Incretin therapies and risk of hospital admission for acute pancreatitis in an unselected population of European patients with type 2 diabetes: a case-control study

Acute pancreatitis due to different semaglutide regimens: An updated meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Some concerns persist regarding the safety of semaglutide. The objective of this updated meta-analysis is to assess the risk of acute pancreatitis with the use of semaglutide, assessing the results according to the different administration regimens.

METHODS

We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled studies of semaglutide therapy that report acute pancreatitis. This meta-analysis was performed in line with PRISMA guidelines. A global and stratified analysis according to the therapeutic scheme used was performed using the fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-one eligible trials of semaglutide, including 34,721 patients, were identified and considered eligible for the analyses. Globally, semaglutide therapy was not associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.2, I2 0%). When we analysed the studies according to the different schemes used, the results were similar (group with oral semaglutide: OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.10-1.60, I2 0%; group with low subcutaneous doses of semaglutide: OR 0.80; 95% CI 0.40-1.90, I2 0%; group with high subcutaneous doses of semaglutide: OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.50-1.20, I2 0%; interaction p-value=0.689).

CONCLUSION

This updated meta-analysis demonstrates that the use of semaglutide is not associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis compared to placebo. In the stratified analysis, the results were similar with the different semaglutide regimens analysed.

Safety of Semaglutide

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) semaglutide is the most recently approved agent of this drug class, and the only GLP-1RA currently available as both subcutaneous and oral formulation. While GLP-1RAs effectively improve glycemic control and cause weight loss, potential safety concerns have arisen over the years. For semaglutide, such concerns have been addressed in the extensive phase 3 registration trials including cardiovascular outcome trials for both subcutaneous (SUSTAIN: Semaglutide Unabated Sustainability in Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes) and oral (PIONEER: Peptide InnOvatioN for the Early diabEtes tReatment) semaglutide and are being studied in further trials and registries, including real world data studies. In the current review we discuss the occurrence of adverse events associated with semaglutide focusing on hypoglycemia, gastrointestinal side effects, pancreatic safety (pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer), thyroid cancer, gallbladder events, cardiovascular aspects, acute kidney injury, diabetic retinopathy (DRP) complications and injection-site and allergic reactions and where available, we highlight potential underlying mechanisms. Furthermore, we discuss whether effects are specific for semaglutide or a class effect. We conclude that semaglutide induces mostly mild-to-moderate and transient gastrointestinal disturbances and increases the risk of biliary disease (cholelithiasis). No unexpected safety issues have arisen to date, and the established safety profile for semaglutide is similar to that of other GLP-1RAs where definitive conclusions for pancreatic and thyroid cancer cannot be drawn at this point due to low incidence of these conditions. Due to its potent glucose-lowering effect, patients at risk for deterioration of existing DRP should be carefully monitored if treated with semaglutide, particularly if also treated with insulin. Given the beneficial metabolic and cardiovascular actions of semaglutide, and the low risk for severe adverse events, semaglutide has an overall favorable risk/benefit profile for patient with type 2 diabetes.

Acute pancreatitis risk in type 2 diabetes patients treated with canagliflozin versus other antihyperglycemic agents: an observational claims database study

Objective: Observational evidence suggests that patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at increased risk for acute pancreatitis (AP) versus those without T2DM. A small number of AP events were reported in clinical trials of the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor canagliflozin, though no imbalances were observed between treatment groups. This observational study evaluated risk of AP among new users of canagliflozin compared with new users of six classes of other antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs).Methods: Three US claims databases were analyzed based on a prespecified protocol approved by the European Medicines Agency. Propensity score adjustment controlled for imbalances in baseline covariates. Cox regression models estimated the hazard ratio of AP with canagliflozin compared with other AHAs using on-treatment (primary) and intent-to-treat approaches. Sensitivity analyses assessed robustness of findings.Results: Across the three databases, there were between 12,023-80,986 new users of canagliflozin; the unadjusted incidence rates of AP (per 1000 person-years) were between 1.5-2.2 for canagliflozin and 1.1-6.6 for other AHAs. The risk of AP was generally similar for new users of canagliflozin compared with new users of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, insulin, and other AHAs, with no consistent between-treatment differences observed across databases. Intent-to-treat and sensitivity analysis findings were qualitatively consistent with on-treatment findings.Conclusions: In this large observational study, incidence rates of AP in patients with T2DM treated with canagliflozin or other AHAs were generally similar, with no evidence suggesting that canagliflozin is associated with increased risk of AP compared with other AHAs.

No pancreatic safety concern following glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapies: A pooled analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials

AIMS

Evidence on the pancreatic safety of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy has been limited. The objective of the study was to investigate this issue by pooling data on the incidence of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer from four large-scale cardiovascular outcome trials of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from four published cardiovascular outcome trials of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes, and pooled analysis was performed to evaluate the risk of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist treatment. Peto OR with 95% CI was used for risk evaluation.

