Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in clinical practice-results of the PROVIL-study

Fabrication and evaluation of chondroitin sulfate based hydrogels loaded with chitosan nanoparticles for oral delivery of vildagliptin

Vildagliptin is a drug of choice in type II diabetes mellitus that suffers from limitations like short half-life with reduced bioavailability. To improve the therapeutic performance of vildagliptin, this study aimed to synthesize chitosan nanoparticles (NPs) loaded hydrogel by using biological polysaccharides like sodium alginate (SA) and chondroitin sulfate (CS). The NPs were prepared by ionic gelation method and various characterization tests like surface morphology, size and zeta potential, entrapment efficiency, and in-vitro drug release studies were performed. Results indicated that NPs were round in geometry with an average particle size of 213 nm, having drug encapsulation efficiency of 65 % and controlled drug release within 6-8 h. The optimized NPs (F2) loaded hydrogel showed a good dynamic swelling with gel fraction of 96 %. The hydrogels released 96 % of vildagliptin in 72 h via a non-Fickian diffusion mechanism. The optimized formulation was thermally stable. Formulation showed greater swelling at slight basic pH 7.4 as compared to acidic medium. Moreover, acute toxicity study results demonstrated that the developed NPs loaded hydrogel were safe for oral delivery. The overall results suggested that vildagliptin-loaded NPs loaded hydrogel can serve as an alternative novel dosage form for oral controlled drug delivery.

Sustained-Release Vildagliptin 100 mg in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Review

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) were introduced into the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as they are insulinotropic and have no inherent risk of hypoglycemia and no effect on body weight. Currently, 11 drugs in this class are available for the management of diabetes. Although they have a similar mechanism of action, they differ from one other in their binding mechanisms, which influences their therapeutic and pharmacological profiles. Vildagliptin's overall safety and tolerability profile was comparable to placebo throughout clinical studies, and real-world data in a large group of T2DM patients corroborated this finding. Therefore, DPP4Is like vildagliptin is a secure alternative for treating patients with T2DM. Vildagliptin treatment given as a once-daily (QD) 100 mg sustained release (SR) formulation fits the criteria of adherence and compliance. This SR formulation, given once daily has the potential to provide glycemic control like the vildagliptin 50 mg twice-daily (BD) formulation. This comprehensive review discusses the journey of vildagliptin as 50 mg BD therapy as well as 100 mg SR QD therapy.

Efficacy / safety balance of DPP-4 inhibitors versus SGLT2 inhibitors in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) offer new options for the oral management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with the advantage in the elderly population to be devoid of a high risk of hypoglycaemia. SGLT2is have also shown benefits regarding cardiovascular (heart failure) and renal protection, including in patients with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years while DPP-4is have only proved cardiovascular and renal safety without superiority compared with placebo. The glucose-lowering efficacy of the two pharmacological classes is almost similar including in older patients with T2DM. However, the tolerance and safety profile may be highly different and overall more favourable with DPP-4is than with SGLT2is. Some adverse events have been reported with SGLT2is which may be more prevalent or severe in older patients than in younger patients. The present comprehensive review focuses on the benefit/risk balance in the elderly population with T2DM by comparing the profile of DPP-4is and SGLT2is regarding the following potential issues: metabolic disorders (hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis); cardiac and vascular issues (atheromatous cardiovascular disease, heart failure, volume reduction hypotension, and lower limb amputations); renal endpoints including acute renal injury; risk of infections; digestive disorders; bone and skin adverse events; and cancer risk. Both DPP-4is and SGLT2is have their own advantages and disadvantages. Personalised treatment is recommended based upon the efficacy/safety profile of each drug class and individual patient characteristics that may be markedly different among the heterogeneous population of older individuals with T2DM.

Careful use to minimize adverse events of oral antidiabetic medications in the elderly

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of older patients has type 2 diabetes treated with different oral antidiabetic agents whose safety may raise concern considering some particularities of a heterogeneous elderly population.

