Linagliptin monotherapy in type 2 diabetes patients for whom metformin is inappropriate: an 18-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial with a 34-week active-controlled extension

Water in nigella oil microemulsion for enhanced oral bioavailability of linagliptin

Linagliptin is hydrophilic antidiabetic with poor oral bioavailability due to poor permeability and pre-systemic metabolism. The objective was to assess w/o microemulsion for enhanced oral bioavailability of linagliptin. Nigella oil was used as oily phase based on its reported antidiabetic effect. Isopropyl myristate (IPM) or capryol were combined with nigella oil to impart intestinal membrane permeabilizing abilities. Pseudoternary phase diagrams were constructed utilizing nigella oil in presence and absence of isopropyl myristate or capryol as oily phase using Tween 60 as surfactant. W/O microemulsion formulations were selected from the constructed phase diagrams and linagliptin was loaded in the internal aqueous phase at a concentration of 0.5 mg/ml. The prepared formulations were physically evaluated and linagliptin in vitro release was monitored. Eventually, the in vivo hypoglycemic effect was assessed using diabetic rats. The developed microemulsions were of w/o type and exhibited Newtonian flow behavior with nigella/capryol microemulsion recording the lowest viscosity. The recorded droplet size values were 104.9, 121.2 and 86.4 nm for nigella, nigella/IPM and nigella/capryol microemulsions, respectively. All microemulsion formulations showed slower drug release rate compared with aqueous suspension with nigella/capryol microemulsion showing the highest release rate compared to other microemulsions. Release data from microemulsion best fitted to Higuchi model. In vivo oral hypoglycemic activity measurement reflected a more intensified hypoglycemic effect with rapid onset after oral ingestion of microemulsion compared to linagliptin dispersion. Nigella oil/IPM-based microemulsion was ranked as the most effective. The investigation highlighted the feasibility of w/o microemulsion for enhanced oral bioavailability of hydrophilic drugs like linagliptin.

Safety of Linagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Linagliptin is an oral dipeptidyl peptidase DPP-4 inhibitor, which is indicated for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as monotherapy or add-on to therapy with other hypoglycemic drugs.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the safety of linagliptin focusing on cardiovascular risks among subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search across the following databases: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of linagliptin compared to placebo in patients with Type 2 diabetes were included. The primary safety points were cardiovascular (CV) adverse events including non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), CV death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina. While, secondary safety points included 17 reported adverse events such as infections, hypoglycemia and abdominal pain. Three reviewers independently screened and reviewed each study to extract relevant information. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. We conducted a meta-analysis using the random effects model. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) of targeted adverse events with linagliptin compared to placebo were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel test.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies with 19,981 adult patients were included. There was no difference in the incidence of all CV adverse events or individual CV adverse events between linagliptin and the placebo arms. The pooled estimate of the risk of upper respiratory tract infection was reported in twelve trials with a 38% risk reduction among patients treated with the linagliptin group compared to the placebo group (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.45-0.85, and I2 = 0%), while no difference was found in other infections. For gastrointestinal disorders, the risk of abdominal pain showed a 65% risk reduction among patients treated with the linagliptin group compared to the placebo group (RR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.77, and I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed an overall acceptable safety profile of linagliptin in patients with T2DM. Moreover, our study showed a risk reduction of upper respiratory tract infection and abdominal pain when using linagliptin compared to placebo.

Comparison of gliclazide vs linagliptin on hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated cardiovascular safety of glimepiride (a sulfonylureas) against dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin. Gliclazide (another newer sulfonylureas) has shown similar glycemic efficacy and 50% decreased risk of hypoglycemia compared to glimepiride.

AIM

Considering the absence of cardiovascular outcome trials for gliclazide, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the car-diovascular (CV) safety by assessing the risk for major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide vs linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This systematic review followed the current Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to analyze all the clinical studies published from 2008 that compared the two drugs in patients with T2D with no risk of CV disease (CVD). We included only evidence designated high quality by the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

Eight clinical studies were included in the narrative descriptive analysis (gliclazide: 5 and linagliptin: 3). The CV safety of gliclazide in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation trial and of linagliptin in the Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin (CARMELINA) and CARdiovascular Outcome study of LINAgliptin vs glimepiride in patients with T2D (CAROLINA) trials were excluded from the comparative analysis as these trials demonstrated CV and hypoglycemia benefits in patients at high risk of CVD. However, since these are landmark trials, they were discussed in brief to show the CV benefits and low hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide and linagliptin. We did not find any study comparing gliclazide with linagliptin. Hence, direct comparison of their major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk could not be carried out. However, the literature meeting the inclusion criteria showed that both drugs were effective in achieving the desired glycemic control and had low major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk in adult patients with no history of CVD.

CONCLUSION

Gliclazide can be considered an effective and safe glucose-lowering drug in T2D patients with no established CVD but at high risk of CVD due to their T2D status. Future randomized controlled trials comparing gliclazide with linagliptin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors can confirm these findings.

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.

Safety and tolerability of linagliptin in Asians with type 2 diabetes: a pooled analysis of 4457 patients from 21 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Safety and tolerability of glucose-lowering drugs is a key consideration for use in type 2 diabetes (T2D). We evaluated the safety and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in Asian patients with T2D.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a post-hoc, descriptive pooled analysis of 21 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of linagliptin in T2D patients lasting ≤52 weeks. We evaluated adverse events (AEs) and laboratory parameters in Asian participants living in Asia, both overall and in the East Asian subgroup.

