Efficacy, safety and impact on β-cell function of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and the difference between Asians and Caucasians: a meta-analysis

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.

Pathophysiology, phenotypes and management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Indian and Chinese populations

Nearly half of all adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) live in India and China. These populations have an underlying predisposition to deficient insulin secretion, which has a key role in the pathogenesis of T2DM. Indian and Chinese people might be more susceptible to hepatic or skeletal muscle insulin resistance, respectively, than other populations, resulting in specific forms of insulin deficiency. Cluster-based phenotypic analyses demonstrate a higher frequency of severe insulin-deficient diabetes mellitus and younger ages at diagnosis, lower β-cell function, lower insulin resistance and lower BMI among Indian and Chinese people compared with European people. Individuals diagnosed earliest in life have the most aggressive course of disease and the highest risk of complications. These characteristics might contribute to distinctive responses to glucose-lowering medications. Incretin-based agents are particularly effective for lowering glucose levels in these populations; they enhance incretin-augmented insulin secretion and suppress glucagon secretion. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors might also lower blood levels of glucose especially effectively among Asian people, while α-glucosidase inhibitors are better tolerated in east Asian populations versus other populations. Further research is needed to better characterize and address the pathophysiology and phenotypes of T2DM in Indian and Chinese populations, and to further develop individualized treatment strategies.

Role of Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors in Antidiabetic Treatment

In recent years, important changes have occurred in the field of diabetes treatment. The focus of the treatment of diabetic patients has shifted from the control of blood glucose itself to the overall management of risk factors, while adjusting blood glucose goals according to individualization. In addition, regulators need to approve new antidiabetic drugs which have been tested for cardiovascular safety. Thus, the newest class of drugs has been shown to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events, including sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) and some glucagon like peptide 1 receptor (GLP1) analog. As such, they have a prominent place in the hyperglycemia treatment algorithms. In recent years, the role of DPP4 inhibitors (DPP4i) has been modified. DPP4i have a favorable safety profile and anti-inflammatory profile, do not cause hypoglycemia or weight gain, and do not require dose escalation. In addition, it can also be applied to some types of chronic kidney disease patients and elderly patients with diabetes. Overall, DPP4i, as a class of safe oral hypoglycemic agents, have a role in the management of diabetic patients, and there is extensive experience in their use.

Do East Asians With Normal Glucose Tolerance Have Worse β-Cell Function? A Meta-Analysis of Epidemiological Studies

BACKGROUND

The difference in the relationship between β-cell function and insulin resistance among Africans, Caucasians and East Asians with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) was not well investigated.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Web of Science with keywords and identified studies that used the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) model to evaluate β-cell function (HOMA-B) and insulin sensitivity/resistance (HOMA-S/HOMA-IR) in certain ethnic groups. We used random-effect model to pool data of HOMAs and compared the combined data among the three ethnic groups using subgroup analysis. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the coefficient of HOMA-S on HOMA-B in these ethnic groups.

RESULTS

We evaluated pooled data of HOMAs in eight African, 26 Caucasian, and 84 East Asian cohorts with NGT, and also 2,392, 6,645 and 67,317 individuals, respectively. The three ethnic groups had distinct HOMA-B but similar HOMA-IR. The regression coefficient of lnHOMA-B on lnHOMA-S was different between Africans and Caucasians (-1.126 vs -0.401, P = 0.0006) or East Asian (-1.126 vs -0.586, P = 0.0087), but similar between Caucasians and East Asians (-0.401 vs -0.586, P = 0.1282). The coefficient in all ethnic groups was similar when age, BMI, and gender were adjusted (African vs Caucasian P = 0.0885, African vs East Asian P = 0.1092, and Caucasian vs East Asian P = 0.6298).

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with NGT, East Asians had lower HOMA-B but similar β-cell response relative to insulin resistance with Caucasians and Africans when age, BMI, and gender were controlled. This result may challenge the allegation that there was an Asian-specific diabetes phenotype with worse β-cell function.

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) have been available for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus since 2006. Although they are a diverse group, DPP4i are all small, orally available molecules that interact with the catalytic site of DPP4 without disturbing any of its other known functions, including its effects on the immune system. DPP4i have no intrinsic glucose-lowering activity, so their efficacy as anti-diabetic agents is related directly to their ability to inhibit DPP4 activity and is mediated through the effects of the substrates they protect. Of these, the incretin hormone, glucagon-like peptide 1, is probably the most important. As the effects of glucagon-like peptide 1 are glucose-dependent, the risk of hypoglycaemia with DPP4i is low. Class effects, which are directly related to the mechanism of action, are common to all DPP4i; these include their overall good safety profile and tolerability, as well as their efficacy in improving glycaemic control, but also, potentially, a small increased risk of acute pancreatitis. Compound-specific effects are those related to their differing chemistries and/or pharmacokinetic profiles. These compound-specific effects could affect the way in which individual DPP4i are used therapeutically and potentially explain off-target adverse effects, such as hospitalization for heart failure, which is seen only with one DPP4i. Overall, DPP4i have a favourable therapeutic profile and are safe and effective in the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Comparisons between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and other classes of hypoglycemic drugs using two distinct biomarkers of pancreatic beta-cell function: A meta-analysis

