Only direct medical costs were included in the analysis (cost base year 2014), and consisted of drug, adverse events and comorbidity costs (taken from local officially published sources and the literature). The perspective adopted was that of the Social Insurance Fund. The time horizon was lifetime, and future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum.

RESULTS

Adding vildagliptin to metformin increased drug costs compared with adding glimepiride to metformin (€2853 vs. €2427, respectively). However, this increase was offset by a decrease in the costs of associated comorbidities (€4393 vs. €4539) and adverse events (€2757 vs. €3111), resulting in a lower total cost of €74 in strategy 1 compared with strategy 2. Comorbidities were the largest cost component in both strategies, accounting for 43.9 and 45.0% in strategies 1 and 2, respectively. Strategy 1 was also associated with increased life-years (LYs, 0.11) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs, 0.11) compared with strategy 2. Strategy 1 is therefore dominant, as it is associated with both lower overall costs and increased effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin as add-on treatment to metformin in the management of T2DM in Greece appears to be dominant versus. glimepiride in terms of both cost per LY and cost per QALY gained.

The efficacy and safety of adding either vildagliptin or glimepiride to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of either vildagliptin or glimepiride on glycemic variability, oxidative stress, and endothelial parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin alone.

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, parallel study, 34 patients with T2DM being treated with metformin having an HbA1c of 7.0-10.0% were allocated into either the vildagliptin or glimepiride group. A mixed-meal tolerance test and 72-hour continuous glucose monitoring were conducted, and urinary 8-iso-prostaglandinF_2α (PGF_2α) and endothelial-dependent flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) were evaluated at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Similar significant improvements in HbA1c level were shown in both vildagliptin (-0.8%) and glimepiride (-0.9%) groups after treatment (Ps<0.001). The mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) and the mean of daily differences (MODD) were significantly decreased by vildagliptin (P = 0.044 and P = 0.031, respectively) but not by glimepiride. Glimepiride was significantly associated with a higher incidence of hypoglycemia than vildagliptin (P = 0.005). There were no significant differences in urinary 8-iso-PGF_2α or FMD between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin effectively improved glucose level with a significantly greater reduction in glycemic variability and hypoglycemia than glimepiride in patients with T2DM ongoing metformin therapy. The two drugs showed no significant differences in urinary 8-iso-PGF_2α and FMD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT01404676.

A systematic literature review on the efficacy-effectiveness gap: comparison of randomized controlled trials and observational studies of glucose-lowering drugs

Aim

To identify a potential efficacy–effectiveness gap and possible explanations (drivers of effectiveness) for differences between results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating glucose-lowering drugs.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted in English language articles published between 1 January, 2000 and 31 January, 2015 describing either RCTs or observational studies comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs (GLP-1) with insulin or comparing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) with sulfonylurea, all with change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as outcome. Medline, Embase, Current Content, and Biosis were searched. Information on effect estimates, baseline characteristics of the study population, publication year, study duration, and number of patients, and for observational studies, characteristics related to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias were extracted.

Results

From 312 hits, 11 RCTs and 7 observational studies comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from 474 hits, 16 RCTs and 4 observational studies comparing DPP-4i with sulfonylurea were finally included. No differences were observed in baseline characteristics of the study populations (age, sex, body mass index, time since diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and HbA1c) or effect sizes across study designs. Mean effect sizes ranged from −0.43 to 0.91 and from −0.80 to 1.13 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing GLP-1 with insulin, and from −0.13 to 2.70 and −0.20 to 0.30 in RCTs and observational studies, respectively, comparing DPP-4i and sulfonylurea. Generally, the identified observational studies held potential flaws with regard to confounding adjustment and selection- and information bias.

Conclusions

Neither potential drivers of effectiveness nor an efficacy–effectiveness gap were identified. However, the limited number of studies and potential problems with confounding adjustment, selection- and information bias in the observational studies, may have hidden a true efficacy-effectiveness gap.

Predictors of efficacy of GLP-1 agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors: A systematic review

AIMS

To identify the determinants of efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1A) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4I).

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched between 01/01/2011 and 15/08/2014 for randomized controlled trials of 12-52weeks' duration, which reported the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline as the primary end point, and reported data about predictors of efficacy of incretins.

