Penetration rates of new pharmaceutical products in Europe: A comparative study of several classes recently launched in type-2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Different countries have their own systems for evaluating new medicines, and they make decisions as to when and how each new medicine is adopted.

PURPOSE

To compare the rate of uptake of new diabetes medicines (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors [DPP-4Is], glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists [GLP1-RAs], and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors [SGLT2Is]) in the five most populated European countries.

METHODS

The monthly volume of sales of antidiabetic drugs was extracted for each country from the IQVIA™ MIDAS® database for the period 2007 to 2016 and the defined daily doses (DDDs) were calculated. For each new drug, market shares were expressed as a percentage of the total market of non-insulin antidiabetic agents.

RESULTS

Sharp differences were observed between the countries. Overall, the highest and fastest rates of uptake were seen for Germany and Spain, compared to lower rates for the UK and Italy. This was especially marked for DPP-4Is, where the market share reached over 30% of non-insulin antidiabetic drugs in Germany and Spain, compared to around 10% in the UK and Italy. In France, there was an initial rapid uptake, which stabilized at around 20% after three years. Rates of uptake were lower for the other drugs, with the GLP1-RAs reaching a market share of 2.5-4.5% in Germany, Spain and France, compared to less than 2.5% in the UK and Italy. The SGLT2Is reached a market share of 5-8% in Spain and Germany, compared to less than 4% in the UK and Italy, and they were not launched at all in France in March 2020.

CONCLUSION

The differences in the uptake of new antidiabetic drugs may reflect different methods for assessing and introducing new medicines, as well as cultural factors. The uptake of the new medicines would appear to be more cautious in the UK and Italy, perhaps due to concerns about cost-effectiveness, whereas in Germany and Spain, and possibly also France, a new medicine's potential benefits may be prioritized.

Cost of Managing Type 2 Diabetes Before and After Initiating Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitor Treatment: A Longitudinal Study Using a French Public Health Insurance Database

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes is a growing epidemic that imposes a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems. This study aimed to evaluate the cost of managing type 2 diabetes (T2D) with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) using real-world data.

METHOD

This longitudinal study used data from the French EGB (Echantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires) database. The annual average direct healthcare cost of treating patients with T2D was calculated 3 years prior and 3 years after initiation of DPP4I therapy. Actual total ambulatory and hospital care expenditure for the 3 years after DPP4I initiation was compared to projected costs. The distribution of costs across all care modalities was assessed over the 6-year period.

RESULTS

Ambulatory and hospital care expenditure data for 919 patients with T2D starting DPP4I therapy alone or in combination in 2013 were analyzed. A total of 526 patients (57.2%) were still being treated with DPP4I 3 years after DPP4I initiation. Regardless of the treatment regimen, the ambulatory and hospital care costs increased above projected costs in the first year following DPP4I initiation, and then declined during the second and third years to levels in line with or below projected values for patients using DPP4Is as an add-on therapy. The increase in total expenditure in the first year following DPP4I initiation and the subsequent decline in costs in the second and third years were both associated with general trends in consumption across all aspects of patient care.

CONCLUSION

Despite an initial increase in healthcare expenditure, concomitant with reevaluation of patient care, this study showed that initiation of DPP4Is as an add-on therapy in French patients with T2D was associated with care expenditure that was in line or below predicted values within the 3 years following treatment initiation. Additional studies are required to evaluate the economic impact of the long-term treatment benefits.

Patient perceptions and understanding of treatment instructions for ovarian stimulation during infertility treatment

The impact of patient-physician communication and levels of understanding of treatment on patient knowledge and compliance has been studied in patients undergoing their first cycle of infertility treatment. This observational, real-life, longitudinal study involved 488 patients from 28 infertility centres in France. Data on communication quality, understanding of treatment instructions, patient knowledge and compliance to treatment protocol were collected through questionnaires administered before treatment initiation (V1) and at oocyte retrieval (V2). At V1, patients were very satisfied with their levels of understanding of the injection and monitoring schedules, the information given by the medical team, and the way of receiving instructions, with average ratings on a scale of 0-100% of > 75%. They rated their understanding of possible treatment side-effects as satisfactory (average score 71.1%). Gaps in patient knowledge about their treatment, revealed by discrepancies between physician and patient reports, were observed in 20.5% of patients (n = 79/386), and most commonly resulted from confusion about the units and dose of gonadotropin. Anxiety about performing self-injections and a lack of confidence in their ability to self-inject correctly were each observed in approximately one-third of patients. Patient self-assessment of compliance at V2 revealed that 27% of patients (n = 83/305) did not comply with or had doubts about the injection schedule or dose injected. Meanwhile physicians reported high levels of patient compliance (94.3%; n = 350/371). In conclusion, even when patient-physician relationships appear to be satisfactory, patient miscomprehension and non-compliance during infertility treatment may be underestimated. Further interventions are required to improve these outcomes.

Impact of a Community Pharmacist-Delivered Information Program on the Follow-up of Type-2 Diabetic Patients: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Study

Introduction

Low-quality communication between patients and care providers and limited patient knowledge of the disease and the therapy are important factors associated with poor glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. We conducted a multicenter study to determine whether structured and tailored information delivered by pharmacists to type 2 diabetic patients could improve patient treatment adherence, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and knowledge about diabetes.

Methods

One hundred seventy-four pharmacies were randomized to deliver an educational program on diet, drug treatment, disease and complications during three 30-min interviews over a 6-month period, or to provide no intervention, to type 2 diabetic patients treated with oral antidiabetic agents. Medication adherence was assessed by measuring the medication possession ratio and diabetes control by collecting HbA1c values. Levels of patient treatment self-management and disease knowledge were assessed using self-questionnaires.

Results

Three hundred seventy-seven patients were analyzed. The medication possession ratio, already very high at baseline in the intervention (94.8%) and control (92.3%) groups, did not vary significantly after 6 months with no difference between the two groups. Significant decreases in HbA1c were observed in both groups at 6 months (p < 0.001) and 12 months (p < 0.01), with significantly greater changes from baseline in the intervention group than in the control group at 6 months (− 0.5% vs. − 0.2%, p = 0.0047) and 12 months (− 0.6% vs. − 0.2%, p = 0.0057). Patients in the intervention group showed greater improvement in their ability to self-manage treatment (+ 4.86 vs. + 1.58, p = 0.0014) and in the extent of their knowledge about diabetes (+ 0.6 vs. + 0.2, p < 0.01) at 6 months versus baseline compared with the control group.

Conclusion

Tailored information provided by the pharmacist to patients with type 2 diabetes did not significantly improve the already high adherence rates, but was associated with a significant decrease in HbA1c and an improvement of patient knowledge about diabetes.

Trial Registration

ISRCTN33776525.

Funding

MSD France.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-00957-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Direct Medical Costs of Type 2 Diabetes in France: An Insurance Claims Database Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Our objects was to estimate the direct healthcare costs of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in France in 2013.

METHODS

Data were drawn from a random sample of ≈600,000 patients registered in the French national health insurances database, which covers 90% of the French population. An algorithm was used to select patients with T2DM. Direct healthcare costs from a collective perspective were derived from the database and compared with those from a control group to estimate the cost of diabetes and related comorbidities. Overall direct costs were also compared according to the diabetes therapies used throughout the year 2013.

RESULTS

Cost analysis was available for a sample of 25,987 patients with T2DM (mean age 67.5 ± standard deviation 12.5; 53.9% male) matched with a control group of 76,406 individuals without diabetes. Overall per patient per year medical expenditures were €6506 ± 10,106 in the T2DM group as compared with €3668 ± 6954 in the control group. The cost difference between the two groups was €2838 per patient per year, mainly due to hospitalizations, medication and nursing care costs. Total per capita annual costs were lowest for patients receiving metformin monotherapy (€4153 ± 6170) and highest for those receiving insulin (€12,890). However, apart from patients receiving insulin, costs did not differ markedly across the different oral treatment patterns.

CONCLUSION

Extrapolating these results to the whole T2DM population in France, total direct costs of diagnosed T2DM in 2013 was estimated at over €8.5 billion. This estimate highlights the substantial economic burden of this condition on society.

Toward Defining the Threshold Between Low and High Glucose Variability in Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To define the threshold for excess glucose variability (GV), one of the main features of dysglycemia in diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 376 persons with diabetes investigated at the University Hospital of Montpellier (Montpellier, France) underwent continuous glucose monitoring. Participants with type 2 diabetes were divided into several groups-groups 1, 2a, 2b, and 3 (n = 82, 28, 65, and 79, respectively)-according to treatment: 1) diet and/or insulin sensitizers alone; 2) oral therapy including an insulinotropic agent, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (group 2a) or sulfonylureas (group 2b); or 3) insulin. Group 4 included 122 persons with type 1 diabetes. Percentage coefficient of variation for glucose (%CV = [(SD of glucose)/(mean glucose)] × 100) and frequencies of hypoglycemia (interstitial glucose <56 mg/dL [3.1 mmol/L]) were computed.

RESULTS

Percentages of CV (median [interquartile range]; %) increased significantly (P < 0.0001) from group 1 (18.1 [15.2-23.9]) to group 4 (37.2 [31.0-42.3]). In group 1, the upper limit of %CV, which served as reference for defining excess GV, was 36%. Percentages of patients with %CVs above this threshold in groups 2a, 2b, 3, and 4 were 0, 12.3, 19.0, and 55.7%, respectively. Hypoglycemia was more frequent in group 2b (P < 0.01) and groups 3 and 4 (P < 0.0001) when subjects with a %CV >36% were compared with those with %CV ≤36%.

CONCLUSIONS

A %CV of 36% appears to be a suitable threshold to distinguish between stable and unstable glycemia in diabetes because beyond this limit, the frequency of hypoglycemia is significantly increased, especially in insulin-treated subjects.

Which oral antidiabetic drug to combine with metformin to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia when initiating basal insulin?: A randomized controlled trial of a DPP4 inhibitor versus insulin secretagogues

We conducted a pilot study to evaluate two therapeutic strategies at the time of insulin initiation in type 2 diabetic patients insufficiently controlled with metformin+insulin-secretagogues (IS, sulfonylureas or glinides). Patients were randomized to remain under the same dual therapy or to receive metformin+DPP4 inhibitors while starting insulin. Similar glycemic control was achieved in both groups. However less hypoglycemia was observed with DPP4 inhibitors despite higher doses of insulin.

Near normal HbA1c with stable glucose homeostasis: the ultimate target/aim of diabetes therapy

Achieving near normal glucose homeostasis implies that all components of dysglycemia that are present in diabetes states be eliminated. Reducing ambient/overall hyperglycemia is a pre-requisite to eliminate the risk of development and progression of diabetes complications. More controversially however, are the relative and related contributions of postprandial glucose excursions, glucose variability, hypoglycemia and the dawn phenomenon across the spectrum of dysglycemia. For instance, it is likely that the dawn phenomenon contributes to ambient hyperglycemia and that postprandial glucose excursions are at the cross road of ambient hyperglycemia and glucose variability with glucose fluctuations as causative risk factors for hypoglycemia. Proof-of-concept trials such as the ongoing FLAT-SUGAR study are necessary for gaining further insight into the possible harmful effects of some of these features such as excessive glycemic variability and glucose excursions, still considered to be of minor relevance by several diabetologists. Whether their role will be more thoroughly proven through further intervention trials with "hard" endpoints, remains to be seen. In the meantime more consideration should be given to medications aimed at concomitantly reducing ambient/overall hyperglycemia and those additional abnormal glycemic features of dysglycemia.

Hypoglycemia hospitalization frequency in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a comparison of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and insulin secretagogues using the French health insurance database

Aim

We aimed to compare the frequency of severe hypoglycemia leading to hospitalization (HH) and emergency visits (EV) for any cause in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus exposed to dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors (DPP4-i) versus those exposed to insulin secretagogues (IS; sulfonylureas or glinides).

Methods

Data were extracted from the EGB (Echantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires) database, comprising a representative sample of ~1% of patients registered in the French National Health Insurance System (~600,000 patients). Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients exposed to regimens containing either a DPP4-i (excluding treatment with IS, insulin, or glucagon-like peptide 1 analog) or IS (excluding treatment with insulin and any incretin therapy) between 2009 and 2012 were selected. HH and EV during the exposure periods were identified in both cohorts. A similar analysis was conducted considering vildagliptin alone versus IS. Comparative analyses adjusting for covariates within the model (subjects matched for key characteristics) and using multinomial regression models were performed.

Results

Overall, 7,152 patients exposed to any DPP4-i and 1,440 patients exposed to vildagliptin were compared to 10,019 patients exposed to IS. Eight patients (0.11%) from the DPP4-i cohort and none from the vildagliptin cohort (0.0%) were hospitalized for hypoglycemia versus 130 patients (1.30%) from the IS cohort (138 hospitalizations) (P=0.02 and P<0.0001, respectively). Crude rates of HH/1,000 patient-years were 1.4 (95% CI: 0.7; 2.4) in the DPP4-i cohort, 0.0 in the vildagliptin cohort (95% CI: 0.0; 4.0), versus 5.6 (95% CI, 4.7; 6.6) in the IS cohort (P<0.0001). After adjustments, rates per 1,000 patient-years of HH were 1.4 (95% CI: 0.7; 2.4) with DPP4-i versus 7.5 (95% CI: 6.0; 9.2) with IS (P<0.0001), and 0.0 (95% CI: 0.0; 4.0) with vildagliptin versus 13.6 (95% CI: 10.4; 17.5) with IS (P<0.0001). Adjusted EV rates were also significantly lower with all DPP4-i or with vildagliptin, as compared to IS (P<0.0001). Consistent results were found when considering only treatment initiations for all compared cohorts.

Conclusion

HH and EV were significantly less frequent in patients exposed to any DPP4-i or to vildagliptin versus IS. These real-life data should be considered in the benefit/risk evaluation of the drugs.

Physical activity in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension--insights into motivations and barriers from the MOBILE study

Background

Although physical activity (PA) is key in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and hypertension, it is difficult to implement in practice.

Methods

Cross-sectional, observational study. Participating physicians were asked to recruit two active and four inactive patients, screened with the Ricci-Gagnon (RG) self-questionnaire (active if score ≥16). Patients subsequently completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The objective was to assess the achievement of individualized glycated hemoglobin and blood pressure goals (<140/90 mmHg) in the active vs inactive cohort, to explore the correlates for meeting both targets by multivariate analysis, and to examine the barriers and motivations to engage in PA.

Results

About 1,766 patients were analyzed. Active (n=628) vs inactive (n=1,138) patients were more often male, younger, less obese, had shorter durations of diabetes, fewer complications and other health issues, such as osteoarticular disorders (P<0.001 for all). Their diabetes and hypertension control was better and obtained despite a lower treatment burden. The biggest difference in PA between the active vs inactive patients was the percentage who declared engaging in regular leisure-type PA (97.9% vs 9.6%), also reflected in the percentage with vigorous activities in International Physical Activity Questionnaire (59.5% vs 9.6%). Target control was achieved by 33% of active and 19% of inactive patients (P<0.001). Active patients, those with fewer barriers to PA, with lower treatment burden, and with an active physician, were more likely to reach targets. The physician’s role emerged in the motivations (reassurance on health issues, training on hypoglycemia risk, and prescription/monitoring of the PA by the physician). A negative self-image was the highest ranked barrier for the inactive patients, followed by lack of support and medical concerns.

Conclusion

Physicians should consider PA prescription as seriously as any drug prescription, and take into account motivations and barriers to PA to tailor advice to patients’ specific needs and reduce their perceived constraints.

"Mild dysglycemia" in type 2 diabetes: to be neglected or not?

"Mild dysglycemia" in type 2 diabetes can be defined by the range of HbA1c levels≥6.5% (48 mmol/mol) and<7% (53 mmol/mol), which corresponds to when the risk for vascular complications begins to increase. This "mild dysglycemia" is characterized by both a dawn phenomenon (a spontaneous blood glucose rise in the early morning) and an excess of post-prandial glucose excursions in the absence of abnormal elevation in basal glucose, especially during nocturnal periods. This represents an intermediary stage between pre-diabetes (HbA1c≥5.7%, 39 mmol/mol, and<6.5%, 48 mmol/mol) and those who begin to show a steadily progressive worsening in basal glucose (HbA1c≥7%, 53 mmol/mol). Should this relatively minor intermediate dysglycemic phase deserve more attention, that is the question. The now available incretin-based therapies, and more specifically the DPP-4 inhibitors provide the clinician with the possibility to reduce or eradicate both the dawn phenomenon and post-meal glucose excursions with minimal side effects. The availability of 24-h glycemic profiles in those with "mild dysglycemia" will help to describe their individual glycemic phenotype, based on which the early and appropriate life style changes and/or pharmacological interventions can be introduced.

Potential glycemic overtreatment in patients ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus and renal disease: experience from the observational OREDIA study

BACKGROUND

Few data exist examining the management of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and renal impairment (RI). This observational study assessed the therapeutic management of this fragile population.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study: data from 980 diabetic patients ≥75 years with renal disease are presented.

RESULTS

Patients had a mean age of 81 years (range 75-101) with long-standing diabetes (15.4 years) often complicated (half with macrovascular disease). Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 43 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and 20% had severe RI. Mean hemoglobin A1c was 7.4%. Anti-diabetic therapy was oral based for 51% of patients (60% ≥2 oral anti-diabetic drugs [OAD]) and insulin based for 49% (combined with OAD in 59%). OAD included metformin (47%), sulfonylureas (26%), glinides (19%), and DPP-4 inhibitors (31%). Treatments were adjusted to increasing RI, with less use of metformin, sulfonylureas, and DPP-4 inhibitors, and more glinides and insulin in severe RI. In all, 579 (60%) of these elderly patients with comorbidities had hemoglobin A1c <7.5% (mean 6.7%) while being intensively treated: 69% under insulin-secretagogues and/or insulin, putting them at high risk for severe hypoglycemia. Only one-fourth were under oral monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

In clinical practice, a substantial proportion of elderly patients may be overtreated. RI is insufficiently taken into account when prescribing OAD.

Higher Risk of Hypoglycemia with Glimepiride Versus Vildagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes is not Driven by High Doses of Glimepiride: Divergent Patient Susceptibilities?

INTRODUCTION

In a previously published study, vildagliptin showed a reduced risk of hypoglycemia versus glimepiride as add-on therapy to metformin at similar efficacy. Glimepiride was titrated from a starting dose of 2 mg/day to a maximum dose of 6 mg/day. It is usually assumed that the increased hypoglycemia with glimepiride was driven by the 6 mg/day dose; it was therefore of interest to assess whether the risk of hypoglycemia is also different between vildagliptin and a low (2 mg/day) dose of glimepiride.

METHODS

Data (n = 3,059) were from the aforementioned randomized, double-blind study. Comparisons between vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) and glimepiride (subgroups of patients on 2 mg/day, 6 mg/day, and 'other', and overall glimepiride group) were done by modeling hypoglycemia risk as a function of time and last-measured glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) using discrete event time modeling, with treatment, age, gender as additional covariates.

RESULTS

The hypoglycemia risk was significantly lower in patients receiving vildagliptin versus patients remaining on glimepiride 2 mg/day throughout the study, with similar results unadjusted or adjusted for last HbA1c [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.06 (95% CI 0.03, 0.11)]. The risk of hypoglycemia was very low with vildagliptin over the full HbA1c range, while the risk with glimepiride 2 mg/day increased with lower HbA1c. The increase for lower levels of HbA1c was more pronounced in the glimepiride 2 mg/day than 6 mg/day subgroup, with the 6 mg/day subgroup showing the lowest hypoglycemia risk among the glimepiride groups [adjusted HR vildagliptin vs. 6 mg/day glimepiride = 0.21 (95% CI 0.11, 0.40)].

CONCLUSION

The data show a substantially lower risk of confirmed hypoglycemia with vildagliptin compared to low-dose (2 mg/day) glimepiride. The analysis indicates that the previously reported results are not driven by high doses of glimepiride and points to interesting differences among patients regarding the susceptibility to hypoglycemia with sulfonylureas.

Incretin therapies in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and renal impairment

Renal impairment (RI) is common among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and these patients also experience an age-related decline in renal function. At the same time, treatment options are more limited and treatment is more complex, particularly in patients with moderate or severe RI due to contraindications, need for dose adjustment and/or regular monitoring, and side effects, such as fluid retention and hypoglycemia, which are a more serious concern in this patient population. Incretin therapies, consisting of the injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and the oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, are a promising new class of antihyperglycemic drugs. In the overall population, they improve glycemic control in a glucose-dependent manner and are not likely to cause hypoglycemia, representing a clear advantage in at-risk populations. Data regarding use of these agents in renally impaired patients have started to emerge, and the objective of this article is to provide an overview of the currently available data and the potential role of these novel agents in the management of patients with T2DM and RI. Data for the GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with moderate or severe RI are still limited, with no trials dedicated to these populations currently published. In addition, their potential to cause gastrointestinal side effects may limit use in patients with RI due to the risk of dehydration and hypovolemia. The use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with moderate or severe RI is therefore, at present, underlying caution and/or restrictions. On the other hand, data from specific trials in patients with moderate or severe RI are now becoming available for most of the DPP-4 inhibitors. These studies demonstrate good efficacy and tolerability of the DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with moderate or severe RI, thus opening a place for these therapies in the treatment of populations with T2DM and RI. Several of the DPP-4 inhibitors are already approved for use in patients with moderate or severe RI, including for those with end-stage renal disease. While discussing the advantages related to their common mechanism of action, this article also describes differences among the DPP-4 inhibitors (eg, related to their pharmacokinetic properties and the available clinical data). In conclusion, while initial data for these new therapies are promising, further experience is needed to fully assess the risk-benefit balance and clinical positioning of these agents in RI populations.

How are patients with type 2 diabetes and renal disease monitored and managed? Insights from the observational OREDIA study

Background and aim

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is frequent in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and therapeutic management of diabetes is more challenging in patients with renal impairment (RI). The place of metformin is of particular interest since most scientific societies now recommend using half the dosage in moderate RI and abstaining from use in severe RI, while the classic contraindication with RI has not been removed from the label. This study aimed to assess the therapeutic management, in particular the use of metformin, of T2DM patients with CKD in real life.

Methods

This was a French cross-sectional observational study: 3,704 patients with T2DM diagnosed for over 1 year and pharmacologically treated were recruited in two cohorts (two-thirds were considered to have renal disease [CKD patients] and one-third were not [non-CKD patients]) by 968 physicians (81% general practitioners) in 2012.

Results

CKD versus non-CKD patients were significantly older with longer diabetes history, more diabetic complications, and less strict glycemic control (mean glycated hemoglobin [HbA_1c] 7.5% versus 7.1%; 25% of CKD patients had HbA_1c ≥8% versus 15% of non-CKD patients). Fifteen percent of CKD patients had severe RI, and 66% moderate RI. Therapeutic management of T2DM was clearly distinct in CKD, with less use of metformin (62% versus 86%) but at similar mean daily doses (~2 g/d). Of patients with severe RI, 33% were still treated with metformin, at similar doses. For other oral anti-diabetics, a distinct pattern of use was seen across renal function (RF): use of sulfonylureas (32%, 31%, and 20% in normal RF, moderate RI, and severe RI, respectively) and DPP4-i (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors) (41%, 36%, and 25%, respectively) decreased with RF, while that of glinides increased (8%, 14%, and 18%, respectively). CKD patients were more frequently treated with insulin (40% versus 16% of non-CKD patients), and use of insulin increased with deterioration of RF (19%, 39%, and 61% of patients with normal RF, moderate RI, and severe RI, respectively). Treatment was modified at the end of the study-visit in 34% of CKD patients, primarily to stop or reduce metformin. However, metformin was stopped in only 40% of the severe RI patients.

Conclusion

Despite a fairly good detection of CKD in patients with T2DM, RI was insufficiently taken into account for adjusting anti-diabetic treatment.

Residual dysglycemia when at target HbA(1c) of 7% (53mmol/mol) in persons with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To understand the composition of the residual dysglycemia when HbA1c is between 6.5% (48mmol/mol) and 7% (53mmol/mol), representing the definition of diabetes and the recommended treatment goal, respectively.

METHODS

One hundred persons with type 2 diabetes and a HbA1c<7% (53mmol/mol), treated with diet alone and/or oral hypoglycemic agents underwent continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and were further divided into two subgroups 1 (n=50) and 2 (n=50) according to whether the HbA1c was <6.5% (48mmol/mol) or 6.5-6.9% (48-52mmol/mol), respectively. A similar analysis was performed in those on diet alone: subgroups A (n=34, HbA1c<6.5%, 48mmol/mol) and B (n=10, HbA1c 6.5-6.9%, 48-52mmol/mol). The residual dysglycemia determined from the CGM was assessed using glucose exposures defined as areas under curves (AUCs) and mean glucose values.

RESULTS

Averaged 2-h postprandial glucose value (averaged PPG, mmol/L, mean±SD) and postprandial glucose exposure (AUCpp, mean±SD, mmol·L(-1)·h) were significantly higher in subgroup 2 (mean HbA1c=6.7%, 50mmol/mol) than in subgroup 1 (mean HbA1c=6.0%, 42mmol/mol): averaged PPG=8.1±1.3 versus 7.3±1.3mmol/L (p<0.002); AUCpp=23.5±8.6 versus 16.2±8.6 (p<0.0001). The percentages of persons with averaged PPG≥7.8mmol/L were 52% and 24% (p<0.01) in subgroups 2 and 1, respectively. Similar results were observed in those (subgroups A and B) who were on diet alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The residual dysglycemia in type 2 diabetes with HbA1c between 6.5 and 6.9% (48-52mmol/mol) inclusive is mainly due to remnant abnormal postprandial glucose excursions. Consequently, HbA1c<6.5% (48mmol/mol) is an achievable goal with therapeutic measures aimed at reducing postmeal glucose when the HbA1c is at 7% (53mmol/mol).

Use of Vildagliptin in Management of Type 2 Diabetes: Effectiveness, Treatment Persistence and Safety from the 2-Year Real-Life VILDA Study

INTRODUCTION

There is an increasing interest for real-life data on drug use in many countries. Reimbursement authorities more and more request observational studies to assess the conditions of use of the products but also to improve knowledge about efficacy and safety in the real world and on a longer term than in clinical trials.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness, treatment persistence and tolerability of vildagliptin in clinical practice.

METHODS

This observational, 2-year prospective cohort study was conducted in France on request of the Health Authorities [Haute Autorite de Sante (HAS)]. Type 2 diabetic mellitus (T2DM) patients initiating vildagliptin (including the fixed combination vildagliptin-metformin) or treated for <6 months were recruited through a national representative sample of general practitioners (GPs) (n = 482) and diabetologists (n = 84) between March 2010 and December 2011. At inclusion and each follow-up visit at ~ 6, 12, 18 and 24 months, a questionnaire was completed by the physician collecting information on socio-demographic, clinical and biological data, treatments and adverse events.

RESULTS

1,700 patients were included: 60% were males, aged 63 ± 11 years, with diabetes duration 7 ± 6 years and body mass index (BMI) 30 ± 6 kg/m(2). 45% were obese, 70% treated for hypertension and 66% for dyslipidemia. 64% of the patients received vildagliptin in dual therapy with metformin. 82% of patients completed the 2-year follow-up. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) decreased from a mean baseline of 7.8 ± 1.2% when vildagliptin was started, to 7.0 ± 1.1% at 6 months and remained stable thereafter over 2 years. Mean weight, glomerular filtration rate, liver enzymes, and lipid parameters were unchanged over the study period. Eight patients (0.5%), all concomitantly treated with insulin and/or sulphonylureas, reported one severe hypoglycemia and 47 (2.9%) patients reported 64 non-severe symptomatic hypoglycemia (59% occurred when patients were treated with insulin and/or sulphonylureas). At 6 months, 44.9% of vildagliptin-treated patients reached an HbA1c <7% without hypoglycemia and no weight gain, and this percentage increased to 49.7% at 24 months. Vildagliptin treatment maintenance at 2 years was 88.8% [95% CI (87.2%; 90.4%)], with 4% of patients discontinuing for adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In everyday conditions of care, vildagliptin efficacy was in line with existing data from randomized clinical trials, sustained over 2 years, with low discontinuation rate and low hypoglycemia risk.

Experience with DPP-4 inhibitors in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan

A large proportion of Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) elect to fast during the holy month of Ramadan. For these patients hypo- and hyperglycemia constitute two major complications associated with the profound changes in food pattern during the Ramadan fast, and efficacious treatment options with a low risk of hypoglycemia are therefore needed to manage their T2DM as effectively and safely as possible. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors modulate insulin and glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner, and consequently a low propensity of hypoglycemia has consistently been reported across different patient populations with these agents. Promising data with DPP-4 inhibitors have now also started to emerge in patients with T2DM fasting during Ramadan. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the currently available evidence and potential role of DPP-4 inhibitors in the management of patients with T2DM fasting during Ramadan whose diabetes is treated with oral antidiabetic drugs, and to discuss the mechanistic basis for their beneficial effects in this setting.

Experience with Vildagliptin in Type 2 Diabetic Patients Fasting During Ramadan in France: Insights from the VERDI Study

AIM

To assess in real life the rate of hypoglycemia during Ramadan in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in France, according to their ongoing dual therapy of metformin-vildagliptin or metformin-sulfonylurea/glinide (IS).

METHODS

Prospective, non-interventional study with 2 visits (within 8 weeks before and 6 weeks after the end of Ramadan 2012). Study diaries were not used to collect events or record values of glucose monitoring. One hundred and ninety-eight patients on stable oral dual therapy for ≥2 months and with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤8.0% were recruited by 62 centers: 83 in the IS cohort and 115 in the vildagliptin cohort.

RESULTS

Approximately 90% of patients were from Maghreb. The two cohorts were well balanced: 60% men, mean age 59 years, BMI 28 kg/m(2), metformin dose ~2,000 mg/day, and HbA1c 7.2%. Distinct therapeutic management was planned in view of Ramadan with drug-adaptation intended in 61.4% of IS and 18.3% of vildagliptin patients. Hypoglycemia was reported in 37% of IS and 34% of vildagliptin patients; episodes declared as confirmed in 30.8% and 23.5%, respectively, and episodes documented as adverse event (AE) in 17.9% (22 episodes) and 7.5% (13 episodes), respectively (P = 0.025). Severe episodes were reported in 3.9% of IS and 1.7% of vildagliptin patients. 10.4% of IS and 2.6% of vildagliptin patients reported severe episodes and/or unscheduled medical visits due to hypoglycemia (P = 0.029). Glycemic control remained stable in both cohorts. Compliance with fasting was high, as well as adherence to drug with ≥5 missed-dose for 15.4% of IS and 8.5% of vildagliptin patients.

CONCLUSION

Although the overall frequency of malaise suggestive of hypoglycemia was high, which would be expected with prolonged fasting in a well-controlled T2DM population during hot summer days, the incidence of more severe and better-documented episodes (AE, severe event, event leading to unscheduled medical visit) were much lower, with consistently less events with vildagliptin therapy.

Experience with vildagliptin in patients ≥75 years with type 2 diabetes and moderate or severe renal impairment

INTRODUCTION

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are at increased risk for renal impairment (RI) and, in addition, there is an age-related decline in renal function. At the same time, T2DM treatment is more complex and treatment options are more limited in elderly patients as well as patients with RI, with the patient population ≥75 years with moderate or severe RI posing unique challenges, in particular, the high risk and more severe consequences of hypoglycemia. It was, therefore, of interest to assess the efficacy and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin in patients with T2DM ≥75 years who also have moderate or severe RI.

METHODS

In this sub-analysis of data derived from a previously described randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week study, 105 patients (50 randomized to vildagliptin 50 mg qd and 55 to placebo) ≥75 years (mean age ~78 years) with T2DM and moderate or severe RI (mean baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate ~35 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) were included.

RESULTS

The adjusted mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with vildagliptin was -1.0% from a baseline of 7.8% (between-group difference -0.8%; p < 0.001). This improvement in glycemic control was not associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia; the rate of confirmed hypoglycemia was 0.49 events per patient-year with vildagliptin and 0.96 events per patient-year with placebo (not significant). Weight remained stable with vildagliptin treatment. Adverse events (AEs) (58.0% vs. 72.7%), serious AEs (14.0% vs. 16.4%), discontinuations due to AEs (4.0% vs. 9.1%) and deaths (0% vs. 5.5%) were reported at a comparable or lower frequency in patients receiving vildagliptin versus patients receiving placebo.

CONCLUSION

In this uniquely fragile elderly population ≥75 years with T2DM and moderate or severe RI, vildagliptin was well tolerated and efficacious, with no increase in the rate of hypoglycemia compared to placebo despite the marked improvement in glycemic control.

Magnitude of the dawn phenomenon and its impact on the overall glucose exposure in type 2 diabetes: is this of concern?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the magnitude of the dawn phenomenon and its impact on the total glucose exposure in type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 248 noninsulin-treated persons with type 2 diabetes who underwent continuous glucose monitoring were divided into three groups selected by treatments: diet alone (n = 53); insulin sensitizers alone (n = 82); and insulin secretagogues alone or in combination with insulin sensitizers (n = 113). The dawn phenomenon (∂ glucose, mg/dL) was quantified by its absolute increment from nocturnal nadir to prebreakfast value. The participants were secondarily divided into two paired subsets after they had been separated by the presence/absence of a dawn phenomenon based on a threshold of 20 mg/dL and matched for glucose nadir. The impact of the dawn phenomenon was assessed on HbA1c and 24-h mean glucose.

RESULTS

The median of ∂ glucose (interquartile range) was 16.0 (0-31.5 mg/dL) in the 248 subjects, and no differences were observed across groups selected by HbA1c or treatments. In the overall population, the mean impacts on HbA1c and 24-h mean glucose were 4.3 ± 1.3 mmol/mol (0.39 ± 0.12%) and 12.4 ± 2.4 mg/dL, respectively. The mean impact on 24-h mean glucose was not statistically different between those on diet alone (16.7 ± 5.9 mg/dL) compared with the two subsets treated with oral hypoglycemic agents (11.2 ± 5.3 and 8.5 ± 7.5 mg/dL).

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of the dawn phenomenon on overall glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, as depicted by the HbA1c level, was ∼0.4% and not eliminated by any of the currently available armamentarium of oral antidiabetes agents.

Combination therapy with DPP-4 inhibitors and insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: what is the evidence?

As type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) progresses, most patients will require insulin replacement therapy. Whether oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) therapy should be retained when initiating insulin is still debated. While the rationale to keep metformin with insulin is strong (mostly as an insulin-sparing agent to limit weight gain), the evidence is less clear for other OADs. In particular, the question now comes up what the expected benefit could be of combining the newer agents, such as the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with insulin. Additionally, when metformin is no longer a treatment option, as in the case of patients with severe renal impairment, insulin is often used as monotherapy, with little evidence of benefit in maintaining other OADs. In this specific situation, it is also of interest to evaluate the potential benefit of combined treatment with a DPP-4 inhibitor and insulin. Among the classic limitations of insulin therapy in patients with T2DM, hypoglycemia remains a major barrier to glycemic control, along with weight gain exacerbation. The oral DPP-4 inhibitors improve glycemic control by increasing the sensitivity of the islet cells to glucose, and thus are not associated with an increased risk for hypoglycemia and are weight neutral. In addition to the expected benefits associated with limiting insulin dose and regimen complexity, the specific advantages the DPP-4 inhibitor drug class on hypoglycemia and weight gain could justify combining DPP-4 inhibitors with insulin; additionally, a DPP-4 inhibitor may be of special value to decrease glycemic excursions that are not properly addressed by basal insulin therapy and metformin use, even after optimizing titration of the basal insulin. However, given the common original perception that treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors may be less beneficial with increasing disease progression because of the loss of β-cell function, the potential relevance of these agents in the setting of advanced T2DM treated with insulin was not necessarily anticipated. Promising data from studies on the use of these new agents in insulin-treated patients with T2DM have started to emerge. Our article provides a comprehensive overview of the currently available evidence from controlled randomized clinical trials and we discuss the potential role of DPP-4 inhibitors in the this setting. Further clinical experience will allow to fully assess the positioning of these agents in insulin-treated T2DM populations.

Impact of insulin resistance, body mass index, disease duration, and duration of metformin use on the efficacy of vildagliptin

INTRODUCTION

The optimal stage for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor therapy in the course of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is still under discussion, with often a perception that treatment with these agents may be less beneficial with increasing disease progression, due to loss of beta-cell function, and with increasing insulin resistance (IR), where beta-cell function is less prominent. This work, therefore, aimed to assess the impact of such factors on the efficacy of the DPP-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, in add-on therapy to metformin.

METHODS

A pooled analysis of 24-week efficacy data of vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (n = 2,478) from four add-on to metformin studies was performed. Analyses for changes in hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) were stratified according to baseline IR stage (homeostasis model assessment [Homa IR] <5, ≥5), body mass index (BMI) (<27, ≥27 to <30, ≥30 kg/m(2)), T2DM duration (0 to <1, ≥1 to <5, ≥5 years), and duration of metformin use (0 to <1, ≥1 to <5, ≥5 years). Data from patients treated with sulfonylureas (SUs) (n = 2,010) in the pooled studies are provided as reference.

RESULTS

Patients in the vildagliptin and SU groups had mean age, HbA(1c), BMI, Homa IR, duration of T2DM and metformin use of 58 years, 7.7%, 32 kg/m(2), 4.3, 5.9 years and 3.0 years, respectively. Reductions from baseline in HbA(1c) with vildagliptin were very similar across Homa IR (mean 2.8 and 8.6), BMI (mean 24.9, 28.5, and 35.3 kg/m(2)), T2DM duration (mean 0.6, 2.9, and 9.7 years), and duration of metformin use (mean 0.6, 2.6, and 7.9 years) categories, showing significant drops in HbA(1c) of approximately -0.7% (baseline 7.7%). The results in patients receiving SUs were comparable to those seen in the vildagliptin group.

CONCLUSION

Vildagliptin add-on therapy to metformin was efficacious independent of IR stage and BMI, as well as disease duration and duration of prior metformin use, indicating that, contrary to a not uncommon perception, more obese patients and patients with long-standing T2DM can benefit from treatment with the DPP-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin.

Add-on therapies to metformin in type 2 diabetes: what modulates the respective decrements in postprandial and basal glucose?

BACKGROUND

Oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) are usually divided into postprandial and basal drugs. As their actions are probably more complex, it is important to ascertain which factors can modulate their effects.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Thirty-one type 2 diabetes patients treated with metformin (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 6.5-9%; median, 7.3%) and enrolled in two randomized controlled studies were allocated to either rosiglitazone (Group 1, n = 8) or glimepiride (Group 2, n = 7) and to either vildagliptin or sitagliptin (Group 3 considered as a whole, n = 16). All patients were investigated using continuous glucose monitoring at baseline and after 8-12 weeks of add-on therapy. Areas under the 24-h glycemic profile curves (AUCs) were determined for assessing postprandial (AUCpp), basal (AUCb), and total (AUCtotal) hyperglycemia. After calculation of decrements in AUCs (∂AUCs) from baseline to end of treatment periods, the following contribution ratios of postprandial and basal decrements to the overall glucose decrement were determined: ∂AUCpp/∂AUCtotal and ∂AUCb/∂AUCtotal (%).

RESULTS

∂AUCpp/∂AUCtotal and ∂AUCb/∂AUCtotal were negatively and positively, respectively, associated (R(2) = 0.195, P = 0.013) with baseline HbA1c. ∂AUCpp/∂AUCtotal was significantly higher (50.8 ± 4.8%) in patients with HbA1c <7.3% than in those with HbA1c ≥ 7.3% (27.0 ± 4.4%) (P = 0.001). After adjustment on baseline HbA1c, ∂AUCpp/∂AUCtotal was greater in Group 3 (44.0 ± 1.6%) than in Group 1 (32.1 ± 4%) and 2 (37.0 ± 3.1%) (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Gliptins, glitazones and sulfonylureas concomitantly act on basal and postprandial glucose even though gliptins are more efficient on postprandial glucose. HbA1c appears as a reliable factor for predicting the respective decrements of these two parameters and thus for guiding the choice between the aforementioned drugs.

Evidence to support the use of vildagliptin monotherapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

The efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, as monotherapy have been widely confirmed in a large body of clinical studies of up to 2 years’ duration in various populations with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This paper reviews the data supporting the use of vildagliptin in monotherapy. Consideration based on baseline glycated hemoglobin levels and age is given to patient segments where metformin is not appropriate. In addition, although prediabetes is not an indication, this manuscript briefly reviews some of the existing data showing that the mechanisms at work in diabetic populations are active in patients currently classified as prediabetic, with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose. Finally, the rationale for vildagliptin dosing frequency in monotherapy is discussed. In summary, this review aims to define where in community practice the use of vildagliptin as monotherapy is most desirable, focusing on segments of the population with type 2 diabetes mellitus that might receive the greatest benefit from vildagliptin in the management of their disease.

Mechanisms of action of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin in humans

Inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) by vildagliptin prevents degradation of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and reduces glycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, with low risk for hypoglycaemia and no weight gain. Vildagliptin binds covalently to the catalytic site of DPP-4, eliciting prolonged enzyme inhibition. This raises intact GLP-1 levels, both after meal ingestion and in the fasting state. Vildagliptin has been shown to stimulate insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner. At hypoglycaemic levels, the counterregulatory glucagon response is enhanced relative to baseline by vildagliptin. Vildagliptin also inhibits hepatic glucose production, mainly through changes in islet hormone secretion, and improves insulin sensitivity, as determined with a variety of methods. These effects underlie the improved glycaemia with low risk for hypoglycaemia. Vildagliptin also suppresses postprandial triglyceride (TG)-rich lipoprotein levels after ingestion of a fat-rich meal and reduces fasting lipolysis, suggesting inhibition of fat absorption and reduced TG stores in non-fat tissues. The large body of knowledge on vildagliptin regarding enzyme binding, incretin and islet hormone secretion and glucose and lipid metabolism is summarized, with discussion of the integrated mechanisms and comparison with other DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor activators, where appropriate.

Exercise in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: what are the benefits and how does it work?

In this article, we examine the results from meta-analyses of studies that have focused on the effects of supervised exercise in patients with established type 2 diabetes mellitus. Exercise has been clearly demonstrated to have benefits on blood glucose control (average reduction of glycated hemoglobin, 0.6%) and cardiovascular risk factors. These benefits are observed independently of any change in body mass index and fat mass, and are also seen in older populations. Multiple mechanisms are involved, and the improved insulin-sensitizing effect of exercise training is not restricted to muscle but extends to hepatic and adipose tissue. However, while the benefits of exercise in type 2 diabetes management are undisputable, it is not as easy to draw correlations between clinical benefit and the amount of physical activity included in daily life. Recent studies have shown encouraging results with moderate increases in physical activity, which are feasible for most patients and are sufficient to induce sustained positive changes for 2 years. Thus, the benefits of structured and supervised exercise in patients with type 2 diabetes have been consistently demonstrated. Currently, the primary challenge is to determine how long-term increased physical activity can be durably implemented in a patient's daily life.

Minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia with vildagliptin: Clinical experience, mechanistic basis, and importance in type 2 diabetes management

Even if the true incidence of hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remains difficult to estimate, with highly variable rates reported in the literature, it is likely more common than previously thought. While most hypoglycemic episodes in T2DM are considered "mild," they still have a substantial clinical impact. Severe hypoglycemia also exists in T2DM, with recent landmark studies prompting much debate about the potential role of severe hypoglycemia in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, even though there is currently no definitive evidence for causality. The challenge in the treatment of T2DM remains the achievement of optimal glycemic control to lower the risk for long-term complications while avoiding hypoglycemia. Successful treatment strategies should therefore include careful selection of therapies to prevent hypoglycemia, starting early in the disease management process, in order to best preserve counterregulation. The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, is a good treatment option to minimize the risk of hypoglycemia over time, while maintaining good glucose control. Extensive clinical experience is available for vildagliptin, with data published for all stages of the condition and with the low hypoglycemic potential stemming from a solid mechanistic basis.

Assessing the general safety and tolerability of vildagliptin: value of pooled analyses from a large safety database versus evaluation of individual studies

Aim:

Analyzing safety aspects of a drug from individual studies can lead to difficult-to-interpret results. The aim of this paper is therefore to assess the general safety and tolerability, including incidences of the most common adverse events (AEs), of vildagliptin based on a large pooled database of Phase II and III clinical trials.

Methods:

Safety data were pooled from 38 studies of ≥12 to ≥104 weeks’ duration. AE profiles of vildagliptin (50 mg bid; N = 6116) were evaluated relative to a pool of comparators (placebo and active comparators; N = 6210). Absolute incidence rates were calculated for all AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuations due to AEs, and deaths.

Results:

Overall AEs, SAEs, discontinuations due to AEs, and deaths were all reported with a similar frequency in patients receiving vildagliptin (69.1%, 8.9%, 5.7%, and 0.4%, respectively) and patients receiving comparators (69.0%, 9.0%, 6.4%, and 0.4%, respectively), whereas drug-related AEs were seen with a lower frequency in vildagliptin-treated patients (15.7% vs 21.7% with comparators). The incidences of the most commonly reported specific AEs were also similar between vildagliptin and comparators, except for increased incidences of hypoglycemia, tremor, and hyperhidrosis in the comparator group related to the use of sulfonylureas.

Conclusions:

The present pooled analysis shows that vildagliptin was overall well tolerated in clinical trials of up to >2 years in duration. The data further emphasize the value of a pooled analysis from a large safety database versus assessing safety and tolerability from individual studies.

Incretin therapies in the management of elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Aging is characterized by a progressive increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), which approaches 20% by age 70 years. Older patients with T2DM are a very heterogeneous group with multiple comorbidities, an increased risk of hypoglycemia, and a greater susceptibility to adverse effects of antihyperglycemic drugs, making treatment of T2DM in this population challenging. The risk of severe hypoglycemia likely represents the greatest barrier to T2DM care in the elderly. Although recent guidelines recommend more flexibility in treating this population with individualized targets, inadequate glycemic control is still closely linked to poor outcome in elderly patients. Incretins (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide [GIP] and glucagon-like peptide-1 [GLP-1]) are hormones released post-meal from intestinal endocrine cells that stimulate insulin secretion and suppress postprandial glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner. "Incretin therapies," comprising the injectable GLP-1 analogs and oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, are promising new therapies for use in older patients because of their consistent efficacy and low risk of hypoglycemia. However, data with these new agents are still scarce in this population, which has not been particularly well represented in clinical trials, highlighting the need for additional specific studies. The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the available data and potential role of these novel incretin therapies in managing T2DM in the elderly. With the exception of the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin, there is no published trial to date dedicated to this population, although a few studies are currently ongoing. Therefore, available data from elderly subgroups of individual studies were also reviewed when available, as well as pooled analyses by age subgroups across clinical programs conducted with incretin therapies.

Clinical experience with vildagliptin in the management of type 2 diabetes in a patient population ≥75 years: a pooled analysis from a database of clinical trials

AIM

To report the experience with vildagliptin in a patient population with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) ≥75 years.

METHODS

Efficacy data from seven monotherapy and three add-on therapy to metformin studies, respectively, of ≥24 weeks duration were pooled; effects of 24 weeks of treatment with vildagliptin (50 mg bid) in patients ≥75 years were assessed in these two pooled datasets. Safety data were pooled from 38 studies of ≥12 to ≥104 weeks duration; adverse events (AEs) profiles of vildagliptin (50 mg bid) were evaluated relative to a pool of comparators; 301 patients ≥75 years were analysed. Data in patients <75 years are provided as a reference.

RESULTS

Mean age of the elderly population was 77 years. Changes in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) with vildagliptin in the patient group ≥75 years were -0.9% from a baseline of 8.3% in monotherapy (p < 0.0001) and -1.1% from a baseline of 8.5% in add-on therapy to metformin (p = 0.0004), and these reductions were similar to those seen in the younger patients. The corresponding weight changes in the elderly patients were -0.9 kg (p = 0.0277) and -0.2 kg [not significant (NS)], respectively, and no confirmed hypoglycaemic events, including no severe events, were reported. AEs, drug-related AEs, serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths were reported with a lower frequency in older patients receiving vildagliptin than comparators [133.9 vs. 200.6, 14.5 vs. 21.8, 8.8 vs. 16.5 and 0.0 vs. 1.7 events per 100 subject year exposure (SYE), respectively], and the incidence of discontinuations due to AEs was similar in the two groups (7.2 vs. 7.5 events per 100 SYE, respectively). The safety profile of vildagliptin was overall similar in younger and older patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin was effective and well-tolerated in type 2 diabetic patients ≥75 years (mean age 77 years).

Vildagliptin add-on to metformin produces similar efficacy and reduced hypoglycaemic risk compared with glimepiride, with no weight gain: results from a 2-year study

AIM

To show that vildagliptin added to metformin is non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA1c levels from baseline over 2 years.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, active-comparator study of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled (HbA1c 6.5-8.5%) by metformin monotherapy. Patients received vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) or glimepiride (up to 6 mg/day) added to metformin.

RESULTS

In all, 3118 patients were randomized (vildagliptin, n = 1562; glimepiride, n = 1556). From similar baseline values (7.3%), after 2 years adjusted mean (s.e.) change in HbA1c was comparable between vildagliptin and glimepiride treatment: -0.1% (0.0%) and -0.1% (0.0%), respectively. The primary objective of non-inferiority was met. A similar proportion of patients reached HbA1c <7% (36.9 and 38.3%, respectively), but with vildagliptin more patients reached this target without hypoglycaemia (36.0% vs. 28.8%; p = 0.004). The initial response (IR) was sustained for a mean (s.d.) of 309 (244) days with vildagliptin versus 270 (223) days for glimepiride (p < 0.001) (IR = nadir HbA1c where change from baseline > or =0.5% or HbA1c < or =6.5% within the first six months of treatment. After IR was detected, sustained response = time between nadir and an increase of >0.3% above IR). Independent of disease duration, age was a predictor of effect sustainability. Fewer patients experienced hypoglycaemia with vildagliptin (2.3% vs. 18.2% with glimepiride) with a 14-fold difference in the number of hypoglycaemic events (59 vs. 838). Vildagliptin had a beneficial effect on body weight [mean (s.e.) change from baseline -0.3 (0.1) kg; between-group difference -1.5 kg; p < 0.001]. Overall, both treatments were well tolerated and displayed similar safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin add-on has similar efficacy to glimepiride after 2 years' treatment, with markedly reduced hypoglycaemia risk and no weight gain.

Role of vildagliptin in managing type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) increases with age. Older patients have an increased likelihood for T2DM-related morbidity and mortality. The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the challenges in managing T2DM in the elderly, with an emphasis on prevention of hypoglycaemia and the role of the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin in this patient population.

METHODS

A search of PubMed was conducted (from 2003 to 2010) to identify English-language articles relevant to the management of elderly patients with T2DM, with an emphasis on vildagliptin treatment. A limitation of this review is that it does not provide an overview of the entire class of dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

FINDINGS

Management of T2DM in elderly patients is complicated by numerous factors, including a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and other comorbidities and a high frequency of polypharmacy issues. Hypoglycaemia may pose the greatest barrier to optimal glycaemic control in elderly patients, who are less likely to recognise and respond to hypoglycaemic episodes, leading to increased frequency and severity of events. Data on the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin indicate that reductions in A1C in elderly patients are at least as good as those observed in younger patients and are achieved with minimal risk of hypoglycaemia. T2DM in older individuals is associated with relative hyperglucagonaemia and elevated postprandial glucose (PPG). Vildagliptin treatment appears to address both these defects. Vildagliptin improves the ability of alpha- and beta-cells to respond appropriately to changes in plasma glucose levels. This, in the face of high glucose levels, results in reduced inappropriate glucagon secretion and PPG excursions. In the face of low glucose, however, the protective glucagon response is well-preserved. These factors help explain the efficacy and minimal risk of hypoglycaemia observed with vildagliptin in elderly patients.

CONCLUSION

The elderly population with T2DM poses unique treatment challenges and have not been particularly well-represented in clinical trials, highlighting the need for additional studies to better define appropriate glucose targets and to ascertain the best strategies for achieving and maintaining appropriate glycaemic levels. Because vildagliptin does not expose patients to hypoglycaemic risk, it seems particularly suited to oral therapy of T2DM in the elderly.

Assessing the cardio-cerebrovascular safety of vildagliptin: meta-analysis of adjudicated events from a large Phase III type 2 diabetes population

AIM

To assess the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular (CCV) safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitor vildagliptin.

METHODS

Data were pooled from 25 Phase III studies of vildagliptin, used either as monotherapy or combination therapy, with durations of 12 weeks to > or = 2 years. The safety of vildagliptin [50 mg qd (N = 1393) or 50 mg bid (N = 6116)] was assessed relative to a pool of all comparators [both placebo and active comparators (N = 6061)]. CCV events were adjudicated in a prospective, blinded fashion by an independent CCV adjudication committee. Meta-analysis of confirmed CCV events was performed with Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs); categories included in the composite endpoint were acute coronary syndrome, transient ischaemic attack (with imaging evidence of infarction), stroke and CCV death. Subgroup analyses by age (< and > or = 65 years), gender and cardiovascular (CV) risk status [high CV risk status defined as a previous history of events in the Standard MedDRA Queries of ischaemic heart disease, cardiac failure, ischaemic cerebrovascular conditions and/or embolic/thrombotic events, arterial) were also carried out. In addition, unadjusted and exposure-adjusted incidences are presented for both the composite endpoint and its components.

RESULTS

Relative to all comparators, the RRs for the composite endpoint were < 1 for both vildagliptin 50 mg qd [RR = 0.88; 95% CI (0.37, 2.11)] and vildagliptin 50 mg bid [RR = 0.84; 95% CI (0.62, 1.14)]. The results were consistent across subgroups defined by age, gender and CV risk status, including the higher CV risk subgroups of elderly patients [RR for vildagliptin 50 mg bid vs. all comparators = 1.04; 95% CI (0.62, 1.73)], males [RR = 0.87; 95% CI (0.60, 1.24)] or patients with a high CV risk status [RR = 0.78; 95% CI (0.51, 1.19)]. The exposure-adjusted incidences of each component of the composite endpoint for vildagliptin 50 mg bid were also lower than or similar to those of all comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large meta-analysis, vildagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of adjudicated CCV events relative to all comparators in the broad population of type 2 diabetes including patients at increased risk of CCV events.

Changes in prandial glucagon levels after a 2-year treatment with vildagliptin or glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin more effectively inhibits glucagon levels than the sulfonylurea glimepiride during a meal.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Glucagon responses to a standard meal were measured at baseline and study end point (mean 1.8 years) in a trial evaluating add-on therapy to metformin with 50 mg vildagliptin b.i.d. compared with glimepiride up to 6 mg q.d. in type 2 diabetes (baseline A1C 7.3 +/- 0.6%).

RESULTS

A1C and prandial glucose area under the curve (AUC)(0-2 h) were reduced similarly in both groups, whereas prandial insulin AUC(0-2 h) increased to a greater extent by glimepiride. Prandial glucagon AUC(0-2 h) (baseline 66.6 +/- 2.3 pmol . h(-1) . l(-1)) decreased by 3.4 +/- 1.6 pmol . h(-1) . l(-1) by vildagliptin (n = 137) and increased by 3.8 +/- 1.7 pmol . h(-1) . l(-1) by glimepiride (n = 121). The between-group difference was 7.3 +/- 2.1 pmol . h(-1) . l(-1) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin therapy but not glimepiride improves postprandial alpha-cell function, which persists for at least 2 years.

Comparison of vildagliptin and metformin monotherapy in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, double-blind, randomized trial

AIMS

The study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, and metformin in drug-naïve elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of vildagliptin vs. metformin in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction.

METHODS

This was a double-blind, randomized, multicentre, active-controlled, parallel-group study of 24-week treatment with vildagliptin (100 mg daily, n=169) or metformin (titrated to 1500 mg daily, n=166) in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes aged>or=65 years (baseline HbA1c 7-9%).

RESULTS

Participants had a mean age of 71 years, known duration of diabetes of 3 years and mean baseline HbA1c of 7.7%. At end-point, vildagliptin was as effective as metformin, improving HbA1c by -0.64+/-0.07% and -0.75+/-0.07%, respectively, meeting the predefined statistical criterion for non-inferiority (upper limit of 95% confidence interval for between-treatment difference<or=0.3%). Body weight changes were -0.45+/-0.20 kg in vildagliptin-treated patients (p=0.02) and -1.25+/-0.19 kg in metformin-treated patients (p<0.001; p=0.004 vs. vildagliptin). The proportion of patients experiencing an adverse event (AE) was 44.3 vs. 50.3% in patients receiving vildagliptin and metformin respectively. Gastrointestinal (GI) AEs were significantly more frequent with metformin (24.8%) than with vildagliptin (15.0%, p=0.028), mainly driven by a 4.4-fold higher incidence of diarrhoea. A low incidence of hypoglycaemia was observed in both treatment groups (0% with vildagliptin and 1.2% with metformin).

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, demonstrating similar improvement in glycaemic control as metformin, with superior GI tolerability.

Vildagliptin enhances islet responsiveness to both hyper- and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes

CONTEXT

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors act by increasing plasma levels of glucagon-like peptide-1 and suppressing excessive glucagon secretion in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, their effects on the glucagon response to hypoglycemia are not established.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin on alpha-cell response to hyper- and hypoglycemia.

DESIGN

We conducted a single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-period crossover study of 28-d treatment, with a 4-wk between-period washout.

PATIENTS

We studied drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin of 7.5% or less.

INTERVENTION

Participants received vildagliptin (100 mg/d) or placebo as outpatients. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We measured the following: 1) change in plasma glucagon levels during hypoglycemic (2.5 mm glucose) clamp; and 2) incremental (Delta) glucagon area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 60 min (AUC(0-60 min)) during standard meal test. Before the study, it was hypothesized that vildagliptin would suppress glucagon secretion during meal tests and enhance the glucagon response to hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

The mean change in glucagon during hypoglycemic clamp was 46.7 +/- 6.9 ng/liter with vildagliptin treatment and 33.9 +/- 6.7 ng/liter with placebo; the between-treatment difference was 12.8 +/- 7.0 ng/liter (P = 0.039), representing a 38% increase with vildagliptin. In contrast, the mean glucagon DeltaAUC(0-60 min) during meal test with vildagliptin was 512 +/- 163 ng/liter x min vs. 861 +/- 130 ng/liter x min with placebo; the between-treatment difference was -349 +/- 158 ng/liter x min (P = 0.019), representing a 41% decrease with vildagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin enhances alpha-cell responsiveness to both the suppressive effects of hyperglycemia and the stimulatory effects of hypoglycemia. These effects likely contribute to the efficacy of vildagliptin to improve glycemic control as well as to its low hypoglycemic potential.

Fifty-two-week efficacy and safety of vildagliptin vs. glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy

AIM

To examine the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin vs. glimepiride as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a 52-week interim analysis of a large, randomized, double-blind, multicentre study. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of vildagliptin vs. glimepiride in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) reduction at week 52.

METHODS

Patients inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy (HbA(1c) 6.5-8.5%) and receiving a stable dose of metformin (mean dose 1898 mg/day; mean duration of use 36 months) were randomized 1:1 to receive vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily, n = 1396) or glimepiride (titrated up to 6 mg/day; mean dose 4.5 mg/day, n = 1393).

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of vildagliptin was demonstrated (97.5% confidence interval 0.02%, 0.16%) with a mean (SE) change from baseline HbA(1c) (7.3% in both groups) to week 52 endpoint of -0.44% (0.02%) with vildagliptin and -0.53% (0.02%) with glimepiride. Although a similar proportion of patients reached a target HbA(1c) level of <7% with vildagliptin and glimepiride (54.1 and 55.5%, respectively), a greater proportion of patients reached this target without hypoglycaemia in the vildagliptin group (50.9 vs. 44.3%; p < 0.01). Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) reductions were comparable between groups (mean [SE] -1.01 [0.06] mmol/l and -1.14 [0.06] mmol/l respectively). Vildagliptin significantly reduced body weight relative to glimepiride (mean [SE] change from baseline -0.23 [0.11] kg; between-group difference -1.79 kg; p < 0.001) and resulted in a 10-fold lower incidence of hypoglycaemia than glimepiride (1.7 vs. 16.2% of patients presenting at least one hypoglycaemic event; 39 vs. 554 hypoglycaemic events, p < 0.01). No severe hypoglycaemia occurred with vildagliptin compared with 10 episodes with glimepiride (p < 0.01), and no patient in the vildagliptin group discontinued because of hypoglycaemia compared with 11 patients in the glimepiride group. The incidence of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and adjudicated cardiovascular events was 74.5, 7.1 and 0.9%, respectively, in patients receiving vildagliptin, and 81.1, 9.5 and 1.6%, respectively, in patients receiving glimepiride.

CONCLUSIONS

When metformin alone fails to maintain sufficient glycaemic control, the addition of vildagliptin provides comparable efficacy to that of glimepiride after 52 weeks and displays a favourable AE profile, with no weight gain and a significant reduction in hypoglycaemia compared with glimepiride.

Association between a frequent allele of the gene encoding OATP1B1 and enhanced LDL-lowering response to fluvastatin therapy

INTRODUCTION

Marked lowering of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (< or =50%) with intensive statin therapy is associated with major reduction in cardiovascular risk, but is limited by a potential increase in adverse effects, thereby justifying optimization of LDL-C reduction with minimal risk. The organic anion transporting polypeptide-1B1 encoded by the SLCO1B1 gene is implicated as a major transporter in cellular uptake of statins, and notably fluvastatin. We postulated that genetic variation in SLCO1B1 might affect statin bioavailability, and might therefore influence drug response and potential adverse effects.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Elderly hypercholesterolemic subjects (n = 724), whose plasma lipid profile was determined before and 2 months after fluvastatin extended-release treatment (80 mg/day, n = 420), or placebo (n = 304), were genotyped for the most frequent nonsynonymous polymorphisms (SNP) in the SLCO1B1 gene (c.388A>G, c.463C>A and c.521T>C).

RESULTS

Due to linkage disequilibrium, only four alleles (*1b, *5, *14 and *15) of SLCO1B1 were detected in addition to the wild-type allele (*1a). The c.463A genotype, which was systematically associated with the c.388G SNP corresponding to the *14 allele was significantly associated with percentage LDL-C reduction from baseline (p = 0.005) and with mean post-treatment LDL-C values (p = 0.0005). Subjects homozygous for the c.463C genotype (n = 294) exhibited significantly less LDL-C reduction and higher post-treatment LDL-C levels (-31.5%, 138 mg/dl) relative to heterozygous C/A patients (-36.2%, 126 mg/dl; n = 111), and to homozygous A/A subjects (-41%, 115 mg/dl; n = 15).

CONCLUSIONS

These results reveal that OATP1B1 is implicated in the pharmacological action and efficacy of fluvastatin. Indeed, the common *14 allele, which is distinguished by the presence of the c.463C>A polymorphism, was associated with enhanced lipid-lowering efficacy in this study.

Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin monotherapy during 2-year treatment of drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: comparison with metformin

The present study was a 52-week extension of a previously published, multi-center, randomized, parallel-group study. The aim of this extension study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin and metformin in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes over 104 weeks. The extension population comprised 305 patients randomized to vildagliptin (100 mg daily) and 158 patients randomized to metformin (2 000 mg daily). Pioglitazone was added as rescue medication if fasting glucose was >10 mmol/l; data from patients receiving rescue medication were excluded from the primary analysis. Baseline HbA (1c) averaged 8.4+/-0.1% in patients randomized to vildagliptin and 8.8+/-0.1% in those randomized to metformin. The adjusted mean change from baseline to study endpoint was -1.0+/-0.1% in vildagliptin-treated patients and -1.5+/-0.1% in those receiving metformin (p<0.001 vs. vildagliptin). These results were similar to those reported after the 1-year core phase of the study. The adjusted mean changes in body weight from baseline to endpoint were 0.5+/-0.4 kg and -2.5+/-0.5 kg in the vildagliptin and metformin groups, respectively. One or more adverse event (AE) was reported by 82.2% of patients receiving vildagliptin and by 87.3% of those receiving metformin (p<0.001). Gastrointestinal AEs were more common in patients receiving metformin (45.6%) than in those receiving vildagliptin (25.0%, p<0.001 vs. metformin). One hypoglycemic event occurred after strenuous exercise in a single patient receiving vildagliptin (0.3%). In conclusion, both vildagliptin and metformin monotherapy provided clinically meaningful decreases in HbA (1c) over 2 years in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Vildagliptin was weight neutral, while weight loss was observed with metformin; however, metformin was associated with significantly worse gastrointestinal tolerability.

Robust improvements in fasting and prandial measures of beta-cell function with vildagliptin in drug-naïve patients: analysis of pooled vildagliptin monotherapy database

AIM

To assess the effects of 24-week treatment with vildagliptin on measures of beta-cell function in a broad spectrum of drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

Data from all double-blind, multicentre, randomized, placebo- or active-controlled trials conducted in drug-naïve patients with T2DM were pooled from all patients receiving monotherapy with vildagliptin (100 mg daily: 50 mg twice daily or 100 mg once daily, n = 1855) or placebo (n = 347). Fasting measures of beta-cell function [homeostasis model assessment of beta-cell function (HOMA-B) and proinsulin : insulin ratio] were assessed in the overall pooled monotherapy population. Standard meal tests were performed at baseline and week 24 in a subset of patients, and effects of vildagliptin (100 mg daily, n = 227) on dynamic (meal test-derived) measures of beta-cell function [insulin secretion rate relative to glucose (ISR/G) and insulinogenic indices] were assessed relative to baseline and vs. placebo (n = 29).

RESULTS

In the overall population, vildagliptin significantly increased HOMA-B both relative to baseline [adjusted mean change (AMDelta) = 10.3 +/- 1.5] and vs. placebo (between-treatment difference in AMDelta = 11.5 +/- 4.5, p = 0.01) and significantly decreased the proinsulin : insulin ratio relative to baseline (AMDelta = -0.05 +/- 0.01) and vs. placebo (between-treatment difference in AMDelta = -0.09 +/- 0.02, p < 0.001). Relative to baseline, vildagliptin monotherapy significantly increased all meal test-derived parameters, and ISR/G (between-treatment difference in AMDelta = 9.8 +/- 2.8 pmol/min/m(2)/mM, p < 0.001) and the insulinogenic index(0-peak glucose) (between-treatment difference in AMDelta = 0.24 +/- 0.05 pmol/mmol, p = 0.045) were significantly increased vs. placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin monotherapy consistently produced robust improvements in both fasting and meal test-derived measures of beta-cell function across a broad spectrum of drug-naïve patients with T2DM. All Phase III trials described (NCT 00099905, NCT 00099866, NCT 00099918, NCT 00101673, NCT 00101803 and NCT 00120536) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.