When metformin fails in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Pattern of Disease and Therapy for Diabetes along with Impact of Generic Prescribing on Cost of Treatment among Outpatients at a Tertiary Care Facility

Background:

India has become the diabetes capital of the world. Analyzing trends in drug prescribing helps in judging rationality of prescriptions in different settings. This study aimed to assess disease and prescribing trends with a special emphasis on evaluating use of metformin, insulin, fixed dose combinations (FDCs), concomitant medications, pill burden, and costs of drug therapy in diabetes.

Materials and Methods:

This was a cross-sectional study in which patients of either sex who attended the diabetes clinic at a tertiary care center over 9 months were included consecutively. Basic demographic profile, clinical, and treatment details on the day of visit were collected from the prescription charts. Drug costs for prescriptions were calculated using generic and median brand prices of formulations using a recognized commercial drug directory and generic price list of the government, respectively. Data were analyzed by using Microsoft Excel and Open Epi online software to compare results with published studies.

Results:

Average age of diabetics was 53.9 ± 11.8 years and disease duration was 8.13 ± 7.78 years in 336 prescriptions analyzed. Dual drug regimens were seen in 32.7% prescriptions, most commonly metformin and sulfonylureas, followed by triple drug regimens (25%) with inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP IV) inhibitor. Metformin was prescribed in 95% prescriptions (mean dose 1511 ± 559.87 mg) and insulin in 22.6% prescriptions. Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs) and statins were the most commonly prescribed concomitant drugs. One FDC per prescription (median) each for diabetes and comorbidities were prescribed. Daily pill burden was 4.59 ± 2.65 pills. The median monthly cost of drug therapy with branded prescribing was INR 870.43 and INR 393.72 with the use of generics. Inferences drawn by comparison with published data showed variable results for different parameters analyzed.

Conclusion:

Disease pattern was as expected for the region and trends of therapy showed concurrence with rational prescribing. Pill burden and cost of therapy remain high with a significant contribution of comorbidities.

Combination therapy with SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists as complementary agents that address multi-organ defects in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) has a complex pathophysiology composed of multiple underlying defects that lead to impaired glucose homeostasis and the development of macrovascular and microvascular complications. Of the currently available glucose-lowering therapies, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) both provide effective glycemic control and have been shown to reduce cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with T2D and a high CV risk or established CV disease. Because these agents have complementary mechanisms of action, they are able to act on multiple defects of T2D when used in combination. This review discusses the rationale for and potential benefits of SGLT-2i plus GLP-1RA combination therapy in patients with T2D. A search of the PubMed database was conducted for studies and reviews describing the combined use of SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs, with a specific focus on identifying clinical studies of combination therapy in patients with T2D. In clinical studies, glycated hemoglobin (A1c) was significantly reduced over 28-52 weeks with SGLT-2i plus GLP-1RA therapy versus the individual agents or baseline. Several CV risk factors, including body weight, blood pressure, and lipid parameters, were also improved. SGLT-2i plus GLP-1RA therapy was generally well tolerated, with a low risk of hypoglycemia and no unexpected findings. Taken together with results from large CV outcomes trials of SGLT-2is and GLP-1RAs, combination therapy with these agents potentially provides effective durable glycemic control and CV benefits due to their complementary actions on the defects of T2D.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of oral DA-1229 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have inadequate glycaemic control with diet and exercise

BACKGROUND

DA-1229 is a novel, potent and selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-IV) inhibitor that is orally bioavailable. We aimed to evaluate the optimal dose, efficacy and safety of DA-1229, in Korean subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus suboptimally controlled with diet and exercise.

METHODS

We enrolled 158 patients (mean age, 53 years and a mean BMI, 25.6 kg/m(2) ). The mean baseline fasting plasma glucose level, HbA1c and duration of diabetes were 8.28 mmol/L, 7.6% (60 mmol/mol) and 3.9 years, respectively. After 2 or 6 weeks of an exercise and diet program followed by 2 weeks of a placebo period, the subjects were randomized into one of four groups for a 12-week active treatment period: placebo, 2.5, 5 or 10 mg of DA-1229.

RESULTS

All three doses of DA-1229 significantly reduced HbA1c from baseline compared to the placebo group (-0.09 in the placebo group vs. -0.56, -0.66 and -0.61% in 2.5, 5 and 10-mg groups, respectively) but without any significant differences between the doses. Insulin secretory function, as assessed by homeostasis model assessment β-cell, the insulinogenic index, 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) C-peptide and post-OGTT C-peptide area under the curve (AUC)0-2h, significantly improved with DA-1229 treatment. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the treatment groups and DA-1229 did not affect body weight or induce hypoglycaemic events.

CONCLUSIONS

DA-1229 monotherapy (5 mg for 12 weeks) improved HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose level, OGTT results and β-cell function. This drug was well tolerated in Korean subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

A nomogram to estimate the HbA1c response to different DPP-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 98 trials with 24 163 patients

OBJECTIVES

To develop a nomogram for estimating the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) response to different dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 inhibitors (vildagliptin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin and alogliptin) on HbA1c were conducted. Electronic searches were carried out up to December 2013. Trials were included if they were carried out on participants with type 2 diabetes, lasted at least 12 weeks, included at least 30 participants and had a final assessment of HbA1c. A random effect model was used to pool data. A nomogram was used to represent results of the metaregression model.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with type 2 diabetes.

INTERVENTIONS

Any DPP-4 inhibitor (vildagliptin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin or alogliptin).

OUTCOME MEASURES

The HbA1c response to each DPP-4 inhibitor within 1 year of therapy.

RESULTS

We screened 928 citations and reviewed 98 articles reporting 98 RCTs with 100 arms in 24 163 participants. There were 26 arms with vildagliptin, 37 with sitagliptin, 13 with saxagliptin, 13 with linagliptin and 11 with alogliptin. For all 100 arms, the mean baseline HbA1c value was 8.05% (64 mmol/mol); the decrease of HbA1c from baseline was -0.77% (95% CI -0.82 to -0.72%), with high heterogeneity (I(2)=96%). Multivariable metaregression model that included baseline HbA1c, type of DPP-4 inhibitor and fasting glucose explained 58% of variance between studies, with no significant interaction between them. Other factors, including age, previous diabetes drugs and duration of treatment added low predictive power (<1%). The nomogram estimates the absolute HbA1c reduction from baseline using the type of DPP-4 inhibitor, baseline values of HbA1c and fasting glucose.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline HbA1c level and fasting glucose explain most of the variance in HbA1c change in response to DPP-4 inhibitors: each increase of 1.0% units HbA1c provides a 0.4-0.5% units greater fall.

Glycaemic durability with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate glycaemic durability with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term randomised trials of DPP-4 inhibitors on haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was conducted. Electronic searches were carried out on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Knowledge to December 2013. Searches were supplemented by a review of trial registries and references from identified trials. Trials were included if they lasted at least 76 weeks, and had intermediate and final assessments of HbA1c. Citations and full-text articles were screened by two reviewers. A random effect model was used to pool data.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with type 2 diabetes.

INTERVENTIONS

Any DPP-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin and alogliptin).

OUTCOME MEASURES

The difference between final and intermediate HbA1c assessment was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

We screened 461 citations and reviewed 12 articles reporting 12 trials in 14 829 participants. All trials were of 76 weeks duration at least. The difference in HbA1c changes between final and intermediate points averaged 0.22% (95% CI 0.15% to 0.29%), with high heterogeneity (I(2)=91%, p<0.0001). Estimates of differences were not affected by the analysis of six extension trials (0.24%, 0.02 to 0.46), or five trials in which a DPP-4 inhibitor was added to metformin (0.24%, 0.16 to 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that the effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on HbA1c in type 2 diabetes significantly declines during the second year of treatment. Future research should focus on the characteristics of patients that benefit most from DPP-4 inhibitors in terms of glycaemic durability.

The effect of alogliptin and pioglitazone combination therapy on various aspects of β-cell function in patients with recent-onset type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management requires continuous treatment intensification due to progressive decline in β-cell function in insulin resistant individuals. Initial combination therapy of a dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor with a thiazolidinedione (TZD) may be rational. We assessed the effects of the DPP4 inhibitor alogliptin (ALO) combined with the TZD pioglitazone (PIO), vs ALO monotherapy or placebo (PBO), on β-cell function and glycemic control in T2DM.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A 16-week, two-center, randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled, parallel-arm intervention study in 71 patients with well-controlled T2DM (age 59.1±6.3 years; A1C 6.7±0.1%) treated with metformin, sulfonylurea, or glinide monotherapy was conducted. Patients were treated with combined ALO 25 mg and PIO 30 mg daily or ALO 25 mg daily monotherapy or PBO. Main outcome measures included change in A1C and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to week 16. In addition, change in β-cell function parameters obtained from standardized meal tests at baseline and at week 16 was measured.