RESULTS

Among 4172 studies found, 77 studies reported data on baseline HbA1c, age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), and history of diabetes in relation to change in HbA1c. For DPP-4I, 37 out of 47 studies reported a greater decrease in HbA1c among patients with higher baseline HbA1c. Most DPP-4I studies reported no variation in efficacy in regard to demographic characteristics or BMI. Among 17 studies reporting on GLP-1A, baseline higher HbA1c was reported as predictive of a greater response in 7 out of 9 studies; 13 studies reported data about other factors, without consistent findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that higher baseline HbA1c is associated with a greater efficacy of both DPP-4I and GLP-1A therapies in lowering HbA1c. The roles of other potential predictors are less consistent across studies and require further investigation.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of vildagliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an update on the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We searched MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE and the drug manufacturer's website for randomised controlled trials of vildagliptin in patients with T2DM. Sixty-nine studies (28,006 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo vildagliptin reduced HbA1c (weighted mean difference WMD -0.69 %; 95 % CI -0.83 to -0.56 %; I (2) = 82 %), and it was as effective as other antidiabetic agents (WMD -0.01 %; 95 % CI -0.16 to 0.14 %; I (2) = 93 %), without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia (OR 0.83; 95 % CI 0.59 to 1.16; I (2) = 0 % vs. placebo, and OR 0.19; 95 % CI 0.15 to 0.24; I (2) = 78 % versus active comparators). However, it was associated with an increase in the incidence of arthralgia compared with other comparators (OR 1.23; 95 % CI 1.02 to 1.48; I (2) = 0 %). On the contrary, vildagliptin did not increase the incidence of pancreatitis (OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.37 to 2.53; I (2) = 0 %), serious adverse events (OR 0.98; 95 % CI 0.88 to 1.09; I (2) = 0 %) or death (OR 1.10, 95 % CI 0.75 to 1.61; I (2) = 0 %). Finally, odds ratio (OR) for heart failure, and overall cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 0.77 (95 % CI 0.46 to 1.30; I (2) = 0 %) and 0.91 (95 % CI 0.73 to 1.14; I (2) = 0 %), respectively. Vildagliptin is an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with T2DM, both as monotherapy and as add-on treatment.

Vildagliptin compared to glimepiride on post-prandial lipemia and on insulin resistance in type 2 diabetic patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of vildagliptin compared to glimepiride on glycemic control, insulin resistance and post-prandial lipemia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

167 type 2 diabetic patients, not adequately controlled by metformin, were randomized to vildagliptin 50 mg twice a day or glimepiride 2 mg three times a day for 6 months, in a double blind, randomized clinical trial. We evaluated: body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, fasting plasma insulin (FPI), homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR), fasting plasma proinsulin (FPPr), glucagon, lipid profile, resistin, retinol binding protein-4 (RBP-4), visfatin and vaspin. Furthermore, at the randomization and at the end of the study all patients underwent an euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp to evaluate M value and an oral fat load.

RESULTS

Despite a similar decrease of glycated hemoglobin, there were an increase of body weight with glimepiride + metformin and a decrease with vildagliptin + metformin. Fasting plasma insulin increased with glimepiride + metformin, while it did not change with vildagliptin + metformin. Vildagliptin + metformin improved lipid profile. Regarding insulin sensitivity, vildagliptin + metformin increased M value. Resistin, RBP-4, vaspin and visfatin were decreased by vildagliptin + metformin, but in group to group comparison, only vaspin reduction resulted statistically significant. Vildagliptin + metformin reduced post-prandial lipemia and insulinemia compared to glimepiride + metformin.

CONCLUSION

Vildagliptin, in addition to metformin, was more effective than glimepiride + metformin in reducing insulin resistance and post-prandial lipemia.

Glycemic effects of vildagliptin and metformin combination therapy in Indian patients with type 2 diabetes: an observational study

BACKGROUND

To analyze the glycemic response of Indian patients with type2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) to combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin and compare our data with those of clinical trials.