RESULTS

This analysis included 4457 Asian patients overall (2712 receiving linagliptin; 1745 receiving placebo) and 3057 (68.6%) East Asians. AEs were reported in 1510 (55.7%) Asian patients receiving linagliptin and 1032 (59.1%) receiving placebo but were considered drug-related in only 13.0% of each group. Serious AEs occurred in 109 (4.0%) linagliptin patients and 90 (5.2%) placebo patients. The most common AEs were nasopharyngitis (6.4% linagliptin, 7.3% placebo), upper respiratory tract infection (5.7% linagliptin, 6.5% placebo), and hypoglycemia (7.3% linagliptin, 6.3% placebo). One linagliptin patient had pancreatitis; none had bullous pemphigoid. No clinically relevant mean changes in laboratory parameters occurred. These findings were consistent in East Asians.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin is well tolerated in Asian T2D patients, including East Asians, with low risk for AEs.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of linagliptin as add-on therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: final results of a 3-year post-marketing surveillance

BACKGROUND

We investigated the long-term safety and effectiveness of linagliptin in Japanese type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients starting linagliptin add-on therapy in routine clinical practice.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This 3-year prospective, observational, post-marketing surveillance (PMS) was conducted in Japanese patients starting linagliptin add-on therapy. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The secondary outcome was the change from baseline in HbA1c.

RESULTS

The safety analysis set comprised of 3,372 patients. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 66.5 ± 12.4 years. Most patients (63.2%) received linagliptin in combination with another antidiabetic drug, most commonly a sulfonylurea (38.6%). The incidence of ADRs was 11.39%; the most common ADRs according to MedDRA preferred terms were diabetes mellitus (1.25%), hypertension (0.83%), and hypoglycemia (0.80%). In the effectiveness analysis set (n = 3,029), mean ± SD HbA1c was 7.76 ± 1.37% at baseline and 7.26 ± 1.19% at last observation; mean change from baseline to last observation was - 0.49 ± 1.33%; sustained reductions in HbA1c were observed. These results were consistent across patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this PMS, linagliptin add-on therapy for Japanese T2D patients had a safety profile consistent with its known profile and HbA1c reductions over 3 years were observed.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV

NCT01904383.

Formulation development of linagliptin solid lipid nanoparticles for oral bioavailability enhancement: role of P-gp inhibition

Linagliptin (LGP), a novel anti-diabetic drug, is a DPP-4 inhibitor used in the treatment of type II diabetes. One of the major disadvantages of LGP is its low oral bioavailability (29.5%) due to first-pass metabolism and P-gp efflux. In an attempt to increase the oral bioavailability, LGP solid lipid nanoparticles (LGP-SLNs) were developed with poloxamer 188 and Tween 80 as P-gp inhibitors. LGP-SLNs were formulated using palmitic acid, poloxamer 188 and Tween 80 as lipid, surfactant and co-surfactant, respectively, by hot homogenization ultrasonication method and optimized using 3² full factorial designs. Particle size, entrapment efficiency (%EE) and drug release at 24 h were evaluated as responses. An optimized batch of LGP-SLNs (L12) was evaluated for intestinal transport of LGP by conducting in situ single-pass intestinal perfusion (SPIP), everted gut sac and Caco-2 permeability study. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of L12 was carried out in albino Wistar rats. The mean particle size, polydispersity index, zeta potential and %EE of L12 were found to be 225.96 ± 2.8 nm, 0.180 ± 0.034, - 5.4 ± 1.07 mV and 73.8 ± 1.73%, respectively. %CDR of 80.96 ± 3.13% was observed in 24 h. The permeability values of LGP-SLNs in the absorptive direction were 1.82-, 1.76- and 1.74-folds higher than LGP-solution (LGP-SOL) in SPIP, everted gut sac and Caco-2 permeability studies, respectively. LGP-SLNs exhibited relative bioavailability of 300% and better reduction in glucose levels in comparison with LGP-SOL in rats. The enhanced oral bioavailability exhibited by LGP-SLNs bioavailability may be due to P-gp efflux inhibition and lymphatic targeting. Improved bioabsorption can cause reduction in dose, dose-related side effects and frequency of administration. Thus, LGP-SLNs can be considered promising carriers for oral delivery but clinical studies are required to confirm the proof of concept.Graphical abstract.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors use in type II diabetic patients in a tertiary hospital

Background

In Malaysia, for more than a decade, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are among the oral antidiabetic medications used as monotherapy or in combination to manage type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM). These medications are known for the efficacy in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction and weight neutral effect with minimal hypoglycaemia occurrence. This study aimed to identify the outcomes of DPP-4i use in one of the largest tertiary public hospital in Southeast Asia.

Methods

This is a retrospective cross sectional study conducted in 2016, where stratified sampling method was used. Patients with T2DM treated with available DPP-4i; namely Linagliptin, Saxagliptin, Sitagliptin and Vildagliptin, for at least 3 months were identified from the pharmacy record. Medical records from Physician Clinic in Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) were reviewed. Data on demographic, anthropometric, antidiabetic treatment modalities, laboratory and documented outcomes were collected. Outcomes endpoints which include changes in HbA1c, fasting blood glucose (FBG), and body weight were recorded and analysed. Adverse drug reactions (ADR) documented were also reported.