RESULTS

ALO/PIO and ALO decreased A1C from baseline by 0.9±0.1 and 0.4±0.2% respectively (both P<0.001 vs PBO). FPG was decreased to a greater extent by ALO/PIO compared with ALO monotherapy (P<0.01). ALO/PIO treatment improved β-cell glucose sensitivity (vs PBO; P<0.001) and fasting secretory tone (vs PBO; P=0.001), while ALO monotherapy did not change β-cell function parameters. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Short-term treatment with ALO/PIO or ALO improved glycemic control in well-controlled T2DM patients, but only combined ALO/PIO improved β-cell function. These data support that initial combination therapy with a DPP4 inhibitor and TZD to address multiple core defects in T2DM may be a sensible approach.

Does personalized diabetology overcome clinical uncertainty and therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes?

Uncertainties abound in clinical management of type 2 diabetes. Sources of uncertainty specific to type 2 diabetes originate from the panoply of glycemic (HbA1c) targets, the complexity of drug therapy, the ideal sequence of drugs after metformin failure, the possible harms of anti-hyperglycemic drugs, the outcomes of treatment (surrogate versus clinical) and the hierarchy of risk factors to treat in order to prevent the vascular complications. Ironically, multiple treatment guidelines and algorithms periodically released to improve guidance may generate confusion into clinicians. Moreover, treatment algorithms cannot be truly evidence-based because of a lack of studies comparing all available treatment combination options. Personalized therapy essentially identifies patients who could have major benefits from the therapy as compared with other patients. Personalized medicine for type 2 diabetic has the potential to improve the quality health-care practice of diabetes management, but specific research is needed.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes therapy--focus on alogliptin

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex and progressive disease that is showing an apparently unstoppable increase worldwide. Although there is general agreement on the first-line use of metformin in most patients with type 2 diabetes, the ideal drug sequence after metformin failure is an area of increasing uncertainty. New treatment strategies target pancreatic islet dysfunction, in particular gut-derived incretin hormones. Inhibition of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) slows degradation of endogenous glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and thereby enhances and prolongs the action of the endogenous incretin hormones. The five available DPP-4 inhibitors, also known as 'gliptins' (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, alogliptin), are small molecules used orally with similar overall clinical efficacy and safety profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes. The main differences between the five gliptins on the market include: potency, target selectivity, oral bioavailability, long or short half-life, high or low binding to plasma proteins, metabolism, presence of active or inactive metabolites, excretion routes, dosage adjustment for renal and liver insufficiency, and potential drug-drug interactions. On average, treatment with gliptins is expected to produce a mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) decrease of 0.5%-0.8%, with about 40% of diabetic subjects at target for the HbA1c goal <7%. There are very few studies comparing DPP-4 inhibitors. Alogliptin as monotherapy or added to metformin, pioglitazone, glibenclamide, voglibose, or insulin therapy significantly improves glycemic control compared with placebo in adult or elderly patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. In the EXAMINE trial, alogliptin is being compared with placebo on cardiovascular outcomes in approximately 5,400 patients with type 2 diabetes. In clinical studies, DPP-4 inhibitors were generally safe and well tolerated. However, there are limited data on their tolerability, due to their relatively recent marketing approval. Alogliptin will be used most when avoidance of hypoglycemic events is paramount, such as in patients with congestive heart failure, renal failure, and liver disease, and in the elderly.

Effect of different types of self-management education in patients with diabetes

Education plays an important role in diabetes mellitus (DM) treatment, as it enables patients to manage their disease. There is a wide range of tested educational interventions, and, to date, no universal model that can be standardized and recognized as effective for all individuals with the disease has been defined. This article aims to review the effect of different types of educational interventions for self-management of glycemic control in patients with DM type 2, in addition to define general recommendations for this treatment strategy.