AREAS COVERED

This article discusses some characteristics of older patients that could increase the risk of adverse events, with a focus on hypoglycemia. It describes the most frequent and/or severe complications reported in the elderly in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies with metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (gliptins) and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (gliflozins).

EXPERT OPINION

Old patients may present comorbidities (renal impairment, vascular disease, heart failure, risk of dehydration, osteoporosis, cognitive dysfunction) that could increase the risk of severe adverse events. Sulfonylureas (and meglitinides) induce hypoglycemia, which may be associated with falls/fractures and cardiovascular events. Medications lacking hypoglycemia should be preferred. Gliptins appear to have the best tolerance/safety profile whereas gliflozins exert a cardiorenal protection. However, data are lacking in very old or frailty old patients so that caution and appropriate supervision of such patients are required. Taking advantage of a large choice of pharmacotherapies, personalized treatment is recommended based upon both drug safety profiles and old patient individual characteristics.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Vildagliptin and the Single Pill Combination of Vildagliptin and Metformin in "Real-World" Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: The G-FORCE Study

INTRODUCTION

Randomized clinical trials showed that vildagliptin is well tolerated and leads to clinically meaningful decreases in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) both in monotherapy and as add-on therapy in inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. Nevertheless, there is an increased interest for real-life studies to confirm the clinical trial findings in the setting of a daily clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of vildagliptin in a real-life clinical setting and to explore factors determining drug adherence and T2DM management.

METHODS

G-FORCE was a prospective, observational, open-label, multi-center study in which T2DM patients were prescribed de novo vildagliptin. Clinical effectiveness was determined by changes in HbA1c and FPG and by the proportion of patients reaching glycemic goal. Data were collected at baseline, after 105 ± 15 days and after 180 ± 15 days.

RESULTS

A total of 1230 patients were included in this analysis. Mean age was 63.9 ± 10.8 years, and mean HbA1c and FPG levels were 8.2 ± 1.3% and 171.0 ± 53.3 mg/dL, respectively. At 180 days of treatment, HbA1c and FPG levels decreased to 7.2 ± 1.0% and 141.1 ± 44.0 mg/dL, respectively, while the proportion of patients reaching HbA1c and FPG goals rose from 8.6 to 44.6% and from 14.2 to 42.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this real-world study, vildagliptin was an effective and safe treatment for T2DM patients already treated with metformin, while the single pill combination of vildagliptin and metformin provides a convenient alternative while ensuring comparable effectiveness and tolerability.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma.

Effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin and vildagliptin add-on to metformin in real-world settings in Egypt - results from the GUARD study

OBJECTIVE

The GUARD study evaluated the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of vildagliptin treatment with or without metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in real-life settings. Here we present the results of the GUARD study for the patient subset from Egypt.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a 24 ± 6 weeks, prospective, non-interventional study that enrolled adult patients with T2DM receiving vildagliptin or vildagliptin + metformin combination therapy as per local prescribing information.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary effectiveness endpoint was change in HbA1c levels from baseline to week 24 ± 6 endpoint. Safety was assessed by reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs).

RESULTS

Of 2786 patients enrolled from Egypt, 655 received vildagliptin and 2131 received vildagliptin + metformin. Overall, at baseline, mean (± standard deviation [SD]) age was 49.5 ± 9.49 years, BMI was 31.5 ± 4.85 kg/m², HbA1c was 8.4 ± 0.86%, and duration of T2DM was 2.3 ± 3.78 years. At week 24, significant reductions in mean (±SD) HbA1c were observed in the vildagliptin (-1.47 ± 0.79%) and vildagliptin + metformin (-1.62 ± 0.82%) groups (both p < 0.0001) from baseline HbA1c of 8.1% and 8.4%, respectively. At week 24, 67.5% patients in the vildagliptin group and 60.5% in the vildagliptin + metformin group achieved HbA1c ≤7.0%. Treatment with vildagliptin (± metformin) was well tolerated, with a low incidence of hypoglycemia in both groups (vildagliptin, 0.5%; vildagliptin + metformin, 0.6%). No SAEs or deaths were reported in the vildagliptin group; however, 0.2% of patients experienced SAEs and one death (accidental death) was reported in the vildagliptin + metformin group.