Results and discussion

A total of one hundred and five patients were recruited. The patients were 49.5% men (n = 52), with a mean age of 57 years, mean HbA1c of 8.5% (69 mmol/mol) and mean BMI of 29.5 kg/m². At least 50% of the patients had T2DM for more than 10 years and more than two third of these patients had both T2DM and hypertension. Thirty nine patients were on Vildagliptin, 32 on Sitagliptin, 26 on Saxagliptin and the remaining on Linagliptin. The most commonly prescribed DPP-4i were Vildagliptin and Sitagliptin. Majority of the patients (90.4%) were prescribed with Metformin, with 62.8% of patients on fixed-dose combination, and the remaining on add-on Metformin therapy. Use of DPP-4i as an adjunct was associated with a mean reduction of 0.9% (9 mmol/mol) in HbA1c (p < 0.0001) and 1.15 mmol/L (19.82 mg/dL) in FBG (p = 0.001) without significant weight changes (p = 0.745). Sitagliptin had the highest reduction in HbA1c (1.66%,19 mmol/mol; p-value< 0.0001). Twelve ADRs were reported with the highest report on gastrointestinal intolerance (n = 7). None of the ADR reported caused any significant harm to the patients.

Conclusion

Overall, use of these DPP-4i as an adjunct antidiabetic was associated with reduction in HbA1c.

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and their potential immune modulatory functions

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors (DPP4is) are oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) through inhibiting the degradation of incretin peptides. Numerous investigations have been focused on the effects of DPP4is on glucose homeostasis. However, there are limited evidences demonstrating their Potential modulatory functions in the immune system. DPP4, originally known as the lymphocyte cell surface protein CD26, is widely expressed in many types of immune cells including CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells, B cells, NK cells, dendritic cells, and macrophages; and regulate the functions of these cells. In addition, DPP4 is capable of modulating plenty of cytokines, chemokines and peptide hormones. Accordingly, DPP4/CD26 is speculated to be involved in various immune/inflammatory diseases and DPP4is may become a new drug class applied in these diseases. This review focuses on the regulatory effects of DPP4is on immune functions and their possible underlying mechanisms. Further clinical studies will be necessitated to fully evaluate the administration of DPP4is in diabetic patients with or without immune diseases.

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.

Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Linagliptin in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A 3-Year Post-Marketing Surveillance Study

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trials of linagliptin in Japanese patients conducted to date have had limited observational periods; therefore, there is a need for additional longer-term real-world data. The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and effectiveness of linagliptin in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational, post-marketing surveillance study conducted over 156 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who started linagliptin monotherapy. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The secondary endpoint was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to last available observation. Other effectiveness endpoints included the change in HbA1c and change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to week 26 and over the course of the treatment period.

RESULTS

Overall, 2235 and 2054 patients were included in the safety and effectiveness analysis sets, respectively. Patients were mostly male (58.4%), and the mean age was 66.7 years. The incidence of ADRs was 10.7% (n = 240). The most frequent ADRs according to MedDRA preferred terms were diabetes mellitus (n = 35 patients, 1.6%), constipation (n = 21, 0.9%), diabetes mellitus inadequate control (n = 13, 0.6%) and hypertension (n = 13, 0.6%). The mean change in HbA1c from baseline to last observation was - 0.67% [standard deviation (SD) 1.27%, 95% confidence interval - 0.72, - 0.61]. At week 26, HbA1c and FPG showed mean ± SD changes from baseline of - 0.73 ± 1.20% and - 21.02 ± 44.33 mg/dL, respectively, that were sustained until week 156.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, linagliptin produced sustained reductions in HbA1c and had a safety profile consistent with the established safety profile of linagliptin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01650259).

Urinary Proteomics as a Tool to Identify Kidney Responders to Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibition: A Hypothesis-Generating Analysis from the MARLINA-T2D Trial

PURPOSE

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a serious complication of hyperglycemia and treatment options to slow its progression are scarce. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are common glucose-lowering drugs in type 2 diabetes (T2D). Among these, linagliptin has been suggested to exert kidney protective effects. It is investigated whether an effect of linagliptin on kidney function could be unmasked by characterizing the urinary proteome profile (UPP) in albuminuric T2D individuals.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Participants of the MARLINA-T2D trial (NCT01792518) are randomized 1:1 to receive either linagliptin 5 mg or placebo for 24 weeks. A previously developed proteome-based classifier, CKD273, is assessed.

RESULTS

Results confirm a significant correlation between CKD273 and clinical kidney parameters as well as with eGFR decline. Patient stratification using CKD273 at baseline, show a trend toward attenuation of renal function loss in high CKD-risk patients treated with linagliptin. Moreover, characterized are linagliptin affected peptides of which the majority contained a DPP-4 target sequence.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

CKD273 is a promising tool for identifying patients at high risk for CKD progression and may unmask a potential of linagliptin to slow progressive kidney function loss in high CKD-risk patients. UPP characterization reveals a significant impact of linagliptin on urinary peptides.

Linagliptin safety profile: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To describe the safety profile of linagliptin.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic review using PubMed/MEDLINE, BVS and Web of Science. The search strategy "Linagliptin" AND "safety" was used. The inclusion criteria were clinical trials with a control group composed of conventional DM2 pharmacotherapy.

RESULTS

We identified 16 studies, and the most frequent adverse events (AEs) were nasopharyngitis with linagliptin at 5 and 10mg in monotherapy (31.6% and 29.6%, respectively) and gastrointestinal events (>10.0%) with linagliptin in combination. Of the AEs, 14.9 (±3.1)% were associated with the use of linagliptin in monotherapy, and 17.6 (±6.0)% in combination. The linagliptin AEs have a varied occurrence and frequency, ranging from mild to moderate intensity.

