Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin added to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Metformin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Asian Adults: A Systematic Review

Metformin is a cheap, orally administered, guideline recommended glucose-lowering drug (GLD), initiated as monotherapy in treatment naïve newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D), and in combination with other GLDs in T2D not controlled on metformin. The unique Asian T2D phenotype that is markedly different than Western population, and warrants T2D treatment approaches unique to the Asian population. However, the bulk of metformin literature is from Western population and may not be generalizable for Asians. The systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of metformin monotherapy and combination therapy in Asians. Literature on other GLDs recommended by the 2023 American Diabetes Association guidelines as add-on therapy to metformin were included from Asia. The systematic review concluded that metformin is effective and safe for long-term T2D control of T2D in Asians. Metformin monotherapy may be initiated and continued in treatment naïve Asian patients with T2D and/or obesity if the monotherapy is adequate for achieving glycemic control. Other GLDs may be added for better glycemic control for those who fail on monotherapy. Patients inadequately controlled on another first-line GLD can achieve glycemic control and target HbA1c of <7% by adding metformin in a once daily dose. The use of metformin reduces the risk of hypoglycemia, and its gastrointestinal side effects are mild and manageable in Asians.

Effectiveness and Safety of Metformin, Teneligliptin, and Glimepiride Combination Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes: A Quasi Experimental Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) accounts for more than 95% of all diabetes cases and is a leading cause of disability and death. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a combination therapy involving metformin, teneligliptin, and glimepiride in patients diagnosed with T2DM.

METHODS

The present quasi-experimental clinical trial involved 300 adult T2DM patients. They were divided into three groups: Group 1 (Metformin; n=100), Group 2 (Metformin + Teneligliptin; n=100), and Group 3 (Metformin + Teneligliptin +; n=100). Along with demographic data, we collected information on HbA1c, FBS, and PPBS levels, as well as fasting insulin, CPeptide, HOMA-IR, QUICKI-IR, and lipid, renal, and hepatic profiles at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 21.0 software.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients participated in the study. At the end of 12 months, triple-drug therapy achieved significant glycemic control (HbA1c: 6.56±0.50%; P<0.0001) and reduced FBS (7.6±1.41 mg/dl; P<0.0001), PPBS (9.39±2.14 mg/dl; P<0.0001), and fasting insulin (11.26±2.5 IU; P<0.0001), C-peptide (2.01±2.29 ng/ml; P<0.0001), and insulin resistance by HOMA-IR (3.74±0.7; P<0.0001). Favorable lipid profiles (P<0.0001) were noted versus other groups. Despite renal and hepatic profile variations, values remained within the normal range.

CONCLUSION

The combination of teneligliptin with metformin and glimepiride in T2DM patients demonstrated significant improvements in glycaemic control, reduced insulin resistance, and positive effects on lipid, renal, and hepatic profiles. Importantly, the therapy did not result in serious adverse drug reactions, such as hypoglycemia. We need more RCTs to substantiate these findings.

Effect of glimepiride versus teneligliptin in combination with metformin in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

BACKGROUND

Long-term metabolic disease type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is distinguished by elevated blood glucose, insulin resistance, and drought of insulin with dyslipidemia. Oral hypoglycemic agents lower blood glucose levels as well as prevent both short-term and long-term complications such as micro/macrovascular atherosclerosis, chronic kidney diseases, and chronic heart disease. This study aims to compare the effect of glimepiride versus teneligliptin in combination with metformin in T2DM patients attending a tertiary care hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, open-label study was initiated in a tertiary care hospital after obtaining IEC approval. Written informed consent was obtained. The sample size was calculated using "Statistics and sample size software." Ninety-seven patients satisfying the inclusion criteria were assigned to two groups using simple randomization with allocation 1:1. Group A received metformin + glimepiride while Group B received metformin + teneligliptin for 12 weeks. Fasting blood sugar (FBS), postprandial blood sugar (PPBS), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and lipid profile were recorded at the baseline and at the end of 12 weeks. This study was conducted for 1 year. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23.0 software.

RESULTS

Out of 97 participants (Group A: 48 and Group B: 49), Group A showed a higher reduction in FBS (48.18 ± 9.64) whereas Group B showed 72.53 ± 5.01, 1.74 ± 0.42 of change in PPBS and HbA1c after 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The study found that combining metformin with teneligliptin was better tolerated and improved glycemic control and lipid profile compared to metformin plus glimepiride.

Comparison of teneligliptin and other gliptin-based regimens in addressing insulin resistance and glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of teneligliptin-based regimens and other gliptin-based regimens with respect to insulin resistance and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We enrolled T2DM subjects, inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride and taking one of the gliptins, and divided them into two groups, i.e. group 1 (teneligliptin-based regimens) and group 2 (other gliptin-based regimens). Fasting plasma insulin, adiponectin levels, homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and fasting blood glucose (FBG) were measured and compared. Costs of different gliptins were noted, and mean cost of per day therapy was compared.