METHODS

In a retrospective study of the hospital database, the glycemic control of 280 patients with T2DM who were either on a once- or twice-daily regimen of combination therapy with vildagliptin 50 mg and metformin 500 mg was analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean duration of follow-up of the patients was 16.8 months. There was a reduction in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 1.52 ± 0.79 and 1.88 ± 0.87 mmol/L in the once- and twice-daily groups, respectively (both P < 0.0001) from baseline to last visit. The reduction in postprandial plasma glucose (PPPG) in the once- and twice-daily groups was 3.98 ± 1.72 and 4.33 ± 1.88 mmol/L, respectively (both P < 0.0001), whereas the reduction in HbA1c was 1.41 ± 1.39% and 1.90 ± 1.49%, respectively (both P < 0.0001). The differences in the reductions achieved in FPG and HbA1c with the two dosing regimens were significant.

CONCLUSION

Although the present retrospective study shows a robust response to the combination of vildagliptin and metformin in Indian patients, more multicenter studies from India with a greater number patients are necessary to confirm this finding.

Head-to-head comparison of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors and sulfonylureas - a meta-analysis from randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitors and sulfonylureas are two important second-line anti-diabetic agents. The objective of this research was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with sulfonylureas by meta-analytic approach of available randomized studies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases up to 30 June 2013, collecting all randomized clinical trials with a treatment duration of ≥18weeks. Data on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c ), body weight, hypoglycaemia, total adverse events, and cardiovascular events were retrieved and analysed.

RESULTS

The analysis included 12 randomized studies comprising 10 982 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. On the basis of meta-analysis, sulfonylureas lowered HbA1c significantly more than DPP-4 inhibitors with weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.105 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.103 to 0.107]. The results were consistent in trials with longer (>32 weeks) or shorter (≤32 weeks) duration; however, DPP-4 inhibitors showed greater reduction in HbA1c compared with the second-generation sulfonylureas and in patients with baseline eGFR < 50 mL/min/1.73 m(2) . Patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors are less likely to achieve HbA1c  < 7% compared with sulfonylureas [Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99]. DPP-4 xinhibitors were associated with a reduction in body weight (WMD -1.652; 95% CI -1.658 to -1.646) and lower risk of hypoglycaemia (MH-OR, 0.13; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.16), total adverse events (MH-OR, 0.79; 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87), and cardiovascular events (MH-OR, 0.53; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87) compared with sulfonylureas.

CONCLUSION

Although DPP-4 inhibitors are less efficacious compared with sulfonylureas, they demonstrate a beneficial effect on body weight, episodes of hypoglycaemia, and total adverse events.

Differential effects of vildagliptin and glimepiride on glucose fluctuations in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus assessed using continuous glucose monitoring

AIM

To assess whether there is a difference in the effects of vildagliptin and glimepiride on glucose fluctuation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

METHODS

This was an open-label, randomized cross-over study conducted in T2DM patients. A total of 24 patients (age: 58.3 ± 5.56 years, baseline HbA1c: 7.6 ± 0.50%) who were on stable metformin monotherapy (500-3000 mg) were enrolled, and all completed the study. Each patient received two 5-day treatments (vildagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. or glimepiride 2 mg q.d.) in a cross-over manner. Various biomarkers and blood glucose concentrations were measured following breakfast. The 24-h glucose profiles were also measured using the CGM device at baseline and after 5 days of treatment, and fluctuations in glucose levels were estimated from CGM data.

RESULTS

Both vildagliptin and glimepiride reduced postprandial glucose levels, based on both CGM data (15% vs. 16%) and measured plasma glucose (13% vs.17%). Vildagliptin showed lower glucose fluctuations than glimepiride as measured by mean amplitude of glycaemic excursions (MAGE, p = 0.1076), standard deviation (s.d., p = 0.1346) of blood glucose rate of change, but did not reach statistical significance attributed to the small sample size. MAGE was reduced by ∼20% with vildagliptin versus glimepiride. Vildagliptin led to statistically significant lowering of the rate of change in the median curve (RCMC) and interquartile range (IQR) of glucose. Treatment with vildagliptin significantly increased the levels of active glucagon-like peptide-1 by 2.36-fold (p ≤ 0.0001) and suppressed glucagon by 8% (p = 0.01), whereas glimepiride significantly increased the levels of insulin and C-peptide by 21% (p = 0.012) and 12% (p = 0.003), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin treatment was associated with less fluctuation of glucose levels than glimepiride treatment as assessed by 24-h CGM device, suggesting vildagliptin may have the potential to offer long-term beneficial effects for patients with T2DM in preventing the development of complications of diabetes.

