Cardiovascular Outcomes in Trials of New Antidiabetic Drug Classes

Type 2 diabetes is among the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide and the prevention of associated cardiovascular complications is an important treatment goal. Sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are second-line options after metformin, while cardiovascular outcome trials have been conducted to establish the cardiovascular safety of these antidiabetic drug classes. SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to have the best overall mortality, renal and cardiovascular outcomes. Reduction in hospitalisation for heart failure is particularly consistent. GLP-1 receptor agonists have also showed some benefits, especially in stroke prevention. DPP-4 inhibitors showed neutral effects on cardiovascular outcomes, but may increase the incidence of heart failure. Favourable outcomes observed in trials of SGLT2 inhibitors mean that these should be the preferred second-line option. DPP-4 inhibitors are useful for patients with diabetes at low cardiovascular risk.

Prospect of Sodium-Glucose Co-transporter 2 Inhibitors Combined With Insulin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a new family of antidiabetic drugs that reduce blood glucose independent of insulin. In this review, we present the advantages and adverse effects of SGLT2 inhibitors plus insulin therapy as a treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors plus insulin therapy could significantly decrease fasting blood glucose and HbA1c, thereby reducing the daily required dose of insulin. A reduction in body weight and improvements in insulin resistance and β-cell function have also been widely reported with this therapy, and other potential advantages, including the reduction in blood pressure, adverse cardiovascular outcomes, and visceral adipose tissue volume, have been revealed. SGLT2 inhibitors cause a greater reduction than dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in body weight and the risk of cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, compared with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, SGLT2 inhibitors reduce blood pressure, and heart failure. As this therapy is an oral preparation, an improvement in patient compliance is also achieved. Despite these advantages, however, combination therapy with SGLT2 inhibitors and insulin has several risks. Although no difference has been found in the incidence of hypoglycemic events and urinary tract infection between the administration of this combination and that of placebo, the risk of genital tract infections was reported to increase with the combination therapy. Additionally, bone adverse effects, euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, and volume depletion-and osmotic diuresis-related adverse effects have been observed. Altogether, we could conclude that SGLT2 inhibitors plus insulin therapy is an efficient treatment option for patients with T2D, especially those requiring high daily insulin doses and those with insulin resistance, obesity, and a high risk of cardiovascular events. However, careful monitoring of the adverse effects of this combination is also warranted.

Efficacy and safety of luseogliflozin added to insulin therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a multicenter, 52-week, clinical study with a 16-week, double-blind period and a 36-week, open-label period

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of luseogliflozin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with insulin monotherapy.

METHODS

This 52-week multicenter study entailed a 16-week, double-blind period followed by a 36-week, open-label period. Patients were randomized to receive either luseogliflozin 2.5 mg (n = 159) or placebo (n = 74) during the double-blind period. All patients who entered the open-label period received luseogliflozin. Major efficacy endpoints included the changes from baseline in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) and bodyweight. Safety assessments included adverse events, laboratory tests and vital signs.

RESULTS

In the double-blind period, luseogliflozin significantly decreased HbA1c (-1.18%), FPG (-42.4 mg/dL), 2 hour PPG (-68.7 mg/dL) and bodyweight (-1.27 kg) compared with placebo (all p < .001); these reductions were maintained over 52 weeks. The changes from baseline at Week 52 were -1.00%, -35.1 mg/dL, -68.8 mg/dL and -1.81 kg, respectively (all p < .001). In the placebo group, favorable glycemic control and bodyweight reduction were also observed after switching to luseogliflozin. Most adverse events were mild in severity. During the double-blind period, the incidences of hypoglycemia were 20.8% and 13.5% in the luseogliflozin and placebo groups, respectively. During the 52 weeks of luseogliflozin treatment, the frequency of hypoglycemia was 33.3%, but no serious hypoglycemia occurred. The safety profile other than hypoglycemia was also acceptable. There were no new safety concerns about luseogliflozin added to insulin.

CONCLUSION

Luseogliflozin added to insulin therapy significantly improved glycemic control with bodyweight reduction and was well tolerated in Japanese patients with T2D.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center (JapicCTI-142582).