RESULTS

Eighty-six subjects participated in this study (43 each in group 1 and group 2). No significant differences were observed in FBG, HbA1c, insulin levels, and HOMA-IR, but the trend was in favor of teneligliptin-based regimens. A significantly higher number of subjects achieved HbA1c target in group 1 (P < 0.001). Teneligliptin had significantly lower cost of per day therapy as compared to other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Teneligliptin seems to be cost-effective and safer option in T2DM subjects who were not adequately controlled with metformin and sulfonylureas. However, further prospective studies are needed.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Finding the most cost-effective option from commonly used Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in India: a systematic study

OBJECTIVE

To identify a preferred and cost-effective drug among Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) for Indian patients with T2DM.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search using standard databases for relevant literature. Original studies comparing the efficacy and/or safety of different DPP4Is were included. Two authors independently performed the literature search, screening, and collected relevant data from the selected studies. The costs of all brands of individual DPP4Is were noted and compared for lowest, highest, and average cost. Finally, we summarized the information with respect to Efficacy, safety, suitability, and cost to find the most cost-effective DPP4I.

RESULTS

We found 13 eligible studies containing data on 15,720 subjects. These studies showed similar efficacy (or better) and safety with teneligliptin as compared to other DPP4Is. Teneligliptin also showed additional benefits other than the glycemic control. The average cost per tablet of teneligliptin 20 mg was markedly lower as compared to sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and other commonly used DPP4Is. Teneligliptin also outscored other commonly used DPP4Is in India in suitability and seems to have better patient compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Teneligliptin 20 mg could be considered as the preferred and most cost-effective agent among commonly used DPP4Is for the effective management of patients with T2DM in India.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Potential approaches using teneligliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: current status and future prospects

INTRODUCTION

Based on pharmacological properties and results from clinical studies, teneligliptin has a great potential to be used as an alternate-day therapy and also the daily dose can be reduced to 10 mg. Clinical data also suggest its excellent efficacy and safety among older subjects.

AREAS COVERED

We have reviewed and discussed potential approaches using teneligliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) including alternate-day therapy and reduction of dose from 20 mg to 10 mg per day. We have also discussed the potential of teneligliptin to address the needs of older patients with T2DM.

EXPERT OPINION

It is an excellent option for use in older patients as studies in the geriatric population have shown encouraging results. Teneligliptin has a desirable pharmacokinetic profile that makes it a potential drug for use on an alternate-day basis. Teneligliptin has shown anti-diabetic efficacy even at a dose of 10 mg. These approaches may improve treatment satisfaction and patient compliance and can lower the cost; however, it is crucial to identify the subset of T2DM patients who can obtain maximum benefits. To verify these effects, large clinical investigations need to be planned and robust clinical evidence should be generated.

Pharmacokinetics of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Teneligliptin Hydrochloride Hydrate and Modified-Release Metformin Under Fasting and Fed Conditions in Healthy Subjects

Purpose

This study was performed to compare the pharmacokinetics of two fixed-dose combination (FDC) formulations of teneligliptin combined with modified-release metformin in healthy Korean subjects under fasting and fed conditions.

Patients and Methods

The study was a single-center, open-label, single-dose, 2-way, 2-period, crossover trial. A total of 72 eligible subjects (40 subjects in the fasting state study and 32 subjects in the fed study) were enrolled in the study and were randomized to treatment. After the administration of a single FDC tablet of the investigational products, blood samples were collected at specific time intervals from 0 to 96 hours. The plasma concentrations of teneligliptin and metformin were measured by ultra performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC‒MS/MS). Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated, and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios (test/reference) of the parameters were obtained through analysis of variance of the logarithmically transformed data.

Results

The corresponding 90% CIs of area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the time of last measurable concentration (AUCt) and maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax) for the test/reference geometric mean ratio (GMR) of teneligliptin were 94.81-101.32% and 86.03-97.63%, respectively, under fasting conditions. The corresponding 90% CIs of AUCt and Cmax for the test/reference GMR of metformin were 95.01-108.36% and 94.69-108.40%, respectively, under the fasting state and 98.82-107.56% and 97.25-106.99%, respectively, after feeding. All adverse events were of mild intensity, and the subjects recovered spontaneously without sequelae.

Conclusion

The test FDC drug is equivalent to the reference FDC drug in subjects under fasting and fed conditions within the Korean regulatory bioequivalence criteria. Both formulations were safe and well tolerated, and there were no differences in the safety profiles between the two single FDC formulation drugs.

Trial Registration No

Clinicaltrials.gov. KCT0007757, KCT0007759.