Risk of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors on site-specific cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The long-term impact of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition is unknown, and there are concerns about the influence of DPP-4 inhibition on carcinogenesis of the pancreas and thyroid. As DPP-4 is a rather unselective enzyme present in many tissues, we focused on all specific cancer types. PubMed and EMBASE were searched between January 2005 and April 2017 to identify studies comparing DPP-4 inhibitors with either placebo or active drugs on cancer risk. Studies were included if they reported on at least one specific cancer outcome and had a follow-up of at least 1 year after start of drug use. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (12 randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies). Sample sizes of the DPP-4 inhibitor groups ranged from 29 to 8212 patients for randomized controlled trials and from 2422 to 71 137 patients for observational studies. Mean age ranged from 51 to 76 years, and mean follow-up was 1.5 years. None of the pooled (sensitivity) analyses, except the observational studies studying breast cancer (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.76 [0.60-0.96]), showed evidence for an association between DPP-4 inhibitors and site-specific cancer. Also for pancreatic and thyroid cancer, no statistically significant risk was found. Based on the current literature, it is not possible to conclude whether DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of site-specific cancer. Future studies should address the methodological limitations and follow patients for a longer period to determine the long-term cancer risk of DPP-4 inhibitors.

Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin monotherapy for treating type 2 diabetes: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight, so initial treatment is aimed at reducing weight and increasing physical activity. Even modest weight loss can improve control of blood glucose. If drug treatment is necessary, the drug of first choice is metformin. However, some people cannot tolerate metformin, which causes diarrhoea in about 10%, and it cannot be used in people with renal impairment. This review appraises three of the newest class of drugs for monotherapy when metformin cannot be used, the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE

To review the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (Farxiga, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Luton, UK), canagliflozin (Invokana, Janssen, High Wycombe, UK) and empagliflozin (Jardiance, Merck & Co., Darmstadt, Germany), in monotherapy in people who cannot take metformin.

SOURCES

MEDLINE (1946 to February 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to February 2015) for randomised controlled trials lasting 24 weeks or more. For adverse events, a wider range of studies was used. Three manufacturers provided submissions.

METHODS

Systematic review and economic evaluation. A network meta-analysis was carried out involving the three SGLT2 inhibitors and key comparators. Critical appraisal of submissions from three manufacturers.

RESULTS

We included three trials of dapagliflozin and two each for canagliflozin and empagliflozin. The trials were of good quality. The canagliflozin and dapagliflozin trials compared them with placebo, but the two empagliflozin trials included active comparators. All three drugs were shown to be effective in improving glycaemic control, promoting weight loss and lowering blood pressure (BP).

LIMITATIONS

There were no head-to-head trials of the different flozins, and no long-term data on cardiovascular outcomes in this group of patients. Most trials were against placebo. The trials were done in patient groups that were not always comparable, for example in baseline glycated haemoglobin or body mass index. Data on elderly patients were lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Dapagliflozin, canagliflozin and empagliflozin are effective in improving glycaemic control, with added benefits of some reductions in BP and weight. Adverse effects are urinary and genital tract infections in a small proportion of users. In monotherapy, the three drugs do not appear cost-effective compared with gliclazide or pioglitazone, but may be competitive against sitagliptin (Januvia, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK).

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with SGLT2 and DPP4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This review evaluated the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy comprising a sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) in type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A literature search through to May 2017 was carried out of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SGLT2i plus DPP4i (SGLT2i/DPP4i) against DPP4i±placebo or SGLT2i±placebo and published in English. The primary outcome was change in HbA_1c from baseline.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs comparing SGLT2i/DPP4i and DPP4i, and five RCTs comparing SGLT2i/DPP4i and SGLT2i, with three RCTs involving both comparisons, were included in the present review. SGLT2i/DPP4i resulted in a greater mean HbA_1c reduction [weighted mean difference (WMD]): -0.62%] than did DPP4i alone, which was a much less marked reduction (WMD: -0.35%) than with SGLT2i alone. Also, significant differences in body weight loss from baseline were observed only with SGLT2i/DPP4i vs. DPP4i, but not vs. SGLT2i. The risk of hypoglycaemic events was low and similar between treatment groups. When subjects were stratified based on baseline HbA_1c, any reduction by SGLT2i/DPP4i in relation to DPP4i was proportional to baseline HbA_1c levels. However, compared with SGLT2i, HbA_1c reductions with SGLT2i/DPP4i were modest regardless of baseline HbA_1c.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy with SGLT2i and DPP4i is both efficacious and safe. In particular, a marked additional glucose-lowering effect is evident when SGLT2i is combined with or added to DPP4i, and not vice versa. However, baseline HbA_1c determined the additional glucose-lowering effects of SGLT2i in combined treatment with DPP4i.

Pharmacokinetic drug evaluation of empagliflozin plus linagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus has become a growing epidemic and therefore efficient treatment strategies that target its management are needed. The treatment of diabetic patients often requires the combination of antidiabetic drug classes. Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) block glucose reabsorption in the proximal renal tubules. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) improve glucose metabolism by blocking the enzyme that degrades incretins leading to increased insulin secretion. Areas covered: The aim of the review is to present the available data on pharmacokinetic properties/pharmacodynamics, metabolic and cardiovascular effects of empagliflozin plus linagliptin combination. Expert opinion: Both empagliflozin and linagliptin have established safety and efficacy in the treatment of diabetes. Available data demonstrate the absence of pharmacological interactions when the two drugs are given together. The complementary mechanisms of action would be expected to provide additive benefits on carbohydrate metabolism variables, but the results from clinical trials have shown that the empagliflozin/linagliptin combination provides only mild improvements of glycated hemoglobin compared with either monotherapy. However, the single-tablet formulation of empagliflozin/linagliptin is expected to provide better compliance and thus improved glycaemic control coupled with a favourable safety profile. Thus, the fixed-dose combination of empagliflozin/linagliptin has the capacity to both effectively and safely manage diabetic patients.