RESULTS

The four cardiovascular outcome trials enrolled a total of 33 457 patients with type 2 diabetes and reported 123 patients with acute pancreatitis and 70 patients with pancreatic cancer during the median follow-ups of 2.1 to 3.8 years. There was no increased risk of either acute pancreatitis (Peto OR 0.89 [95% CI 0.63, 1.27]) or pancreatic cancer (Peto OR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53, 1.35]) associated with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists compared with placebo when added to standard care.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined analysis of the four cardiovascular outcome trials showed that treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists was not associated with an increased risk of either acute pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes. Our new analysis further supports the previously reported results.

Comparative Safety of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors Versus Sulfonylureas and Other Glucose-lowering Therapies for Three Acute Outcomes

Although the glucose lowering effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors is well established, several potential serious acute safety concerns have been raised including acute kidney injury, respiratory tract infections, and acute pancreatitis. Using the UK-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), we identified initiators (365-day washout period) of DPP4 inhibitors and relevant comparators including initiators of sulfonylureas, metformin, thiazolidinediones, and insulin between January 2007 and January 2016 to quantify the association between DPP4 inhibitors and three acute health events – acute kidney injury, respiratory tract infections, and acute pancreatitis. The associations between drug and study outcomes were estimated using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for deciles of high-dimensional propensity scores and number of additional glucose lowering agents. After controlling for potential confounders, the risk was not significantly increased or decreased for initiators of DPP4 inhibitors compared to sulfonylureas (hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for acute kidney injury: 0.81 [0.56–1.18]; HR for respiratory tract infections: 0.93 [0.84–1.04]; HR for acute pancreatitis 1.03 [0.42–2.52], metformin (HR for respiratory tract infection 0.91 [0.65–1.27]), thiazolidinediones (HR for acute kidney injury: 1.12 [0.60–2.10]; HR for respiratory tract infections: 1.02 [0.86–1.21]; HR for acute pancreatitis: 1.21 [0.25–5.72]), or insulin (HR for acute kidney injury: 1.40 [0.77–2.55]; HR for respiratory tract infections: 0.74 [0.60–0.92]; HR for acute pancreatitis: 1.01 [0.24–4.19]). Initiators of DPP4 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury when compared to metformin initiators (HR [95% CI] for acute kidney injury: 1.85 [1.10–3.12], although this association was attenuated when DPP4 inhibitor monotherapy was compared to metformin monotherapy exposure as a time-dependent variable (HR 1.39 [0.91–2.11]). Initiation of a DPP4 inhibitor was not associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury, respiratory tract infections, or acute pancreatitis compared to sulfonylureas or other glucose-lowering therapies.

The Risk of Acute Pancreatitis After Initiation of Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors: Testing a Hypothesis of Subgroup Differences in Older U.S. Adults

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4I) increase acute pancreatitis risk in older patients and whether the association varies by age, sex, and history of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of DPP-4I initiators versus thiazolidinedione (TZD) or sulfonylurea initiators using U.S. Medicare beneficiaries, 2007-2014. Eligible initiators were aged 66 years or older without history of pancreatic disease or alcohol-related diseases. Patients were followed up for hospitalization due to acute pancreatitis and censored at 90 days after treatment changes. Weighted Cox models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for acute pancreatitis. Analyses were performed overall as well as within subgroups defined by age, sex, and CVD history.

RESULTS

We found no increased risk of acute pancreatitis comparing 49,374 DPP-4I initiators to 132,223 sulfonylurea initiators (weighted HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.83-1.24) and comparing 57,301 DPP-4I initiators to 32,612 TZD initiators (weighted HR 1.11; 95% CI 0.76-1.62). Age and sex did not modify the association. Among patients with CVD, acute pancreatitis incidence was elevated in initiators of DPP-4I and sulfonylurea (2.3 and 2.4 per 1,000 person-years, respectively) but not in TZD initiators (1.5). Among patients with CVD, higher risk of acute pancreatitis was observed with DPP-4I compared with TZD (weighted HR 1.84; 95% CI 1.02-3.35) but not compared with sulfonylurea.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides evidence that DPP-4I is not associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis in older adults overall. The positive association observed in patients with CVD could be due to chance or bias but merits further investigation.

Incretin-based therapies and risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including 6 recently published large-scale cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), to evaluate the risk of pancreatic cancer with incretin-based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For the period January 1, 2007 to May 1, 2017, the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register and ClininalTrials.gov databases were searched for RCTs in people with T2DM that compared incretin drugs with placebo or other antidiabetic drugs, with treatment and follow-up durations of ≥52 weeks. Two reviewers screened the studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias independently and in duplicate.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies (n = 79 971), including the 6 CVOTs, with 87 pancreatic cancer events were identified. Overall, the pancreatic cancer risk was not increased in patients administered incretin drugs compared with controls (Peto odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-1.02). In the 6 CVOTs, 79 pancreatic cancer events were identified in 55 248 participants. Pooled estimates of the 6 CVOTs showed an identical tendency (Peto OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.42-1.01). Notably, in the subgroup of participants who received treatment and follow-up for ≥104 weeks, 84 pancreatic cancer events were identified in 59 919 participants, and a lower risk of pancreatic cancer was associated with incretin-based therapies (Peto OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with incretin drugs was not associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in people with T2DM. Instead, it might protect against pancreatic malignancy in patients treated for ≥104 weeks.

