Comparison of Vildagliptin and Pioglitazone in Korean Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with Metformin

Factors contributing to the adverse drug reactions associated with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors: A scoping review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Adverse drug reactions are one of the contributors to increased hospital admission and length of hospital stay. Among the various antidiabetic agents prescribed, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have gained wide recognition and shown more persistence than other novel hypoglycemic agents. We performed a scoping review to identify the risk factors contributing to the adverse drug reactions with DPP-4 inhibitors.

METHODOLOGY

We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) Guidelines for reporting the findings. Data sources such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane were assessed. We included studies that reported the risk factors contributing to the DPP-4 inhibitor-associated adverse drug reactions. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies.

RESULTS

Of the 6406 studies retrieved, 11 studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these 11 studies, seven were post-marketing surveillance studies, one nested case-control study, one comparator cohort study, one food and drug administration (FDA) adverse event reporting system (FAERS)-based observational study, and one questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey study. A total of eight factors were identified that contributed to the DPP-4 inhibitor-associated adverse drug reactions.

CONCLUSION

The included studies suggested age >65 years, females, grade 4 and 5 renal impairment, concomitant drugs, disease and drug therapy duration, liver disease, non-smokers, and non-hypertension as risk factors. Further studies should be conducted to provide insight into these risk factors so that the appropriate use of DPP-4 inhibitors in the diabetic population can be encouraged to improve the health-related quality of life.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42022308764.

A double-blind, Randomized controlled trial on glucose-lowering EFfects and safety of adding 0.25 or 0.5 mg lobeglitazone in type 2 diabetes patients with INadequate control on metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor therapy: REFIND study

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of adding low-dose lobeglitazone (0.25 mg/day) or standard-dose lobeglitazone (0.5 mg/day) to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with inadequate glucose control on metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP4) inhibitor therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase 4, multicentre, double-blind, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial, patients with T2DM insufficiently controlled by metformin and DPP4 inhibitor combination therapy were randomized to receive either low-dose or standard-dose lobeglitazone. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of low-dose lobeglitazone in terms of glycaemic control, expressed as the difference in mean glycated haemoglobin levels at week 24 relative to baseline values and compared with standard-dose lobeglitazone, using 0.5% non-inferiority margin.

RESULTS

At week 24, the mean glycated haemoglobin levels were 6.87 ± 0.54% and 6.68 ± 0.46% in low-dose and standard-dose lobeglitazone groups, respectively (p = .031). The between-group difference was 0.18% (95% confidence interval 0.017-0.345), showing non-inferiority of the low-dose lobeglitazone. Mean body weight changes were significantly greater in the standard-dose group (1.36 ± 2.23 kg) than in the low-dose group (0.50 ± 1.85 kg) at week 24. The changes in HOMA-IR, lipid profile and liver enzyme levels showed no significant difference between the groups. Overall treatment-emergent adverse events (including weight gain, oedema and hypoglycaemia) occurred more frequently in the standard-dose group.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding low-dose lobeglitazone to metformin and DPP4 inhibitor combination resulted in a non-inferior glucose-lowering outcome and fewer adverse events compared with standard-dose lobeglitazone. Therefore, low-dose lobeglitazone might be one option for individualized strategy in patients with T2DM.

The rs12617336 and rs17574 Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Polymorphisms Are Associated With Hypoalphalipoproteinemia and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Serum Levels: A Case-Control Study of the Genetics of Atherosclerotic Disease (GEA) Cohort

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) can influence lipid homeostasis and atherosclerosis progression. We aimed to assess the association of DPP4 gene polymorphisms with hypoalphalipoproteinemia and DPP4 serum levels, in a cohort of Mexican individuals. Five DPP4 polymorphisms (rs12617336, rs12617656, rs1558957, and rs3788979, and rs17574) were genotyped in 748 participants with and 745 without hypoalphalipoproteinemia. The associations were evaluated using logistic regression analyses. Under inheritance models adjusted for confounding variables, the rs12617336 (OR = 0.22, P heterozygote = 0.001) and rs17574 (OR = 0.78, P additive = 0.022; OR = 0.73, P dominant = 0.012; OR = 0.73, P heterozygote = 0.017; OR = 0.72, P codominant 1 = 0.014) minor alleles were associated with a low risk of hypoalphalipoproteinemia. After the correction for multiple comparisons, the associations were marginal except the association of the rs12617336 that remaining significant. Additionally, both DPP4 minor alleles were associated with protection for the presence of insulin resistance (IR) (OR = 0.17, P heterozygote = 0.019 for rs12617336 and OR = 0.75, P additive = 0.049 for rs17574). The rs12617336 minor allele was also associated with a low risk of hyperinsulinemia (OR = 0.11, P heterozygote = 0.006). Differences in DPP4 levels were observed in individuals with rs17574 genotypes, the rs17574 GG genotype individuals had the lowest levels. Our data suggest that rs12617336 and rs17574 DPP4 minor alleles could be envisaged as protective genetic markers for hypoalphalipoproteinemia, IR, and hyperinsulinemia. The rs17574 GG genotype was associated with the lowest DPP4 levels.