Intensifying Treatment Beyond Monotherapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Where Do Newer Therapies Fit?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Guidelines for a standard second diabetes medication for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have yet to be established. The rapid increase in the number of newer therapies available makes the choice more difficult. Thus, we reviewed clinical trial evidence evaluating newer therapies available for treatment intensification beyond monotherapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Head-to-head studies comparing newer therapies versus traditional (i.e., sulfonylurea) approaches consistently find lower incidence of hypoglycemia and weight gain with newer therapies. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors demonstrate high glycemic efficacy, while merits of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors include their tolerability. Secondary effects (weight loss, cardiovascular outcomes, renal function) are of growing interest with newer therapies. Choices for treatment intensification in T2DM diabetes are numerous. Understanding the comparative evidence of newer treatment choices, as provided in this review, may help guide clinical decision making.

Effect of Long-term Incretin-Based Therapies on Ischemic Heart Diseases in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Network Meta-analysis

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) experience many cardiovascular complications. Several studies have demonstrated the cardioprotective effects of incretin-based therapies; however, there are few studies on the effects of long-term incretin-based therapies on cardiovascular events. Therefore, the present study conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of long-term incretin-based therapies on ischaemic diseases. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, and Clinicaltrial.gov to retrieve randomised control trials reported until December 2016 and enrolled only RCTs with more than a 1-year follow-up. The network meta-analysis was performed using R Software with a GeMTC package. A total of 40 trials were included. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists were associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) than were sulfonylureas (odds ratio [95% credible interval] 0.41 [0.24–0.71] and 0.48 [0.27–0.91], respectively). These results suggested that patients with T2DM receiving long-term incretin-based therapies have a lower risk of MI than do those receiving sulfonylurea-based therapy. These findings highlight the risks of cardiovascular events in patients who receive long-term incretin-based therapies, and may provide evidence for the selection of antidiabetic therapy in the future.

Linagliptin versus sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Diabetes is one of the most common chronic and costly diseases worldwide and type 2 diabetes is the most common type which accounts for about 90% of cases with diabetes. New medication-therapy regimens such as those containing linagliptin alone or in combination with other medications (within the category of DDP-4 inhibitors) must be evaluated in terms of efficacy and compared with other currently used drugs and then enter the medication list of the country. Hence, this study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of the two drugs, i.e. linagliptin and sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to identify all clinical trials published by 2015 which compared the two drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes. Using keywords such as “linagliptin”, “type 2 diabetes mellitus”, “sitagliptin” and related combinations, we searched databases including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated using the Jadad score. Considering primary and secondary outcomes extracted from the reviewed studies, a network meta-analysis was used to conduct a systematic comparison between the two studied drugs.

Results

This network meta-analysis included 32 studies (Linagliptin vs PLB: n = 8, Sitagliptin vs PLB: n = 13, Linagliptin + MET vs PLB + MET: n = 4, and Sitagliptin + MET vs PLB + MET: n = 7) and a total of 13,747 patients. The results showed no significant difference between linagliptin and sitagliptin in terms of key efficacy and safety outcomes such as HbA1c changes from baseline, body weight change from baseline, percentage of patients achieving HbA1c <7, and percentage of patients experiencing hypoglycemic events (p > 0.05). The results showed that the efficacy of the two drug regimens was the same.

Conclusions

Based on the results, there was no significant difference between the two drugs, i.e. linagliptin and sitagliptin, in terms of efficacy; in other words, the efficacy of the two drugs was the same. Therefore, the use of these two drugs depends on their availability and cost.

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract of the network meta-analysis performed to evaluate the alternatives under the study.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40199-017-0189-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and cancer risk in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Some recent studies have suggested that the use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) is associated with cancer development. However, some other studies suggest no such association. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of DPP4i on the risk of developing cancers. The electronic databases PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library and the clinical trial registry were searched for published and unpublished randomized clinical trials on humans. Eligible studies were RCTs conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, comparing DPP4i with a placebo or other active drugs. A total of 72 trials with 35,768 and 33,319 patients enrolled for DPP4i and the comparison drugs, respectively. Overall, no significant associations were detected between the use of DPP4i and cancer development, in comparison with the use of other active drugs or placebo. The results were consistent across pre-defined subgroups stratified by type of DPP4i, type of cancer, drug for comparison, trial duration, or baseline characteristics. The results of this meta-analysis suggest that patients with type 2 diabetes treated with DPP4i do not have a higher risk of developing cancers than patients treated with a placebo or other drugs.

Cardiovascular Safety of Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Large randomized trials have shown conflicting evidence regarding the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Systematic reviews have been limited by incomplete data and inclusion of observational studies. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared DPP-4 inhibitors versus placebo and reported cardiovascular outcomes. The main outcome assessed in this analysis was heart failure. Other outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were primarily constructed using Peto's model.