Association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor drugs and risk of acute pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported conflicting results for the relationship between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor drugs and acute pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between DPP-4 inhibitors and an increased risk of acute pancreatitis using meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception to March 4, 2017. Original articles with data on DPP-4 inhibitors and acute pancreatitis were included. We used random-effects models or fixed-effects models to combine the relative risks (RRs), odds ratio (OR), and hazard ratio (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in randomized controlled studies, case-control study and cohort study, respectively.

RESULTS

Five case-control studies, 5 randomized controlled studies, and 3 cohort studies were selected of the 451 retrieved abstracts. A higher risk of acute pancreatitis was observed with the following RR/OR and 95%CI: RR 1.67 (1.08-2.59) in randomized controlled studies and OR 1.45 (1.30-1.61) in case-control studies. However, the pooled HR of the 3 cohort studies failed to confirm this association.

CONCLUSION

There is a marginally higher risk of acute pancreatitis with DPP-4 inhibitors. However, this risk was not observed in cohort studies. Thus, further clinical trials are required to confirm this finding.

Safety issues with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer and cholelithiasis): Data from randomized controlled trials

AIM

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) have been associated with an increased risk of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Prior meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials failed to show any significant increase of risk; however, those meta-analyses did not include the recently published cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOT) with GLP1-RA, which provide a substantial additional body of data. The aim of the present meta-analysis is to assess the effect of GLP1-RA on pancreatitis, pancreatic cancers and cholelithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Medline search for GLP-1 receptor agonists (exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, albiglutide, dulaglutide or semaglutide) was performed, collecting all randomized clinical trials with a duration >11 weeks, enrolling patients with type 2 diabetes and comparing a GLP-1 receptor agonist with placebo or any other non-GLP-1 receptor agonist drug.

RESULTS

Of the 113 trials fulfilling inclusion criteria, 13 did not report information on pancreatitis, whereas 72 reported no events in all treatment groups. The incidence of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer with GLP1-RA was not significantly different from that observed in comparator arms (MH-OR [95% CI] 0.93 [0.65-1.34], P = .71, and 0.94 [0.52-1.70], P = .84, respectively), whereas, a significantly increased risk of cholelithiasis (MH-OR [95% CI] 1.30 [1.01-1.68], P = .041) was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Presently available data confirm the safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists for pancreatitis. Conversely, therapy with those drugs is associated with an increased risk of cholelithiasis, which deserves further investigation.

Monitoring safety and use of old and new treatment options for type 2 diabetic patients: a two-year (2013-2016) analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare patients' and physicians' perceptions regarding effectiveness and tolerability of non-insulin hypoglycemic drugs in a cohort of type 2 diabetic patients; to verify whether a possible tridimensional link between effectiveness, tolerability, and adherence affects long-term therapeutic outcomes.

METHODS

A two-year observational study was performed in 1389 Type 2 diabetic patients by involving general practitioner clinics and Diabetes Centers. A decimal scale and the Morisky questionnaire were used, respectively, to assess effectiveness and tolerability perceptions, and medication adherence.

RESULTS

Physicians perceived therapy as more efficacious compared to their patients: perceived effectiveness was steady for physicians during the study whereas patients' perception not significantly decreased (mean score from >8 to 7.84 ± 1.69). Physicians assigned higher tolerability scores compared to patients but only at the beginning of the study; interestingly, physicians' tolerability perception was poorer than patients' perception at last follow-up (mean score = 7.57 ± 1.40 vs. 7.88 ± 1.84). Favorable (score >7) patients' perceptions about treatment effectiveness and tolerability were associated with higher adherence. Patients showed medium adherence across the study.

CONCLUSIONS

A mutual relationship between clinical effectiveness, adverse drug reactions, and adherence has been established, significantly impacting the clinical management of diabetic patients. A careful monitoring of this link by clinicians appears therefore necessary.

Incretin-based pharmacotherapy and risk of adverse pancreatic events in the ethnic Chinese with diabetes mellitus: A population-based study in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic safety remains a concern for diabetic patients using incretin-based medications. We aimed to determine if there was an association between incretin-based therapy and an increased risk for acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS

This retrospective population-based cohort study analyzed data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. A total of 13 171 eligible type 2 DM patients who had received incretin-based treatment for a minimum of two months were matched 1:1 for age, gender, diabetes complications severity index, and inception date with DM patients who never used this pharmacotherapy. The cohorts were compared for occurrence of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. The association between incretin-based therapy and acute pancreatitis was assessed using a Cox proportional hazard model and stratified analyses.