Background and objective

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have been suggested to have pancreatic beta-cell preserving effect according to studies using homeostatic model of assessment for beta-cell function (HOMA-β). However, whether HOMA-β is a suitable biomarker for comparisons between hypoglycemic drugs with different mechanisms of action remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors and other classes of hypoglycemic drugs on HOMA-β and proinsulin-to-insulin ratio (PIR).

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Ichushi-web for the period of 1966 to May 2020. We collected randomized, controlled clinical trials in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus comparing DPP-4 inhibitors and other classes of hypoglycemic agents [α-glucosidase inhibitors (α-GIs), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogues, metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, sulfonylureas, or thiazolidinediones]. Weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals of changes in HOMA-β or PIR during study periods were calculated for pairwise comparisons.

Results

Thirty-seven and 21 relevant trials were retrieved for comparisons of HOMA-β and PIR, respectively. HOMA-β and PIR consistently showed superiority of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with α-GIs. Both biomarkers consistently supported inferiority of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with GLP-1 analogues. However, PIR showed inferiority of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with metformin, and superiority compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, whereas HOMA-β showed no significant differences between DPP-4 inhibitors and the two other agents.

Conclusion

DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be superior to α-GIs but inferior to GLP-1 analogues in preservation of beta-cell function assessed by either HOMA-β or PIR. DPP-4 inhibitors seem to be superior to SGLT2 inhibitors but inferior to metformin on islet function assessed only by PIR. Because HOMA-β and PIR may indicate different aspects of beta-cell function, results of beta-cell function preserving effects of hypoglycemic agents should be interpreted with caution.

Efficacy and safety of adding evogliptin versus sitagliptin for metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: A 24-week randomized, controlled trial with open label extension

AIMS

This trial consisted of a 24-week multicentre, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled study and a 52-week open label extension study to assess the efficacy and safety of evogliptin, a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared to sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control with metformin alone.

METHODS

Adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (N = 222) with HbA1c 6.5% to 11% who were receiving stable doses of metformin (≥1000 mg/d) were randomized 1:1 to add-on evogliptin 5 mg (N = 112) or sitagliptin 100 mg (N = 110) once daily for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy analysis consisted of a comparison of the change from baseline HbA1c at week 24. Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% confidence interval for the HbA1c difference between treatments was <0.35%.

RESULTS

Mean changes in HbA1c following addition of evogliptin or sitagliptin were -0.59% and -0.65%, respectively. The between-group difference was 0.06% (2-sided 95% confidence interval, -0.10 to 0.22), demonstrating non-inferiority. After the 52-week treatment, evogliptin caused a persistently decreased level of HbA1c (-0.44% ± 0.65%, P  < .0001). In general, both treatments were well tolerated, with incidences and types of adverse events comparable between the two groups. Hypoglycaemic events, mostly mild, were reported in 0.9% of patients treated with evogliptin and in 2.8% of patients treated with sitagliptin for 24 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Evogliptin 5 mg added to metformin therapy effectively improved glycaemic control and was non-inferior to sitagliptin and well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that was inadequately controlled by metformin alone.

A 3-year follow-up study of β-cell function in patients with early-onset type 2 diabetes

Insulin resistance and reduced β-cell glucose sensitivity are present in patients with type 2 diabetes. In the present study, we investigated the changes in β-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes during a 3-year follow-up study. A total of 48 patients with early-onset type 2 diabetes (EOD) and 55 patients with late-onset type 2 diabetes (LOD) were enrolled. Weight, height, waist circumference, hip circumference, blood pressure and plasma levels of lipids, glucose, fasting serum C-peptide (CPR0) and serum C-peptide 6 min after glucagon stimulation (CPR6) were measured. In addition, islet β-cell secretory activity was detected. Subjects with EOD had lower Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), body mass index (BMI), fasting CPR0, CPR6 and greater glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), triglyceride (TG) compared with subjects with LOD. CPR0, CPR6 and TG were decreased in both EOD and LOD groups 3 years later. The ratio of β-cell function failure was 29.17 and 10.91% in the EOD and LOD groups, respectively, and there was significant difference between the two groups. A positive correlation was identified between the CPR0 and waist-hip ratio, HbA1c in the EOD group. A similar positive correlation was observed between CPR0 and BMI in the LOD group. Collectively, islet β-cell function has declined in patients with EOD, and this change may be more evident when compared with those with LOD.