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, vildagliptin, with or without metformin, resulted in significant reductions in HbA1c and was well tolerated in patients with T2DM from Egypt. Limitations of the study include non-randomization and the open-label, observational nature of the study.

Vildagliptin efficacy in combination with metformin among Jordanian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin added to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Methods: This was a 12-week prospective observational study where vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily was added to patients with T2DM inadequately controlled (glycosylated hemoglobin type A1c (Hba1c) 7–10%) by a daily dose of metformin ≥1700 mg between June 2012 and May 2013. Efficacy was assessed by change in Hba1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels, and safety was assessed by reported adverse events (AEs).

Results: A total of 58 patients were enrolled in this study. Their age ranged between 39.0 and 71.0 years, with a mean of 52.6 years, and a standard deviation (SD) of 7.8. The average duration of diabetes mellitus (DM) was 4.0 years (SD 3.0) and half of the patients have had DM for more than three years. The mean baseline levels of Hba1c and FPG were 8% and 10.8 mmol/L, respectively. Patients treated with vildagliptin achieved clinically significant reductions in Hba1c of 1.1% (p value <.005) and reduction in FPG of 1.8 mmol/L (p value <.005) from baseline. Overall, 62.1% had achieved the target of Hba1c of <7% after vildagliptin use. Greater reductions in Hba1c were linked to higher baseline levels as well as to the daily frequency of metformin use. Mild AEs were reported by 16 patients. There was no incidence of hypoglycemia and there were no significant changes in body weight after treatment.

Conclusions: Vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin improved glycemic control and was highly tolerable in T2DM patients who were inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy.

Patterns of oral disease in adults with chronic kidney disease treated with hemodialysis

BACKGROUND

Oral disease is a potentially treatable determinant of mortality and quality of life. No comprehensive multinational study to quantify oral disease burden and to identify candidate preventative strategies has been performed in the dialysis setting.

METHODS

The ORAL disease in hemoDialysis (ORALD) study was a prospective study in adults treated with hemodialysis in Europe (France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Spain) and Argentina. Oral disease was assessed using standardized WHO methods. Participants self-reported oral health practices and symptoms. Sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with oral diseases were determined and assessed within nation states.

RESULTS

Of 4726 eligible adults, 4205 (88.9%) participated. Overall, 20.6% were edentulous [95% confidence interval (CI), 19.4-21.8]. Participants had on average 22 (95% CI 21.7-22.2) decayed, missing or filled teeth, while moderate to severe periodontitis affected 40.6% (95% CI 38.9-42.3). Oral disease patterns varied markedly across countries, independent of participant demographics, comorbidity and health practices. Participants in Spain, Poland, Italy and Hungary had the highest mean adjusted odds of edentulousness (2.31, 1.90, 1.90 and 1.54, respectively), while those in Poland, Hungary, Spain and Argentina had the highest odds of ≥14 decayed, missing or filled teeth (23.2, 12.5, 8.14 and 5.23, respectively). Compared with Argentina, adjusted odds ratios for periodontitis were 58.8, 58.3, 27.7, 12.1 and 6.30 for Portugal, Italy, Hungary, France and Poland, respectively. National levels of tobacco consumption, diabetes and child poverty were associated with edentulousness within countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral disease in adults on hemodialysis is very common, frequently severe and highly variable among countries, with much of the variability unexplained by participant characteristics or healthcare. Given the national variation and high burden of disease, strategies to improve oral health in hemodialysis patients will require implementation at a country level rather than at the level of individuals.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin in >19 000 patients with type 2 diabetes: the GUARD study

The present GUARD study was a prospective, non-interventional study evaluating the clinical effectiveness, safety and tolerability of vildagliptin with or without metformin in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) studied in routine clinical practice. Patients were enrolled from countries across four geographical regions. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration from baseline after 24 weeks of treatment with vildagliptin with or without metformin. Of 19 331 patients analysed, 3511 received vildagliptin and 15 820 received vildagliptin plus metformin. At week 24, the mean HbA1c was reduced significantly from baseline by -1.27% (vildagliptin: -1.17%; vildagliptin plus metformin: -1.29%; p < 0.0001). Significant reductions in HbA1c from baseline were consistently reported regardless of patient age, body mass index (BMI) or baseline HbA1c. Weight and BMI were also significantly reduced from baseline. Vildagliptin treatment with or without metformin was generally well tolerated. It provided clinically relevant glycaemic and weight control, and was well tolerated in a large multi-ethnic population of patients with T2DM studied in routine clinical practice.

Real-life safety and efficacy of vildagliptin as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes in Turkey--GALATA study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate tolerability/safety and the efficacy of the combination of vildagliptin plus metformin in a real-life population of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This multicenter, single-arm, 6 month, observational, prospective cohort study was conducted at 39 centers across Turkey. T2DM patients on vildagliptin and metformin for ≤4 weeks were enrolled regardless of their previous antidiabetic therapy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy was evaluated by measuring hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. Tolerability/safety parameters evaluated included hypoglycemic events, gastrointestinal events, peripheral edema and weight gain.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 665 patients with a mean ± standard deviation (SD) age of 55.1 ± 10.2 years and female predominance (n = 394, 59.2%). Safety was assessed in all enrolled patients. Hypoglycemia was reported in 10 (1.5%) patients (95% confidence interval = 0.8-2.7%). Efficacy was assessed in 289 (43.5%) patients treated for 6 ± 1 months; these patients showed a mean decrease in HbA1c of 0.8% from baseline value of 7.8% (p < 0.001). The percentages of patients who achieved HbA1c targets of ≤6.5% and ≤7.0% were significantly increased, from 10.7% to 33.6% and from 22.1% to 52.6%, respectively (p < 0.001 each). The decrease in HbA1c was independent of baseline HbA1c (≤8% vs. 8-10% vs. ≥10%), age (≤65 vs. >65 years) and body mass index (<30 vs. ≥30 kg/m(2)) (p < 0.001 each). In total, 136 adverse events (AEs) were observed in 71 (10.7%) patients; 10 (1.5%) patients experienced hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal AEs were most commonly reported (n = 29, 4.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a 'real-life' setting, the vildagliptin and metformin combination was associated with significant improvements in reaching target HbA1c levels, even in elderly and obese patients with T2DM. Moreover, vildagliptin and metformin demonstrated a good overall tolerability/safety profile.

Pill Burden in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in Germany: Subanalysis From the Prospective, Noninterventional PROVIL Study

IN BRIEF Type 2 diabetes and its associated comorbidities often require polypharmacotherapy, which may result in poor adherence to treatment. This study evaluated, using subjective patient and physician questionnaire surveys, the impact of pill burden and its associated consequences on patients treated with vildagliptin as add-on to metformin, a fixed-dose combination of vildagliptin/metformin, or another dual oral antidiabetic therapy. Patients' responses were also analyzed by age (<65 or ≥65 years). The surveys revealed that a high pill count in antidiabetic therapy constitutes a large burden for patients with type 2 diabetes. Treating physicians are aware of the problems that result from a high pill burden, and a majority of them prefer prescribing fixed-dose combinations that have better efficacy and tolerability to reduce pill burden.

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for treating type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (gliptins) occupy a growing place in the armamentarium of drugs used for the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, although some safety concerns have been raised in recent years.

AREAS COVERED

An updated review providing an analysis of available safety data (meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, observational cohort and case-control studies and pharmacovigilance reports) with five commercialized DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, linagliptin). A special focus is given to overall safety profile; pancreatic adverse events (AEs) (acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer); overall cardiovascular safety (myocardial infarction and stroke); congestive heart failure concern and finally, safety in special populations (elderly, renal impairment).