RESULTS

A total of 90 trials with 66,730 patients were included. Compared with placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a non-significant increased risk of heart failure [OR 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.25, P = 0.07] at a mean of 108 weeks. The risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12, P = 0.53), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.14, P = 0.72), myocardial infarction (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.09, P = 0.69), and ischemic stroke (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85-1.15, P = 0.92) was similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with type 2 diabetes, the safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors is similar to placebo. As a class, there is only weak evidence for an increased risk of heart failure.

NRF2 activation by antioxidant antidiabetic agents accelerates tumor metastasis

Cancer is a common comorbidity of diabetic patients; however, little is known about the effects that antidiabetic drugs have on tumors. We discovered that common classes of drugs used in type 2 diabetes mellitus, the hypoglycemic dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) saxagliptin and sitagliptin, as well as the antineuropathic α-lipoic acid (ALA), do not increase tumor incidence but increase the risk of metastasis of existing tumors. Specifically, these drugs induce prolonged activation of the nuclear factor E2-related factor 2 (NRF2)-mediated antioxidant response through inhibition of KEAP1-C151-dependent ubiquitination and subsequent degradation of NRF2, resulting in up-regulated expression of metastasis-associated proteins, increased cancer cell migration, and promotion of metastasis in xenograft mouse models. Accordingly, knockdown of NRF2 attenuated naturally occurring and DPP-4i-induced tumor metastasis, whereas NRF2 activation accelerated metastasis. Furthermore, in human liver cancer tissue samples, increased NRF2 expression correlated with metastasis. Our findings suggest that antioxidants that activate NRF2 signaling may need to be administered with caution in cancer patients, such as diabetic patients with cancer. Moreover, NRF2 may be a potential biomarker and therapeutic target for tumor metastasis.

Cardiovascular effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor in diabetic patients with and without established cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We aim to conduct a meta-analysis, by stratifying diabetic patients with or without clinical cardiovascular diseases (CVD), to explore whether there are different cardiovascular effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) on these two different classes of diabetic patients.

METHODS

We searchedMedline,Embase, theCochrane Libraryand ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The included trials are divided into CVD (+) trials (subjects with established CVD), and CVD (-) trials (subjects with no CVD). We use all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes as primary endpoints.

RESULTS

(1) Three CVD (+) trials were included and 36,895 subjects were enrolled with a mean follow-up duration of 127.1 weeks. The pooled results showed that DPP-4is treatment, compared with the placebo, did not significantly affect all-cause mortality (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.11), cardiovascular death (1.01, 0.91 to 1.12), myocardial infarction (0.98, 0.88 to 1.08) or stroke (1.02, 0.88 to 1.18) in diabetic patients with coexisting CVD history; however, it significantly increased the risk of heart failure (1.14, 1.01 to 1.27) in this population. 2) Thirty-five CVD (-) trials were included, and 29,600 patients were enrolled with a mean follow-up duration of 77.8 weeks. The analysis comparing DPP-4is with the placebo control showed that DPP-4is treatment did not significantly affect the risk of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular outcomes in diabetic patients free of CVD history. However, when compared with the active control, the pooling data showed that DPP-4is had a significant reduction on the risk of stroke (0.58, 0.34 to 0.99) but did not significantly affect the risk of all-cause mortality and other cardiovascular outcomes.

CONCLUSION

DPP-4is may have no cardiovascular protective effects in diabetic patients with coexisting CVD, while there is a lack of definitive evidence supporting the cardiovascular benefits of DPP-4is treatment among diabetic patients free of CVD history.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients with self-reported hepatic disorders: A retrospective pooled analysis of 17 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials

AIMS

Liver disease is highly prevalent among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We evaluated the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in subjects with T2DM and hepatic disorders.

METHODS

Data were pooled from 17 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of linagliptin in T2DM subjects that included individuals with self-reported history of hepatic disorders at baseline. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

Of the 7009 participants (56% white, 39% Asian), 574 had hepatic disorders, most commonly hepatic steatosis (60%). At week 24, adjusted mean±standard error (SE) change in HbA1c from baseline in those with hepatic disorders was -0.75%±0.05 with linagliptin and -0.20%±0.08 with placebo [treatment difference: -0.54% (95% confidence interval-0.72 to -0.36); P<.0001]. There was no significant difference in HbA1c reduction between subjects with or without baseline hepatic disorders (P=.4042). Among subjects with hepatic disorders, 13.5% and 14.8% of the linagliptin and placebo groups, respectively, reported drug-related adverse events while 10.4% and 15.9%, respectively, reported hypoglycemia. Overall, adverse event rates were similar in individuals with or without hepatic disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

This large pooled analysis suggests that linagliptin is effective and well tolerated in people with T2DM and liver disease.

Gemigliptin: An Update of Its Clinical Use in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a new class of oral antidiabetic agent for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. They increase endogenous levels of incretin hormones, which stimulate glucose-dependent insulin secretion, decrease glucagon secretion, and contribute to reducing postprandial hyperglycemia. Although DPP-4 inhibitors have similar benefits, they can be differentiated in terms of their chemical structure, pharmacology, efficacy and safety profiles, and clinical considerations. Gemigliptin (brand name: Zemiglo), developed by LG Life Sciences, is a potent, selective, competitive, and long acting DPP-4 inhibitor. Various studies have shown that gemigliptin is an optimized DPP-4 inhibitor in terms of efficacy, safety, and patient compliance for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. In this review, we summarize the characteristics of gemigliptin and discuss its potential benefits in clinical practice.

Differential HbA1c response in the placebo arm of DPP-4 inhibitor clinical trials conducted in China compared to other countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It has been observed that the efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as compared to the placebo groups in some clinical trials conducted in China is weaker than that in trials conducted outside China, leading to the suspicion that this may be caused by differential Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HbA1c) response in the placebo arm of DPP-4 inhibitor clinical trials conducted in China compared to other countries.

METHODS

We searched published articles and other documents related to phase III placebo-control trials of DPP-4 inhibitors in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We included studies from different countries and compared those conducted in China to those conducted in other countries. Meta-regression analysis was used to analyze the HbA1c response in the placebo arms.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies met the inclusion criteria and 10 were conducted within China. There were a total of 8303 participants (mean age 56, male 57 %) in placebo groups. The pooled change in HbA1c for the placebo groups of 10 trials conducted in patients with T2DM in China was 0.26 % (95 % CI [-0.36 %, -0.16 %], p-value < 0.001), compared to 0.015 % (95 % CI [-0.05 %, 0.08 %], p-value is 0.637) for 56 trials conducted outside of China. The difference of placebo effect between trials conducted in and outside China is -0.273 % (95 % CI [-0.42 %, -0.13 %], p-value is less than 0.001) while after excluding trials conducted in Japan, the difference is -0.203 % (95 % CI [-0.35 %, -0.06 %], p-value is 0.005). They are both statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis in the article demonstrates that there is statistically significant difference in the HbA1c response in the placebo arm of DPP-4 inhibitor clinical trials conducted in China compared to other countries. This differential HbA1c response in the placebo arm should be taken into consideration by both experimenters and medical decision makers when future DPP-4 studies are conducted in China.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of linagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, with consideration of Asian patient populations

Our aims were to summarize the clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitor, linagliptin, and to consider how these characteristics influence its clinical utility. Differences between linagliptin and other dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitors were also considered, in addition to the influence of Asian race on the pharmacology of linagliptin. Linagliptin has a xanthine‐based structure, a difference that might account for some of the pharmacological differences observed with linagliptin versus other dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitors. The long terminal half‐life of linagliptin results from its strong binding to dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4. Despite this, linagliptin shows a short accumulation half‐life, as a result of saturable, high‐affinity binding to dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of linagliptin make it suitable for once‐daily dosing in a broad range of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Unlike most other dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitors, linagliptin has a largely non‐renal excretion route, and dose adjustment is not required in patients with renal impairment. Furthermore, linagliptin exposure is not substantially altered in patients with hepatic impairment, and dose adjustment is not necessary for these patients. The 5‐mg dose is also suitable for patients of Asian ethnicity. Linagliptin shows unique pharmacological features within the dipeptidyl‐peptidase‐4 inhibitor class. Although most clinical trials of linagliptin have involved largely Caucasian populations, data on the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties of linagliptin show that these features are not substantially altered in Asian populations. The 5‐mg dose of linagliptin is suitable for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus irrespective of their ethnicity or the presence of renal or hepatic impairment.

Empagliflozin/Linagliptin: Combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes

Glyxambi^® (empagliflozin/linagliptin) is a fixed-dose, once-daily tablet combining a sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. Glyxambi^® is served as an adjuvant to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes when both empagliflozin and linagliptin are appropriate treatments. Glyxambi^® combines 10mg or 25mg empagliflozin with 5mg linagliptin, with different, complementary mechanisms of action to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Empagliflozin removes glucose through the urine by blocking blood glucose re-absorption in the kidney, and linagliptin exerts glucose-lowering activity by increasing hormones that stimulate the pancreas to produce more insulin and decreasing the levels of glucagon in the circulation. In addition, this combination therapy modestly reduces body weight and blood pressure without significant safety issues.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in Diverse Patient Populations With Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to discuss the clinical evidence for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and to better define their use in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), including in special populations, such as the elderly. DPP-4 inhibitors are incretin-based therapies that can be used as monotherapy or in combination with other antidiabetes medications to treat T2DM. As monotherapy, DPP-4 inhibitors have demonstrated a modest and comparable glycated hemoglobin-lowering effect. As initial dual therapy with other antidiabetes agents, DPP-4 inhibitors significantly improved glycated hemoglobin when compared with monotherapy arms. Similarly, in triple combinations, DPP-4 inhibitors consistently provided additive glycemic benefits. In patients who were continuing insulin, glycemic parameters were improved with the addition of a DPP-4 inhibitor, and they required less insulin uptitration. In clinical trials, the overall occurrence of adverse events was similar between DPP-4 inhibitor groups and controls, and a low occurrence of hypoglycemia was observed, except when used in combination with a sulfonylurea. A neutral effect on weight was maintained, even in combination with insulin. Similar to outcomes observed in younger patients, DPP-4 inhibitors significantly improved glycemic efficacy in older patients, without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia. Efficacy and safety in patients with renal insufficiency are also documented.

CONCLUSION

DPP-4 inhibitors are therapeutically beneficial for a diverse population of patients with T2DM, including elderly patients, based on demonstrated efficacy, tolerability, and a low risk for hypoglycemia.

The clinical application of linagliptin in Asians

Asia has a growing diabetic population. Linagliptin, a member of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor class, is unique in its nonlinear pharmacokinetics with the characteristics of rapid attainment of steady state, little accumulation, predominantly nonrenal route of elimination, prolonged terminal half-life, and sustained inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 enzyme. No clinically relevant difference in pharmacokinetics was observed between Asians and non-Asians. The management of type 2 diabetes is increasingly challenging with the progression of disease, especially with the requirements of minimal hypoglycemia, weight gain, fluid retention, and other adverse effects. Linagliptin was efficacious and well-tolerated in Asian type 2 diabetes patients with or without renal or hepatic dysfunctions, comparable to that in Caucasians. This review will focus on the usage of linagliptin in clinical studies in Asians.