Reduction in HbA1c with SGLT2 inhibitors vs. DPP-4 inhibitors as add-ons to metformin monotherapy according to baseline HbA1c: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

This study compared the reduction of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) with sodium-glucose cotransporter type-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) as add-ons to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with a specific focus on HbA1c changes according to baseline HbA1c.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were scrutinized for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the reduction of HbA1c from baseline (Δ HbA1c) with an SGLT2i or DPP-4i in patients with T2DM not well controlled by metformin monotherapy. The endpoint was Δ HbA1c using both indirect and direct comparisons.

RESULTS

Overall, Δ HbA1c was slightly greater with SGLT2is (-0.80±0.20% from 8.03±0.35%; 44 analyses, 29 RCTs, 15 with two doses, n=9321) than with DPP-4is (-0.71±0.23% from 8.05±0.43%; 61 analyses, 59 RCTs, n=17,914; P=0.0354). When the mean baseline HbA1c was<8% ([64mmol/mol] 7.79±0.15% vs. 7.71±0.23%), Δ HbA1c averaged -0.735±0.17% vs. -0.62±0.16% (P=0.0117) with SGLT2is vs. DPP-4is, respectively. However, this difference vanished when the mean baseline HbA1c was≥8% (-0.87±0.22% from 8.27±0.32% with SGLT2is vs. -0.80±0.24% from 8.35±0.33% with DPP-4is; P=0.2756). The relationship between Δ HbA1c and baseline HbA1c was only slightly stronger with SGLT2is (slope: -0.39, r²=-0.43; P<0.0001) than with DPP-4is (slope: -0.26, r²=-0.25; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Because of the small difference in Δ HbA1c whatever the baseline HbA1c level with SGLT2is vs. DPP-4is as add-ons to metformin, choosing between these glucose-lowering agents in clinical practice should be based on other efficacy criteria (such as weight and blood pressure changes, cardiovascular and renal protection) or on safety profiles rather than on HbA1c levels.

Safety and efficacy of low dose pioglitazone compared with standard dose pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes with chronic kidney disease: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Choices of hypoglycemic agents for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are limited. Available data among patients with CKD suggest that pioglitazone was effective and safe, with no increase in serious adverse effects. However, weight gain and fluid retention are major clinical problems for pioglitazone among patients with CKD. We conducted this study to compare the efficacy and side effects of low dose pioglitazone with standard dose pioglitazone among patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

Methods

A total of 75 patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD and inadequate glycemic control receiving any pharmacological antidiabetic treatment were randomly assigned to 2 groups. One group consisted of 37 patients treated with standard dose pioglitazone (15 mg/day) and another group consisted of 38 patients treated with low dose pioglitazone (7.5 mg/day). Glycosylated hemoglobinA1c (HbA1c) and metabolic profiles were monitored every 8 weeks for 24 weeks. Body composition was assessed using bio-electrical impedance analysis (BIA).

Results

After 6 months of therapy, HbA1c levels decreased in both standard and low dose pioglitazone groups. The mean changes in HbA1c for standard and low dose pioglitazone were 1.1±1.6 and -1.4±1.5 (P = 0.543), respectively. Compared with low dose pioglitazone, standard dose pioglitazone treatment led to a greater increase in body weight, fat mass, total body water and extracellular water composition. No major adverse effects including hypoglycemia, congestive heart failure and abnormal liver function were identified.

Conclusion

Pioglitazone 7.5 mg once daily treatments presented similar glycemic control to standard dose pioglitazone and exhibited beneficial effects on weight gain and fluid retention among patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD.

Comparative Cardiovascular Risks of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors: Analyses of Real-world Data in Korea

Background and Objectives

To compare cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk associated with 5 different dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) in people with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

We identified 534,327 people who were newly prescribed sitagliptin (n=167,157), vildagliptin (n=67,412), saxagliptin (n=29,479), linagliptin (n=220,672), or gemigliptin (n=49,607) between January 2013 and June 2015 using the claims database of the Korean National Health Insurance System. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for major CVD events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or death) among users of different DPP-4is. The model was adjusted for sex, age, duration of DPP-4i use, use of other glucose-lowering drugs, use of antiplatelet agents, hypertension, dyslipidemia, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, microvascular complications of diabetes, Charlson comorbidity index, and the calendar index year as potential confounders.

Results

Compared to sitagliptin users, the fully adjusted HRs for CVD events were 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94–1.01; p=0.163) for vildagliptin, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71–0.81; p<0.001) for saxagliptin, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.98; p<0.001) for linagliptin, and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80–0.88; p<0.001) for gemigliptin.

Conclusions

Compared to sitagliptin therapy, saxagliptin, linagliptin, and gemigliptin therapies were all associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events.