Effect of vildagliptin on glucose and insulin concentrations during a 24-hour period in type 2 diabetes patients with different ranges of baseline hemoglobin A1c levels

BACKGROUND

Currently, it is still unknown whether differences in glycemic control have any effect on glucose and insulin kinetics after vildagliptin administration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of vildagliptin on glucose and insulin concentrations during a 24-h period in type 2 diabetes patients with different ranges of baseline hemoglobin A1c (A1C) levels.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled clinical trial was carried out in 12 drug-naive adult volunteers with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity. Subjects had fasting glucose values between 7.2 and 13.3 mmol/L. Six patients had A1C between 7.0% and 8.4% (Group A), and the remaining subjects had A1C between 8.5% and 10.0% (Group B). Patients received oral administration of vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) or placebo in a crossover manner for two consecutive days. Until the second day of the interventions, glucose and insulin concentrations were measured every hour during a 24-h period, and areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated. Statistical analyses were evaluated with Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

There were significant decreases in glucose concentrations after vildagliptin administration in both groups when comparing placebo in all measurements throughout the 24-h period and in the AUC. There were no significant changes in insulin concentration in both groups after vildagliptin administration when comparing placebo in all measurements throughout the 24-h period and in the AUC.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin administration improved glucose control during a 24-h period in type 2 diabetes patients, independent of the basal A1C level, without changes in insulin levels.

Predictive clinical parameters and glycemic efficacy of vildagliptin treatment in korean subjects with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study are to investigate the glycemic efficacy and predictive parameters of vildagliptin therapy in Korean subjects with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we retrieved data for subjects who were on twice-daily 50 mg vildagliptin for at least 6 months, and classified the subjects into five treatment groups. In three of the groups, we added vildagliptin to their existing medication regimen; in the other two groups, we replaced one of their existing medications with vildagliptin. We then analyzed the changes in glucose parameters and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 327 subjects were analyzed in this study. Vildagliptin significantly improved hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels over 6 months. The changes in HbA1c levels (ΔHbA1c) at month 6 were -2.24% (P=0.000), -0.77% (P=0.000), -0.80% (P=0.001), -0.61% (P=0.000), and -0.34% (P=0.025) for groups 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, with significance. We also found significant decrements in fasting plasma glucose levels in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 (P<0.05). Of the variables, initial HbA1c levels (P=0.032) and history of sulfonylurea use (P=0.026) were independently associated with responsiveness to vildagliptin treatment.

CONCLUSION

Vildagliptin was effective when it was used in subjects with poor glycemic control. It controlled fasting plasma glucose levels as well as sulfonylurea treatment in Korean type 2 diabetic subjects.

Glimepiride: evidence-based facts, trends, and observations (GIFTS). [corrected]

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is characterized by insulin resistance and progressive β cell failure; therefore, β cell secretagogues are useful for achieving sufficient glycemic control. Glimepiride is a second-generation sulfonylurea that stimulates pancreatic β cells to release insulin. Additionally, is has been shown to work via several extra pancreatic mechanisms. It is administered as monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in whom glycemic control is not achieved by dietary and lifestyle modifications. It can also be combined with other antihyperglycemic agents, including metformin and insulin, in patients who are not adequately controlled by sulfonylureas alone. The effective dosage range is 1 to 8 mg/day; however, there is no significant difference between 4 and 8 mg/day, but it should be used with caution in the elderly and in patients with renal or hepatic disease. In clinical studies, glimepiride was generally associated with lower risk of hypoglycemia and less weight gain compared to other sulfonylureas. Glimepiride use may be safer in patients with cardiovascular disease because of its lack of detrimental effects on ischemic preconditioning. It is effective in reducing fasting plasma glucose, post-prandial glucose, and glycosylated hemoglobin levels and is a useful, cost-effective treatment option for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus.