Saxagliptin as initial therapy in treatment-naive Indian adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with diet and exercise alone: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIIb clinical study

Choice of Glucose-Lowering Drugs as Initial Monotherapy for Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Contraindications or Intolerance to Metformin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

There are multiple glucose-lowering drugs available as alternative initial monotherapy for type 2 diabetes patients with contraindications or intolerance to metformin. However, little comparative and systematic data are available for them as initial monotherapy. This study estimated and compared the treatment effects of glucose-lowering drugs as initial monotherapy for type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Chongqing VIP, and WanFang Data from 1 January 1990 until 31 December 2020 were searched for randomized controlled trials which compared a glucose-lowering drug with placebo/lifestyle-intervention for type 2 diabetes. Drug classes included metformin, sulfonylureas (SUs), thiazolidinediones (TZDs), glinides (NIDEs), α-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), insulins (INSs), and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs).

RESULTS

A total of 185 trials were included, identifying 38,376 patients from 56 countries across six continents. When choosing an initial drug monotherapy alternative to metformin, SUs were most efficacious in reducing HbA1c (-1.39%; 95% CI -1.63, -1.16) and FPG (-2.70 mmol/L; 95% CI -3.18, -2.23), but increased hypoglycemia risks (5.44; 95% CI 2.11, 14.02). GLP-1RAs were most efficacious in reducing BMI (-1.05 kg/m²; 95% CI -1.81, -0.29) and TC (-0.42 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.61, -0.22). TZDs were most efficacious in increasing HDL-C (0.12 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.07, 0.17). SGLT2is were most efficacious in lowering SBP (-4.18 mmHg; 95% CI -4.84, -3.53). While AGIs conferred higher risk of AE-induced discontinuations (2.57; 95% CI 1.64, 4.03). Overall, only GLP-1RAs showed an integrated beneficial effect on all outcomes. Our results also confirmed the intraclass differences in treatment effects across drugs. Most trials were short-term, and no significant differences in mortality, total vascular events, myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, or diabetic nephropathy were observed across drug classes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest a potential treatment hierarchy for decision-makers, with GLP-1RAs being the preferred alternative therapy to metformin regarding their favorable efficacy and safety profiles.

Screening for Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Type 2 diabetes is common and is a leading cause of morbidity and disability.

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence on screening for prediabetes and diabetes to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and trial registries through September 2019; references; and experts; literature surveillance through May 21, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language controlled studies evaluating screening or interventions for prediabetes or diabetes that was screen detected or recently diagnosed.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and study quality; qualitative synthesis of findings; meta-analyses conducted when at least 3 similar studies were available.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, diabetes-related morbidity, development of diabetes, quality of life, and harms.

RESULTS

The review included 89 publications (N = 68 882). Two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (25 120 participants) found no significant difference between screening and control groups for all-cause or cause-specific mortality at 10 years. For harms (eg, anxiety or worry), the trials reported no significant differences between screening and control groups. For recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, 5 RCTs (5138 participants) were included. In the UK Prospective Diabetes Study, health outcomes were improved with intensive glucose control with sulfonylureas or insulin. For example, for all-cause mortality the relative risk (RR) was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.96) over 20 years (10-year posttrial assessment). For overweight persons, intensive glucose control with metformin improved health outcomes at the 10-year follow-up (eg, all-cause mortality: RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.91]), and benefits were maintained longer term. Lifestyle interventions (most involving >360 minutes) for obese or overweight persons with prediabetes were associated with reductions in the incidence of diabetes (23 RCTs; pooled RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.88]). Lifestyle interventions were also associated with improved intermediate outcomes, such as reduced weight, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure (pooled weighted mean difference, -1.7 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.6 to -0.8] and -1.2 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.0 to -0.4], respectively). Metformin was associated with a significant reduction in diabetes incidence (pooled RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.83]) and reduction in weight and body mass index.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Trials of screening for diabetes found no significant mortality benefit but had insufficient data to assess other health outcomes; evidence on harms of screening was limited. For persons with recently diagnosed (not screen-detected) diabetes, interventions improved health outcomes; for obese or overweight persons with prediabetes, interventions were associated with reduced incidence of diabetes and improvement in other intermediate outcomes.

Risk of any hypoglycaemia with newer antihyperglycaemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

For patients with type 2 diabetes, newer antihyperglycaemic agents (AHA), including the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) offer a lower risk of hypoglycaemia relative to sulfonylurea or insulin. However, it is not clear how AHA compare to placebo on risk of any hypoglycaemia. This study evaluates the risk of any and severe hypoglycaemia with AHA and metformin relative to placebo.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized, placebo-controlled trials ≥12 weeks in duration. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched up to April 16, 2019. Studies allowing use of other diabetes medications were excluded. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals were used to pool estimates based on class of AHA and number of concomitant therapies used.

PATIENTS

Eligible studies enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes ≥18 years of age.

RESULTS

144 studies met our inclusion criteria. Any hypoglycaemia was not increased with AHA when used as monotherapy (DPP4i (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.81-1.56), GLP1RA (1.77; 0.91-3.46), SGLT2i (1.34; 0.83-2.15)), or as add-on to metformin (DPP4i (0.95; 0.67-1.35), GLP1RA (1.24; 0.80-1.91), SGLT2i (1.29; 0.91-1.83)) or as triple therapy (1.13; 0.67-1.91). However, metformin monotherapy (1.73; 1.02-2.94) and dual therapy initiation (3.56; 1.79-7.10) was associated with an increased risk of any hypoglycaemia. Severe hypoglycaemia was rare not increased for any comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin and the simultaneous initiation of dual therapy, but not AHA used alone or as single add-on combination therapy, was associated with an increased risk of any hypoglycaemia relative to placebo.

Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of saxagliptin for type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and two Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing saxagliptin with placebo or active comparators was performed up to July 2017. A complementary search was done to cover literature until March 2018. For continuous data, estimates were pooled using inverse variance methodology to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs). Dichotomous data were presented as Mantel-Haenzel risk ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine references of 30 RCTs involving 29,938 patients were analyzed. Compared with placebo, saxagliptin significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, WMD -0.52%, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.44) and fasting plasma glucose (WMD -13.78 mg/dL, 95% CI -15.31 to -12.25), and increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.75). When combined with submaximal-dose metformin, saxagliptin significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% compared with acarbose (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.83) and uptitrated metformin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.63). Saxagliptin was similar to other DPP-4 inhibitors but inferior to liraglutide and dapagliflozin on glycemic control. Saxagliptin significantly decreased the incidences of overall adverse events compared with acarbose (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89) and liraglutide (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) when added to metformin. Weight gain and hypoglycemia with saxagliptin was slightly but significantly higher than placebo and lower than sulfonylureas. Saxagliptin did not increase the risk of arthralgia, heart failure, pancreatitis and other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, saxagliptin has similar efficacy compared with most oral antidiabetic drugs and may be more effective than acarbose, while having a better safety profile than both acarbose and sulfonylureas.

Assessment of Saxagliptin Efficacy: Meta-Analysis of 14 Phase 2 and 3 Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis of data from 14 phase 2 and 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled 12- and 24-week studies (N = 4632) summarizes saxagliptin efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across treatment regimens.

METHODS

Patients received saxagliptin 5 mg/d or control as either monotherapy (n = 1196 vs placebo), add-on therapy (n = 2139 vs placebo and n = 514 vs uptitrated sulfonylurea), or initial combination therapy (n = 619 vs control monotherapy). Patients with renal impairment received saxagliptin 2.5 mg/d or placebo (n = 164).

RESULTS

Mean baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1C) ranged from 8.07% to 9.43% for the saxagliptin and control groups across treatment regimens. A1C reduction from baseline was greater with saxagliptin versus control for all studies combined (mean treatment difference [95% CI]: -0.55% [-0.63%, -0.47%]) and when used as monotherapy (-0.52% [-0.63, -0.40%]), add-on (-0.55% [-0.69%, -0.40%] vs placebo; -0.72% [-0.88%, -0.56%] vs uptitrated sulfonylurea), initial combination therapy (-0.54% [-0.73%, -0.35%] vs control monotherapy), and in patients with renal impairment (-0.42% [-0.75%, -0.09%]). Similar reductions in A1C versus control were noted for patients <65 years (-0.55% [-0.67%, -0.43%]) and ≥65 years (-0.54% [-0.69%, -0.38%]) and for men (-0.54% [-0.69%, -0.40%]) and women (-0.55% [-0.64%, -0.47%]) across treatment regimens. More patients achieved A1C <7% (39% vs 23%) and A1C ≤6.5% (24% vs 14%) with saxagliptin than with placebo or active-control treatment. Saxagliptin versus control was associated with a reduction in glucagon area under the curve (AUC) from baseline and increases in insulin AUC, C-peptide AUC, and the homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function.

CONCLUSION

Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate the consistency of saxagliptin efficacy in different subgroups of patients with T2D across treatment regimens.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Saxagliptin Efficacy and Safety in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate Renal Impairment

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD). The recommended dose of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor saxagliptin is 2.5 mg in patients with moderate or severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance ≤50 mL/min). In this post hoc analysis, we assessed the effect of saxagliptin 2.5 and 5 mg/day versus placebo on glycemic measures in patients with T2D and estimated glomerular filtration rate 45-60 mL/min/1.73 m(2).

METHODS

Efficacy and safety data were pooled from nine 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

RESULTS

The majority (56-61%) of patients were women aged <65 years with glycated hemoglobin (A1C) 8.1-8.2%; half of the patients had a T2D duration ≥5 years. Mean change from baseline in A1C was significantly greater with saxagliptin 2.5 (-0.6%, P = 0.036 vs placebo) and 5 mg/day (-0.9%, P < 0.001 vs placebo) compared with placebo (-0.2%). There were numerically greater reductions in fasting plasma glucose and 2-h postprandial glucose, and a significantly greater proportion of patients achieved A1C <7% with saxagliptin 5 mg/day (44.8%) compared with placebo (20.0%, P = 0.004 vs placebo). The incidence of hypoglycemia was not significantly different across groups (16.2% in the saxagliptin 5-mg/day, 12.2% in the saxagliptin 2.5-mg/day, and 11.3% in the placebo groups).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that saxagliptin 2.5 and 5 mg/day improve glycemic control and are generally well tolerated in patients with T2D and moderate CKD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00121641, NCT00316082, NCT00698932, NCT00918879, NCT00121667, NCT00661362, NCT00313313, NCT00295633, NCT00757588.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

Utility of Saxagliptin in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes: Review of Efficacy and Safety

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a complex disease in which multiple organs and hormones contribute to the pathogenesis of disease. The intestinal hormone, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), secreted in response to nutrient ingestion, increases insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells and reduces glucagon secretion from pancreatic α-cells. GLP-1 is inactivated by the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) enzyme. Saxagliptin is a DPP-4 inhibitor that prevents the degradation of endogenous GLP-1 and prolongs its actions on insulin and glucagon secretion. This article reviews the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

A PubMed literature search was conducted to identify relevant, peer-reviewed saxagliptin clinical trial articles published between January 2008 and June 2015. Search terms included "saxagliptin" and "DPP-4 inhibitors".

RESULTS

In clinical trials, saxagliptin significantly improved glycemic control when used as monotherapy or as add-on therapy to other antidiabetes agents and was associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia. In a large cardiovascular (CV) outcomes trial (SAVOR) in patients with T2DM and with established CV disease or multiple CV risk factors, saxagliptin neither increased nor decreased CV risk compared with placebo as assessed by the composite end point of death from CV causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Unexpectedly, more patients in the saxagliptin (3.5%) than in the placebo group (2.8%) were hospitalized for heart failure.

CONCLUSION

Saxagliptin demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in glycemic control and a low risk of hypoglycemia in patients with T2DM. However, this positive profile needs to be tempered by the observation of an increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure in the SAVOR trial. Results from ongoing CV outcome trials with other DPP-4 inhibitors may provide additional data on how best to manage patients with T2DM who are at risk for heart failure.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca LP.