RESULTS

Acute pancreatitis occurred in 71 (0.54%) incretin users and 66 (0.50%) non-users, respectively (P = 0.67). The association remained insignificant (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72-1.55) after adjustment for cholelithiasis (adjusted HR, 2.76; 95% CI = 1.32-5.75) and alcohol-related disease (adjusted HR 9.14, 95% CI = 2.08-40.14) in the Cox model. Stratified analyses affirmed no association between incretin-based therapy and pancreatitis in any subgroup. Pancreatic cancer occurred in 6 (0.05%) and 10 (0.08%) patients in the user and non-user cohort, respectively (P = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

Incretin-based therapy is not associated with acute pancreatitis and short-term pancreatic cancer risk among ethnic Chinese patients with diabetes. This study supports the pancreatic safety of incretin-based pharmacotherapy.

GLP-1 based therapies: clinical implications for gastroenterologists

The gut-derived incretin hormone, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) lowers postprandial blood glucose levels by stimulating insulin and inhibiting glucagon secretion. Two novel antihyperglycaemic drug classes augment these effects; GLP-1 receptor agonists and inhibitors of the GLP-1 degrading enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase 4. These so called GLP-1 based or incretin based drugs are increasingly used to treat type 2 diabetes, because of a low risk of hypoglycaemia and favourable effect on body weight, blood pressure and lipid profiles. Besides glucose control, GLP-1 functions as an enterogastrone, causing a wide range of GI responses. Studies have shown that endogenous GLP-1 and its derived therapies slow down digestion by affecting the stomach, intestines, exocrine pancreas, gallbladder and liver. Understanding the GI actions of GLP-1 based therapies is clinically relevant; because GI side effects are common and need to be recognised, and because these drugs may be used to treat GI disease.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor Use Is Not Associated With Acute Pancreatitis in High-Risk Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Nationwide Cohort Study

To analyze the association between use of DPP-4 inhibitors and acute pancreatitis in high-risk type 2 diabetic patients. A retrospective nationwide cohort study was conducted using the Taiwan National Health Insurance claim database. The risk associated with sitagliptin was compared to that with acarbose, a second-line antidiabetic drug prescribed for patients with similar diabetes severity and with a known neutral effect on pancreatitis. Between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010, a total of 8526 sitagliptin initiators and 8055 acarbose initiators who had hypertriglyceridemia or prior hospitalization history for acute pancreatitis were analyzed for the risk of hospitalization due to acute pancreatitis stratified for baseline propensity score. In the crude analysis, sitagliptin was associated with a decreased risk of acute pancreatitis (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.88) compared to acarbose in diabetic patients with prior history of hospitalization for pancreatitis or hypertriglyceridemia. The association was abolished after stratification for propensity score quintiles (adjusted HR 0.95; 95% CI: 0.79-1.16). Similar results were found separately in both patients' histories of prior hospitalization of acute pancreatitis (adjusted HR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.76-1.24) and those with hypertriglyceridemia (adjusted HR 0.86; 95% CI: 0.65-1.13). No significant association was found for different durations or accumulative doses of sitagliptin. In the stratified analysis, no significant effect modification was found in relation to patients' characteristics. Use of sitagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis in high-risk diabetic patients with hypertriglyceridemia or with history of acute pancreatitis.

Sitagliptin use and risk of acute pancreatitis in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A population-based case-control study in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

There is still lack of definite evidence to establish the association between sitagliptin use and acute pancreatitis. The study aimed to test this issue in Taiwan.

METHODS

This case-control study was designed to analyze the database of the Taiwan National Health Insurance Program. There were 349 subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus aged 20-84 with a first-attack of acute pancreatitis from 2009 to 2011 as the case group and 1116 randomly selected subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus without acute pancreatitis as the control group. Both groups were matched with sex, age, comorbidities, and index year of diagnosing acute pancreatitis. Current use of sitagliptin was defined as subjects who had their last tablet of sitagliptin ≤7 days before the date of diagnosing acute pancreatitis. Late use of sitagliptin was defined as subjects who had their last tablet of sitagliptin between 8 and 30 days before the date of diagnosing acute pancreatitis. Never use of sitagliptin was defined as subjects who never had a sitagliptin prescription. The risk of acute pancreatitis associated with sitagliptin use was estimated by the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the multivariable logistic regression model.

RESULTS

After statistical correction for potential confounders, the adjusted OR of acute pancreatitis was 2.47 for subjects with current use of sitagliptin (95% CI 0.84, 7.28), when compared with those never using sitagliptin, but without statistical significance. The adjusted OR decreased to 1.14 for subjects with late use of sitagliptin (95% CI 0.66, 1.98), but without statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant association is detected between sitagliptin use and acute pancreatitis in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Incretin-based drugs and adverse pancreatic events: almost a decade later and uncertainty remains

Over the past few years, substantial clinical data have been presented showing that incretin-based therapies are effective glucose-lowering agents. Specifically, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists demonstrate an efficacy comparable to insulin treatment with minimal hypoglycemia and have favorable effects on body weight. Thus, many of the unmet clinical needs noted from prior therapies are addressed by these agents. However, even after many years of use, many continue to raise concerns about the long-term safety of these agents and, in particular, the concern with pancreatitis. This clearly remains a complicated topic. Thus, in this issue of Diabetes Care, we continue to update our readers on this very important issue by presenting two studies evaluating incretin-based medications and risk of pancreatitis. Both have undergone significant revisions based on peer review that provided significant clarification of the data. We applaud both author groups for being extremely responsive in providing the additional data and revisions requested by the editorial team. As such, because of the critical peer review, we feel both articles achieve the high level we require for Diabetes Care and are pleased to now present them to our readers. In keeping with our aim to comprehensively evaluate this topic, we asked for additional commentaries to be prepared. In the narrative outlined below, Dr. Laurent Azoulay provides a commentary about the remaining uncertainty in this area and also discusses the results from a nationwide population-based case-control study. In the narrative preceding Dr. Azoulay's contribution, Prof. Edwin A.M. Gale provides a commentary on the report that focuses on clinical trials of liraglutide in the treatment of diabetes. From the journal's perspective, both of the articles on pancreatitis and incretin-based therapies reported in this issue have been well vetted, and we feel both of the commentaries are insightful.

Incretin-based therapy and risk of acute pancreatitis: a nationwide population-based case-control study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether the use of incretin-based drugs (GLP-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 [DPP4] inhibitors) is associated with acute pancreatitis.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study was a nationwide population-based case-control study using medical databases in Denmark. Participants were 12,868 patients with a first-time hospitalization for acute pancreatitis between 2005 and 2012 and a population of 128,680 matched control subjects. The main outcome measure was the odds ratio (OR) for acute pancreatitis associated with different antihyperglycemic drugs. We adjusted for history of gallstones, alcoholism, obesity, and other pancreatitis-associated comorbidities and medications.

RESULTS

A total of 89 pancreatitis patients (0.69%) and 684 control subjects (0.53%) were ever users of incretins. The crude OR for acute pancreatitis among incretin users was 1.36 (95% CI 1.08-1.69), while it was 1.44 (95% CI 1.34-1.54) among users of other antihyperglycemic drugs. After confounder adjustment, the risk of acute pancreatitis was not increased among incretin users (OR 0.95 [95% CI 0.75-1.21]), including DPP4 inhibitor users (OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.80-1.37]) or GLP-1 receptor agonist users (OR 0.82 [95% CI 0.54-1.23]), or among nonincretin antihyperglycemic drug users (OR 1.05 [95% CI 0.98-1.13]), compared with nonusers of any antihyperglycemic drugs. Findings were similar in current versus ever drug users and in patients with pancreatitis risk factors. The adjusted OR comparing incretin-based therapy with other antihyperglycemic therapy internally while also adjusting for diabetes duration and complications was 0.97 (95% CI 0.76-1.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the use of incretin-based drugs appears not to be associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis.

Incretin-based drugs and risk of acute pancreatitis: A nested-case control study within a healthcare database

To assess the association between use of incretin-based drugs for diabetes mellitus and the occurrence of acute pancreatitis. A population-based, nested case-control study was performed within a cohort of 166,591 patients from the Lombardy region (Italy) aged 40 years or older who were newly treated with oral antihyperglycaemic agents between 2004 and 2007. Cases were 666 patients who experienced acute pancreatitis from April 1, 2008 until December 31, 2012. For each case patient, up to 20 controls were randomly selected from the cohort and matched on gender, age at cohort entry, and date of index prescription. Conditional logistic regression was used to model the risk of acute pancreatitis associated with use of incretin-based drugs within 30 days before hospitalization, after adjustment for several risk factors, including the use of other antihyperglycaemic agents. Sensitivity analyses were performed in order to account for possible sources of systematic uncertainty. Use of incretin-based drugs within 30 days was reported by 17 (2.6%) cases of acute pancreatitis versus 193 (1.5%) controls. The corresponding multivariate odds ratio was 1.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 2.99). Slightly lower and no significant excess risks were observed by shortening (15 days) and increasing (60 and 90 days) the time-window at risk. This study supports a possible increased risk of acute pancreatitis in relation to use of incretin-based drugs reported in a few previous studies. However, given the potential for bias and the inconsistency with other studies, additional investigations are needed to clarify the safety of incretin-based-drugs.

The risk of pancreatitis with sitagliptin therapy in older adults: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

The risk of pancreatitis with sitagliptin use in routine care remains to be established in older patients. We aimed to determine this risk in older adults who were newly prescribed sitagliptin versus an alternative hypoglycemic agent in the outpatient setting.