Antihyperglycemic agent therapy for adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus 2017: a position statement of the Korean Diabetes Association

In 2017, the Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) published a position statement on the use of antihyperglycemic agents for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The KDA regularly updates its Clinical Practice Guidelines, but since the last update in 2015, many results from clinical trials have been introduced, and domestic data from studies performed in Korean patients with T2DM have been published. Recently, evidence from large clinical studies assessing cardiovascular outcomes following the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in patients with T2DM were incorporated into the recommendations. Additionally, new data from clinical trials using dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and thiazolidinediones in Korean patients with T2DM were added. Following a systematic review and assessment of recent evidence, the KDA updated and modified its clinical practice recommendations regarding the use of antihyperglycemic agents and revised the treatment algorithm for Korean adult patients with T2DM.

Combination therapy of oral hypoglycemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) recently updated the Clinical Practice Guidelines on antihyperglycemic agent therapy for adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In combination therapy of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), general recommendations were not changed from those of the 2015 KDA guidelines. The Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines of the KDA has extensively reviewed and discussed the results of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of effectiveness and safety of OHAs and many clinical trials on Korean patients with T2DM for the update of guidelines. All OHAs were effective when added to metformin or metformin and sulfonylurea, although the effects of each agent on body weight and hypoglycemia were different. Therefore, selection of a second agent as a metformin add-on therapy or third agent as a metformin and sulfonylurea add-on therapy should be based on the patient's clinical characteristics and the efficacy, side effects, mechanism of action, risk of hypoglycemia, effect on body weight, patient preference, and combined comorbidity. In this review, we address the results of meta-analyses and systematic reviews, comparing the effectiveness and safety among OHAs. It will help to choose the appropriate drug for an individual patient with T2DM.

Antihyperglycemic Agent Therapy for Adult Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus 2017: A Position Statement of the Korean Diabetes Association

In 2017, the Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) published a position statement on the use of antihyperglycemic agents for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The KDA regularly updates its Clinical Practice Guidelines, but since the last update in 2015, many results from clinical trials have been introduced, and domestic data from studies performed in Korean patients with T2DM have been published. Recently, evidence from large clinical studies assessing cardiovascular outcomes following the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in patients with T2DM were incorporated into the recommendations. Additionally, new data from clinical trials using dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and thiazolidinediones in Korean patients with T2DM were added. Following a systematic review and assessment of recent evidence, the KDA updated and modified its clinical practice recommendations regarding the use of antihyperglycemic agents and revised the treatment algorithm for Korean adult patients with T2DM.

Combination Therapy of Oral Hypoglycemic Agents in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) recently updated the Clinical Practice Guidelines on antihyperglycemic agent therapy for adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In combination therapy of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), general recommendations were not changed from those of the 2015 KDA guidelines. The Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines of the KDA has extensively reviewed and discussed the results of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of effectiveness and safety of OHAs and many clinical trials on Korean patients with T2DM for the update of guidelines. All OHAs were effective when added to metformin or metformin and sulfonylurea, although the effects of each agent on body weight and hypoglycemia were different. Therefore, selection of a second agent as a metformin add-on therapy or third agent as a metformin and sulfonylurea add-on therapy should be based on the patient's clinical characteristics and the efficacy, side effects, mechanism of action, risk of hypoglycemia, effect on body weight, patient preference, and combined comorbidity. In this review, we address the results of meta-analyses and systematic reviews, comparing the effectiveness and safety among OHAs. It will help to choose the appropriate drug for an individual patient with T2DM.

Efficacy and safety of adding evogliptin versus sitagliptin for metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: A 24-week randomized, controlled trial with open label extension

AIMS

This trial consisted of a 24-week multicentre, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled study and a 52-week open label extension study to assess the efficacy and safety of evogliptin, a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared to sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control with metformin alone.

METHODS

Adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (N = 222) with HbA1c 6.5% to 11% who were receiving stable doses of metformin (≥1000 mg/d) were randomized 1:1 to add-on evogliptin 5 mg (N = 112) or sitagliptin 100 mg (N = 110) once daily for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy analysis consisted of a comparison of the change from baseline HbA1c at week 24. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the HbA1c difference between treatments was <0.35%.

RESULTS

Mean changes in HbA1c following addition of evogliptin or sitagliptin were -0.59% and -0.65%, respectively. The between-group difference was 0.06% (2-sided 95% confidence interval, -0.10 to 0.22), demonstrating non-inferiority. After the 52-week treatment, evogliptin caused a persistently decreased level of HbA1c (-0.44% ± 0.65%, P  < .0001). In general, both treatments were well tolerated, with incidences and types of adverse events comparable between the two groups. Hypoglycaemic events, mostly mild, were reported in 0.9% of patients treated with evogliptin and in 2.8% of patients treated with sitagliptin for 24 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Evogliptin 5 mg added to metformin therapy effectively improved glycaemic control and was non-inferior to sitagliptin and well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that was inadequately controlled by metformin alone.