Efficacy and Safety of Teneligliptin in Indian Patients with Inadequately Controlled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized, Double-blind Study

Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

As a popular antidiabetic drug, teneligliptin has been used for over 10 years, but its efficacy and safety have rarely been systematically evaluated. Therefore, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing teneligliptin with placebo or active comparators in T2DM patients for at least 12 weeks were included in the study. Data analysis was performed using R 4.2.3 and Stata 17.0 software. Each outcome was presented as a mean difference (MD) or an odds ratio (OR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value (SUCRA).

Results

A total of 18 RCTs with 3,290 participants with T2DM were included in this study. Generally, compared to placebo, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, and bromocriptine, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.78 [-0.86 to -0.70], -0.08 [-0.36 to 0.19], -0.04 [-0.72 to 0.60], -0.12 [-0.65 to 0.42], and -0.50 [-0.74 to -0.26], respectively) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (MD [95% CI], -18.02 [-20.64 to -15.13], 1.17 [-9.39 to 11.70], -8.06 [-30.95 to 14.35], -2.75 [-18.89 to 13.01], and -34.23 [-45.93 to -22.96], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin also showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.84 [-1.03 to -0.65], -0.15 [-0.49 to 0.19], -0.10 [-0.81 to 0.57], -0.18 [-0.76 to 0.39], and -0.56 [-0.88 to -0.26], respectively) and FPG (MD [95% CI], -20.40 [-26.07 to -14.57], -1.20 [-13.21 to 10.38], -10.43 [-34.16 to 12.65], -5.13 [-22.21 to 11.66], and -36.61 [-49.33 to -24.01], respectively). Compared to placebo, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidences of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal adverse events (OR [95% CI], 1.30 [0.70 to 2.19] and 1.48 [0.78 to 2.98], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia (OR [95% CI], 2.63 [0.46 to 8.10]). Generally, antidiabetic effect and hypoglycemia risk of teneligliptin gradually increased as its dose increased from 5 mg to 40 mg. Compared to 20 mg of teneligliptin, 40 mg of teneligliptin showed superior efficacy and no-inferior safety, which was considered as the best option in reducing HbA1c, FPG, and 2h PPG and increasing proportion of the patients achieving HbA1c < 7% (SUCRA, 85.51%, 84.24%, 79.06%, and 85.81%, respectively) among all the included interventions.

Conclusion

Compared to sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, bromocriptine, and placebo, teneligliptin displayed favorable efficacy and acceptable safety in treating T2DM. Twenty milligrams or 40 mg per day was the optimal dosage regimen of teneligliptin. The results of this study will provide important evidence-based basis for rational use of teneligliptin and clinical decision-making of T2DM medication.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There are efficacy and safety concerns related to teneligliptin treatment. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken to comprehensively profile the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Thirteen studies were chosen from a search of scientific databases for RCTs using teneligliptin as a monotherapy or as an adjunct to other glycemic agents with pre-specified inclusion criteria. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in each included trial and pooled the data using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies enrolled 2853 patients were identified. Teneligliptin treatment was associated with weight gain (vs. placebo, weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.28 kg; 95% CI - 0.20-0.77 kg; I² = 86%; P = 0.25). Compared to monotherapy, add on therapy with teneligliptin showed significant improvement in FPG mg/dl levels (WMD - 16.75 mg/dl; 95% CI - 19.38 to - 14.13 mg/dl), HOMA-β (WMD 7.91; 95% CI 5.38-10.45) and HOMA-IR (WMD - 0.27; 95% CI - 0.46 to - 0.07). The improvement in HbA1c was greater with monotherapy (WMD - 8.88 mmol/mol; 95% CI - 9.59 to - 8.08 mmol/mol). There was no significant risk of any hypoglycemia with teneligliptin compared to placebo (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.44-1.60; I² = 0%; P = 0.60). However, the risk was 1.84 times high when combined with other glycemic agents. The risk of cardiovascular events was comparable, regardless of treatment duration when compared to placebo or any other active comparator (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.40-1.57; I² = 0%; P = 0.50). [PROSPERO, CRD42022360785].