EXPERT OPINION

The good tolerance/safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors has been largely confirmed, including in more fragile populations (elderly, renal impairment) with almost no increased risk of infection or gastrointestinal AEs, no weight gain and a minimal risk of hypoglycemia. Although an increased risk of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer was suspected, the complete set of available data appears reassuring so far. Cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors has been proven but an unexpected increased risk of heart failure has been reported which should be confirmed in ongoing trials and better understood. Further postmarketing surveillance is recommended.

Real-life effectiveness and tolerability of vildagliptin and other oral glucose-lowering therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes in Germany

INTRODUCTION

Metformin is an established first-line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but treatment intensification with other oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) is usually required over time. Effectiveness of diabetes control with vildagliptin and vildagliptin/metformin was a 1-year, large observational study of 45,868 patients with T2DM across 27 countries which assessed effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to other OADs versus other comparator OAD combinations. Here, we present the data from Germany.

METHODS

Patients inadequately controlled with monotherapy were eligible only after the add-on treatment was finalized. Patients were assigned to either vildagliptin or comparator OADs [sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, glinides, α-glucosidase inhibitors or metformin, excluding dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 mimetic/analogues]. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction of >0.3% without peripheral edema, hypoglycemia, discontinuation due to a gastrointestinal event or weight gain ≥5%. One secondary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% without hypoglycemia and weight gain. Change in HbA1c from baseline to study endpoint and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 8,887 patients enrolled in Germany, 6,679 received vildagliptin and 1,695 received other OADs. The mean ± SD baseline age, HbA1c, and T2DM duration were 62.8 ± 11.0 years, 7.7 ± 1.2%, and 5.8 ± 4.9 years, respectively. The proportion of patients achieving the primary (34.5% vs. 30.5%, p < 0.01) and secondary (25.4% vs. 21.7%, p = 0.01) endpoints was higher with vildagliptin than comparator OADs. Vildagliptin showed a numerically greater reduction in HbA1c (0.7%) from baseline vs. comparator OADs (0.6%). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar.

CONCLUSION

In real life, treatment with vildagliptin is associated with a higher proportion of patients reaching target HbA1c without hypoglycemia and weight gain compared with other OADs in Germany.

Vildagliptin in addition to metformin improves retinal blood flow and erythrocyte deformability in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus - results from an exploratory study

Numerous rheological and microvascular alterations characterize the vascular pathology in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study investigated effects of vildagliptin in comparison to glimepiride on retinal microvascular blood flow and erythrocyte deformability in T2DM.

Fourty-four patients with T2DM on metformin monotherapy were included in this randomized, exploratory study over 24 weeks. Patients were randomized to receive either vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) or glimepiride individually titrated up to 4 mg in addition to ongoing metformin treatment. Retinal microvascular blood flow (RBF) and the arteriolar wall to lumen ratio (WLR) were assessed using a laser doppler scanner. In addition, the erythrocyte elongation index (EI) was measured at different shear stresses using laserdiffractoscopy.

Both treatments improved glycaemic control (p < 0.05 vs. baseline; respectively). While only slight changes in RBF and the WLR could be observed during treatment with glimepiride, vildagliptin significantly increased retinal blood flow and decreased the arterial WLR (p < 0.05 vs. baseline respectively). The EI increased during both treatments over a wide range of applied shear stresses (p < 0.05 vs. baseline). An inverse correlation could be observed between improved glycaemic control (HbA1c) and EI (r = −0.524; p < 0.0001) but not with the changes in retinal microvascular measurements.

Our results suggest that vildagliptin might exert beneficial effects on retinal microvascular blood flow beyond glucose control. In contrast, the improvement in erythrocyte deformability observed in both treatment groups, seems to be a correlate of improved glycaemic control.