METHODS

In a population-based retrospective cohort study in Ontario from 2010 until 2012 involving adults aged 66 years and older, we studied those who were newly prescribed sitagliptin or an alternative hypoglycemic agent. Our primary outcome of interest was a hospital encounter (emergency department visit or hospital admission) with acute pancreatitis within 90 days. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance the 2 groups and logistic regression with a robust variance estimate to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 57 689 patients (mean age 74 yr) were newly prescribed sitagliptin, and 83 405 patients (mean age 75 yr) were given an alternative hypoglycemic agent (metformin, glyburide, gliclazide or insulin) during the study period. After weighting, there were no significant differences in measured baseline characteristics between groups. In the weighted sample, sitagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of a hospital encounter with pancreatitis compared with alternative hypoglycemic agents (weighted total 46 of 57 689 patients taking sitagliptin [0.08%] v. 48 of 55 705 patients taking alternative hypoglycemic agents [0.09%], absolute risk difference -0.01% [95% CI -0.05% to 0.02%], OR 0.92 [95% CI 0.55 to 1.55]).

INTERPRETATION

Older adults newly prescribed sitagliptin in routine care were not at a substantially higher risk of pancreatitis than those prescribed alternative hypoglycemic agents. These findings are reassuring for those who use or prescribe sitagliptin in the management of type 2 diabetes.

Incretin-based therapies and acute pancreatitis risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Concerns raised by several animal studies, case reports, and pharmacovigilance warnings over incretin-based therapy potentially exposing type two diabetes patients to an elevated risk of pancreatitis have cast a shadow on the overall safety of this class of drugs. This systematic review evaluates the data from observational studies that compared treatment with or without incretins and the risk of pancreatitis. We searched PubMed for publications with the key terms incretins or GLP-1 receptor agonists or DPP-4 inhibitors or sitagliptin or vildagliptin or saxagliptin or linagliptin or alogliptin or exenatide or liraglutide AND pancreatitis in the title or abstract. Studies were evaluated against the following criteria: design (either cohort or case-control); outcome definition (incidence of pancreatitis); exposure definition (new or current or past incretins users); and comparison between patients receiving incretins or not for type 2 diabetes. Two authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Six studies meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed. No difference was found in the overall risk of pancreatitis between incretin users and non-users (odds ratio 1.08; 95 % CI [0.84-1.40]). A risk increase lower than 35 % cannot be excluded according to the power calculation. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that type 2 diabetes patients receiving incretin-based therapy are not exposed to an elevated risk of pancreatitis. Limitations of this analysis are the low prevalence of incretin users and the lack of a clear distinction by the studies between therapy with DPP-4 inhibitors or with GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for treating type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (gliptins) occupy a growing place in the armamentarium of drugs used for the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, although some safety concerns have been raised in recent years.

AREAS COVERED

An updated review providing an analysis of available safety data (meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, observational cohort and case-control studies and pharmacovigilance reports) with five commercialized DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, linagliptin). A special focus is given to overall safety profile; pancreatic adverse events (AEs) (acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer); overall cardiovascular safety (myocardial infarction and stroke); congestive heart failure concern and finally, safety in special populations (elderly, renal impairment).

EXPERT OPINION

The good tolerance/safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors has been largely confirmed, including in more fragile populations (elderly, renal impairment) with almost no increased risk of infection or gastrointestinal AEs, no weight gain and a minimal risk of hypoglycemia. Although an increased risk of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer was suspected, the complete set of available data appears reassuring so far. Cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors has been proven but an unexpected increased risk of heart failure has been reported which should be confirmed in ongoing trials and better understood. Further postmarketing surveillance is recommended.

Sitagliptin increases acute pancreatitis risk within 2 years of its initiation: A retrospective cohort analysis of the National Health Insurance database in Taiwan

PURPOSE

To evaluate the risk of acute pancreatitis hospitalization with sitagliptin use in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort analysis included newly diagnosed T2DM with onset age ≥25 years between 1999 and 2010 from the National Health Insurance database. Ever users (n = 89,800) and never users (n = 449,000) of sitagliptin were followed until end of 2011. A time-dependent approach was used to calculate event incidence and estimate hazard ratios adjusted for propensity score.

RESULTS

During follow-up, 261 ever users and 5,840 never users were hospitalized for acute pancreatitis (respective incidence, 224.0 and 168.4 per 100,000 person-years), with adjusted hazard ratio of 1.59 (95% CI 1.40-1.81). The respective hazard ratio for the first, second, and third tertile of time since starting sitagliptin <9.5, 9.5-21.0, and >21.0 months was 8.10 (6.80-9.65), 1.70 (1.38-2.11), and 0.41 (0.30-0.56); 3.26 (2.67-3.98), 1.86 (1.52-2.27), and 0.76 (0.59-0.98) for cumulative duration <3.7, 3.7-10.3, and >10.3 months; and 3.21 (2.65-3.90), 1.89 (1.54-2.32), and 0.73 (0.57-0.95) for cumulative dose <9,000, 9,000-28,000, and >28,000 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Sitagliptin is associated with a higher risk of acute pancreatitis within the first 2 years of its initiation. The risk diminishes thereafter, probably due to the depletion of susceptible patients.

Using real-world data to evaluate the association of incretin-based therapies with risk of acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of 1,324,515 patients from observational studies

AIM

To investigate the real-world incidence of acute pancreatitis (AP) associated with incretin-based therapy (IBT).

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies using Medline, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database, ClinicalTrials.gov and conference proceedings. We included: those studies in which AP was a pre-defined clinical outcome; longitudinal studies (case-control, cohort); studies that adjusted for confounders; studies that reported on a population exposed to IBT; studies in which non-IBT users or past users (who received IBTs >90 days before the index date) were used as the control group; studies that reported risk estimates [relative risks, odds ratios (ORs) or hazard ratios] with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AP event with IBT use, or that reported sufficient data to estimate these; and publications in the English language. Data were extracted by two independent investigators, and a consensus was reached with involvement of a third. Study-specific ORs from seven cohort studies and two case-control studies were meta-analysed using random-effects models. Associations were tested in subgroups representing different patient characteristics and study quality.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies that included 1,324,515 patients and 5195 cases of AP were included in our meta-analysis. The summary estimate of OR for an association between IBT and AP was 1.03 (95% CI 0.87-1.20).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis of real-world data does not suggest that IBT is associated with AP. Although we should continue to remain vigilant, IBTs should be regarded as reasonable options to consider adding to the regimen of a patient with type 2 diabetes.

Incretin-based therapies in prediabetes: Current evidence and future perspectives

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is evolving globally at an alarming rate. Prediabetes is an intermediate state of glucose metabolism that exists between normal glucose tolerance (NGT) and the clinical entity of T2D. Relentless β-cell decline and failure is responsible for the progression from NGT to prediabetes and eventually T2D. The huge burden resulting from the complications of T2D created the need of therapeutic strategies in an effort to prevent or delay its development. The beneficial effects of incretin-based therapies, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, on β-cell function in patients with T2D, together with their strictly glucose-depended mechanism of action, suggested their possible use in individuals with prediabetes when greater β-cell mass and function are preserved and the possibility of β-cell salvage is higher. The present paper summarizes the main molecular intracellular mechanisms through which GLP-1 exerts its activity on β-cells. It also explores the current evidence of incretin based therapies when administered in a prediabetic state, both in animal models and in humans. Finally it discusses the safety of incretin-based therapies as well as their possible role in order to delay or prevent T2D.

Potential side effects to GLP-1 agonists: understanding their safety and tolerability

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor (GLP-1Rx) agonists might elicit unwelcome side effects and concerns have recently been raised about their safety.

AREAS COVERED

Available evidence about safety, tolerability and potential adverse events relative to GLP-1Rx agonists presently used. We searched the MEDLINE database using the terms: 'GLP-1 receptor agonists', 'Incretin therapy side effects', 'exenatide', ' liraglutide', 'exenatide long-acting release', 'lixisenatide'. Articles were selected on the basis of the study design and importance, in the light of authors' clinical experience and personal judgment. The main safety concern about GLP-1Rx agonists use is the possible association with increased risk of pancreatitis and/or tumors. This concern stems mainly from limited observations in animal models not confirmed in similar studies. Furthermore, clinical studies reporting association between GLP-1Rx agonist use and pancreatitis/cancer are marred by several biases and both clinical trials and post-marketing analyses failed to demonstrate a significant association.

EXPERT OPINION

As stated by both FDA and EMA, the safety concerns emerged so far about GLP-1RX agonists should not affect present prescribing habits. Thus, although a strict data monitoring must be encouraged, they should not prevent access to the benefits of an innovative treatment, such as GLP-1Rx agonists use, to a large diabetic population still confronted with unmet needs.

Drug utilization, safety, and effectiveness of exenatide, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin for type 2 diabetes in the real world: data from the Italian AIFA Anti-diabetics Monitoring Registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In Italy, the reimbursed use of incretin mimetics and incretin enhancers was subject to enrollment of patients into a web-based system recording the general demographic and clinical data of patients. We report the utilization data of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) receptor agonists and dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors in clinical practice as recorded by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) Monitoring Registry.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From February 2008 to August 2010, 75,283 patients with type 2 diabetes were entered into the registry and treated with exenatide, sitagliptin, or vildagliptin. The treatment was administered to patients in a wide range of ages (≥75 years, n = 6125 cases), body mass index (BMI) (≥35 kg/m(2), n = 22,015), and metabolic control (HbA(1c) ≥ 11% ((96 mmol/mol), n = 3151). Overall, 1116 suspected adverse drug reactions were registered, including 12 cases of acute pancreatitis (six on exenatide). Hypoglycemic episodes mainly occurred in combination with sulfonylureas. Treatment discontinuation for the three drugs (logistic regression analysis) was negatively associated with the male gender and positively with baseline HbA1c, diabetes duration, and, limitedly to DPP-4 inhibitors, with BMI. Treatment discontinuation (including loss to follow-up, accounting for 21-26%) was frequent. Discontinuation for treatment failure occurred in 7.7% of cases (exenatide), 3.8% (sitagliptin), and 4.1% (vildagliptin), respectively, corresponding to 27-40% of all discontinuations, after excluding lost to follow-up. HbA1c decreased on average by 0.9-1.0% (9 mmol/mol). Body weight decreased by 3.5% with exenatide and by 1.0-1.5% with DPP-4 inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

In the real world of Italian diabetes centers, prescriptions of incretins have been made in many cases outside the regulatory limits. Nevertheless, when appropriately utilized, incretins may grant results at least in line with pivotal trials.

A systematic review of acute pancreatitis as an adverse event of type 2 diabetes drugs: from hard facts to a balanced position

The question whether antidiabetes drugs can cause acute pancreatitis dates back to the 1970s. Recently, old concerns have re-emerged following claims that use of incretins, a new class of drugs for type 2 diabetes, might increase the relative risk of acute pancreatitis up to 30-fold. Given that diabetes is per se a potent risk factor for acute pancreatitis and that drug-related acute pancreatitis is rare and difficult to diagnose, we searched the medical databases for information linking acute pancreatitis and type 2 diabetes drugs. Among the biguanides, both phenformin and metformin (the latter in patients with renal insufficiency) have been cited in case reports as a potential cause of acute pancreatitis. Sulphonylureas, as both entire class and single compound (glibenclamide), have also been found in cohort studies to increase its risk. No direct link was found between pancreatic damage and therapy with metaglinide, acarbose, pramlintide or SGLT-2 inhibitors. In animal models, thiazolinediones have demonstrated proprieties to attenuate pancreatic damage, opening perspectives for their use in treating acute pancreatitis in humans. Several case reports and the US Food and Drug Administration pharmacovigilance database indicate an association between acute pancreatitis and incretins, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and GLP-1 receptor agonists. To date, however, a clear-cut odds ratio for this association has been reported in only one of eight pharmacoepidemiological studies. Finally, none of the intervention trials investigating these compounds, including two large randomized controlled trials with cardiovascular endpoints, confirmed the purportedly increased risk of acute pancreatitis with incretin use.

Incretin based drugs and risk of acute pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes: cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the use of incretin based drugs, compared with sulfonylureas, is associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis.

DESIGN

Population based cohort study.

SETTING

680 general practices in the United Kingdom contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

PARTICIPANTS

From 1 January 2007 to 31 March 2012, 20 748 new users of incretin based drugs were compared with 51 712 users of sulfonylureas and followed up until 31 March 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for acute pancreatitis in users of incretin based drugs compared with users of sulfonylureas. Models were adjusted for tenths of high dimensional propensity score (hdPS).

RESULTS

The crude incidence rate for acute pancreatitis was 1.45 per 1000 patients per year (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 2.11) for incretin based drug users and 1.47 (1.23 to 1.76) for sulfonylurea users. The rate of acute pancreatitis associated with the use of incretin based drugs was not increased (hdPS adjusted hazard ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.70) relative to sulfonylurea use.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with use of sulfonylureas, the use of incretin based drugs is not associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis. While this study is reassuring, it does not preclude a modest increased risk, and thus additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Incretin treatment and risk of pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk of pancreatitis associated with the use of incretin-based treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies of treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with placebo, lifestyle modification, or active anti-diabetic drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of trained reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. A modified Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies were used to assess bias. We pooled data from randomised controlled trials using Peto odds ratios, and conducted four prespecified subgroup analyses and a post hoc subgroup analysis. Because of variation in outcome measures and forms of data, we describe the results of observational studies without a pooled analysis.

RESULTS

60 studies (n=353,639), consisting of 55 randomised controlled trials (n=33,350) and five observational studies (three retrospective cohort studies, and two case-control studies; n=320,289) were included. Pooled estimates of 55 randomised controlled trials (at low or moderate risk of bias involving 37 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.11%) did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis with incretins versus control (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 2.17). Estimates by type of incretin suggested similar results (1.05 (0.37 to 2.94) for GLP-1 agonists v control; 1.06 (0.46 to 2.45) for DPP-4 inhibitors v control). Analyses according to the type of control, mode, duration of treatment, and individual incretin agents suggested no differential effect by subgroups, and sensitivity analyses by alternative statistical modelling and effect measures did not show important differences in effect estimates. Three retrospective cohort studies (moderate to high risk of bias, involving 1466 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.47%) also did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis associated with either exenatide (adjusted odds ratios 0.93 (0.63 to 1.36) in one study and 0.9 (0.6 to 1.5) in another) or sitagliptin (adjusted hazard ratio 1.0, 0.7 to 1.3); a case-control study at moderate risk of bias (1003 cases, 4012 controls) also suggested no significant association (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.69 to 1.38). Another case-control study (1269 cases, 1269 controls) at moderate risk of bias, however, suggested that the use of either exenatide or sitagliptin was associated with significantly increased odds of acute pancreatitis (use within two years v no use, adjusted odds ratio 2.07, 1.36 to 3.13).

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence suggests that the incidence of pancreatitis among patients using incretins is low and that the drugs do not increase the risk of pancreatitis. Current evidence, however, is not definitive, and more carefully designed and conducted observational studies are warranted to definitively establish the extent, if any, of increased risk.