CONCLUSIONS

Teneligliptin is an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with T2DM, both as monotherapy and as add-on therapy. However, additional large-scale, high-quality, long-term follow-up clinical trials with diverse ethnic populations are required to confirm its long-term efficacy and safety.

QTc prolongation Safety and Effectiveness of Teneligliptin in Indian patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A real world study (QSET 2)

AIMS

To evaluate the safety with respect to QTc prolongation and effectiveness of Teneligliptin in Indian Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients.

METHODS

Retrospective data of T2DM patients on teneligliptin 20 mg or 40 mg once daily as a monotherapy or add-on therapy and having ECG records (before and after teneligliptin initiation) was collected. Safety was evaluated by change in QTc interval and effectiveness was evaluated by changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), and haemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) from baseline to 12-weeks.

RESULTS

There was no significant change in mean QTc interval from baseline [418.68 milli seconds (ms) to 419 ms; mean change +0.33 ms; P = 0.1023] to follow up visit (mean duration 91 days). There was a significant reduction from baseline to 12 weeks in FPG [173.1 mg/dl (9.61 mmol/L) to 128.4 mg/dl (7.12 mmol/L), mean change - 44.64 mg/dl (2.47 mmol/L), P ≤ 0.001], PPG [242.5 mg/dl (13.46 mmol/L) to 176.5 mg/dl (9.79 mmol/L), mean change - 65.93 mg/dl (3.66 mmol/L), P ≤ 0.001], and HbA1c [8.2% (66 mmol/mol) to 7.2% (55 mmol/mol), mean change - 1.00% (10.9 mmol/mol), P ≤ 0.001].

CONCLUSION

Teneligliptin did not cause QTc interval prolongation and was significantly effective in improving glycemic control.

Age, sex, disease severity, and disease duration difference in placebo response: implications from a meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The placebo response in patients with diabetes mellitus is very common. A systematic evaluation needs to be updated with the current evidence about the placebo response in diabetes mellitus and the associated factors in clinical trials of anti-diabetic medicine.

METHODS

Literature research was conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published between the date of inception and June 2019. Randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in type 1and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) were included. Random-effects model and meta-regression analysis were accordingly used. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42014009373.

RESULTS

Significantly weight elevation (effect size (ES) = 0.33 kg, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.61 kg) was observed in patients with placebo treatments in T1DM subgroup while significantly HbA1c reduction (ES = - 0.12%, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.07%) and weight reduction (ES = - 0.40 kg, 95% CI, - 0.50 to - 0.29 kg) were observed in patients with placebo treatments in T2DM subgroup. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in patients with injectable placebo treatments (ES = - 0.22%, 95% CI, - 0.32 to - 0.11%) versus oral types (ES = - 0.09%, 95% CI, - 0.14 to - 0.04%) in T2DM (P = 0.03). Older age (β = - 0.01, 95% CI, - 0.02 to - 0.01, P < 0.01) and longer diabetes duration (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.03 to - 0.21 × 10^-2, P = 0.03) was significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T1DM. However, younger age (β = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.01), lower male percentage (β = 0.01, 95% CI, 0.22 × 10^-2, 0.01, P < 0.01), higher baseline BMI (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.04 to - 0.26 × 10^-2, P = 0.02), and higher baseline HbA1c (β = - 0.09, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.01, P = 0.02) were significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T2DM. Shorter diabetes duration (β = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.10, P < 0.01) was significantly associated with more weight reduction by placebo in T2DM. However, the associations between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response were insignificant after the adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The placebo response in diabetes mellitus was systematically outlined. Age, sex, disease severity (indirectly reflected by baseline BMI and baseline HbA1c), and disease duration were associated with placebo response in diabetes mellitus. The association between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response may be the result of regression to the mean.

Teneligliptin Real-World Effectiveness Assessment in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in India: A Retrospective Analysis (TREAT-INDIA 2)

INTRODUCTION

Teneligliptin is an antidiabetic medication that has been approved for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan, South Korea and India. It is one of the most commonly prescribed antihyperglycaemic agents. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of teneligliptin in improving glycemic control amongst Indian patients with T2DM in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study in which a predesigned structured proforma was used to collect information from hospital records of 18 medical centres across India. All participating centres were established primary care hospitals with adequate record keeping, a pre-determined condition in the study design. Data were collected during the period of January 2019 to June 2019. Data extracted from patient records, including glycaemic parameters, concomitant drugs, drug dosage and duration, were collated. The effectiveness of teneligliptin was assessed by analyzing the mean change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and post-prandial plasma glucose (PPG) at 12 weeks after initiation of teneligliptin.

RESULTS

Data from 10,623 patients were available for analysis. The mean age of the enrolled patients was 51.86 ± 11.76 years. At 12 weeks after initiation of teneligliptin as monotherapy or add-on to other medications (combination therapy), the patients showed a signficant decrease from baseline in mean HbA1c, FPG and PPG. Mean HbA1c dropped from 8.66 ± 1.15% at baseline to 7.67 ± 1.28% at 12 weeks (71 ± 12.6 to 60 ± 14 mmol/mol), with a difference of - 0.99% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.02) or - 10.8 (95% CI 10.5-11.1) mmol/mol (p < 0.0001). The mean reductions in FPG and PPG were 43.12 mg/dL (2.39 mmol/L) and 87.73 mg/dL (4.87 mmol/L) (both p < 0.0001) respectively. HbA1c (%) reductions with teneligliptin when used as add-on to metformin, add-on to metformin + sulfonylurea combination and add-on to metformin + sulfonylurea + alpha glucosidase inhibitor combination were 0.76% (8.3 mmol/mol), 1.24% (13.6 mmol/mol) and 1.04% (11.4 mmol/mol), respectively. Teneligliptin also significantly reduced HbA1c (1.13% or 12.4 mmol/mol, p < 0.0001) in patients with impaired renal function, without worsening the estimated glomerular filtration rate. Teneligliptin consistently reduced HbA1c across all three age categories tested-by 1% (10.9 mmol/mol) in patients aged < 60 years, by 1.15% (12.6 mmol/mol) in patients aged 60-75 years and by 0.88% (9.6 mmol/mol) in patients aged > 75 years.

CONCLUSION

Teneligliptin significantly improved glycaemic parameters in Indian patients with T2DM when prescribed either as monotherapy or as an add-on to one or more other commonly prescribed antihyperglycaemic agents.

Risk of any hypoglycaemia with newer antihyperglycaemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

For patients with type 2 diabetes, newer antihyperglycaemic agents (AHA), including the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) offer a lower risk of hypoglycaemia relative to sulfonylurea or insulin. However, it is not clear how AHA compare to placebo on risk of any hypoglycaemia. This study evaluates the risk of any and severe hypoglycaemia with AHA and metformin relative to placebo.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized, placebo-controlled trials ≥12 weeks in duration. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to April 16, 2019. Studies allowing use of other diabetes medications were excluded. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals were used to pool estimates based on class of AHA and number of concomitant therapies used.

PATIENTS

Eligible studies enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes ≥18 years of age.

RESULTS

144 studies met our inclusion criteria. Any hypoglycaemia was not increased with AHA when used as monotherapy (DPP4i (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.81-1.56), GLP1RA (1.77; 0.91-3.46), SGLT2i (1.34; 0.83-2.15)), or as add-on to metformin (DPP4i (0.95; 0.67-1.35), GLP1RA (1.24; 0.80-1.91), SGLT2i (1.29; 0.91-1.83)) or as triple therapy (1.13; 0.67-1.91). However, metformin monotherapy (1.73; 1.02-2.94) and dual therapy initiation (3.56; 1.79-7.10) was associated with an increased risk of any hypoglycaemia. Severe hypoglycaemia was rare not increased for any comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin and the simultaneous initiation of dual therapy, but not AHA used alone or as single add-on combination therapy, was associated with an increased risk of any hypoglycaemia relative to placebo.