Effect of Linagliptin on Glycemic Control in Chinese Patients with Newly-Diagnosed, Drug-Naïve Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin (a novel dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor) on glucose metabolism and β-cell function in Chinese patients with newly-diagnosed, drug-naïve type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Material/Methods

Newly-diagnosed and drug-naïve T2DM patients were enrolled. After 4-week lifestyle modulation and 2-week placebo run-in, 57 patients were randomized to double-blind treatment with linagliptin (n=34) or placebo (n=23). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) after 24 weeks. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h postprandial plasma glucose (2h-PPG), fasting insulin, proinsulin-to-insulin ratio, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function (HOMA-β) were also evaluated.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Compared with placebo, linagliptin therapy resulted in a significant decrease in HbA1C (−1.2±0.7% vs. −0.4±0.4%, P<0.001), FBG (−0.98±1.17 vs. −0.32±0.51 mmol/L, P=0.011, and 2h-PPG (−2.02±0.94 vs. −0.97±0.63 mmol/L, P<0.001). Significant differences were observed for the proinsulin/insulin ratio (P<0.001) and HOMA-β index (P=0.001). Rates of adverse events were similar between the 2 groups (30.3% vs. 27.3%). All adverse events were mild. One patient discontinued participation due to pregnancy.

Conclusions

Linagliptin treatment resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful improvement of glycemic control in drug-naïve Chinese patients with T2DM, as well as improved parameters of β-cell function. Linagliptin had an excellent safety profile.

Potential for combination of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

In individuals with advanced type 2 diabetes (T2DM), combination therapy is often unavoidable to maintain glycaemic control. Currently metformin is considered the first line of defence, but many patients experience gastrointestinal adverse events, necessitating an alternative treatment approach. Established therapeutic classes, such as sulphonylureas and thiazolidinediones, have some properties undesirable in individuals with T2DM, such as hypoglycaemia risk, weight gain and fluid retention, highlighting the need for newer agents with more favourable safety profiles that can be combined and used at all stages of T2DM. New treatment strategies have focused on both dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors, which improve hyperglycaemia by stimulating insulin secretion in a glucose-dependent fashion and suppressing glucagon secretion, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which reduce renal glucose reabsorption and induce urinary glucose excretion, thereby lowering plasma glucose. The potential complimentary mechanism of action and good tolerance profile of these two classes of agents make them attractive treatment options for combination therapy with any of the existing glucose-lowering agents, including insulin. Together, the DPP-4 and SGLT2 inhibitors fulfill a need for treatments with mechanisms of action that can be used in combination with a low risk of adverse events, such as hypoglycaemia or weight gain.

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin in black/African American patients with type 2 diabetes: Pooled analysis from eight Phase III trials

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes in black/African Americans from North and South America is high; yet data evaluating antidiabetic agents in this population is scarce. To address this gap, we pooled data from the clinical development program for linagliptin.

METHODS

A retrospective pooled analysis of eight completed randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III trials of linagliptin identified 336 patients with type 2 diabetes who self-identified their ethnicity as black or African American. Participants received linagliptin (n = 173, 5 mg/day) or placebo (n = 163) as monotherapy, or as add-on to other antidiabetic agents, including insulin. The primary end point was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 18 or 24.

RESULTS

The placebo-adjusted mean change (95% confidence interval [CI]) in HbA1c from baseline was -0.69% (-0.92 to -0.46; p < 0.0001) at week 18 (eight trials), and -0.64% (-0.90 to -0.39; p < 0.0001) at week 24 (six trials). The placebo-adjusted mean change (95% CI) in fasting plasma glucose from baseline was -11.7 mg/dL (-23.1 to -0.3; p = 0.0446) at week 18 and -14.7 mg/dL (-25.7 to -3.8; p = 0.0087) at week 24. Incidence of investigator-defined hypoglycemia was similar between the two groups (linagliptin, 12.1%; placebo, 11.7%). Overall, the safety profile of linagliptin in this patient group was comparable to that of placebo, with comparable incidence of adverse events; linagliptin was weight-neutral in this patient population.

CONCLUSION

Linagliptin provided clinically significant improvements in glycemic control without increased risk of hypoglycemia and without weight gain, representing a useful type 2 diabetes therapy option for the black/African American population.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and cardiovascular outcomes: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials with 55,141 participants

AIMS

The association between glucose lowering in diabetes mellitus and major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes is weak; indeed, some oral hypoglycemic agents are associated with increased CV events. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) are a new class of oral hypoglycemic agent that may have beneficial CV effects. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to appraise the CV safety and efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors.

METHODS

Comprehensive search for prospective trials involving DPP-4 inhibitors. Trials included reported at least one of the outcomes examined, recruited minimum 100 patients and minimum follow-up 24 weeks. The risk ratio (RR) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model for mortality and major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty trials enrolling 55,141 participants were included. Mean follow-up 45.3 weeks. DPP-4 inhibitors compared with all comparators (placebo and active) showed no difference in all-cause mortality (n = 50,982, RR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.91-1.13, P = 0.83), CV mortality (n = 48,151, RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.85-1.11, P = 0.70), acute coronary syndrome (ACS) (n = 53,034 RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.87-1.08, P = 0.59), or stroke (n = 42,737, RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.81-1.18, P = 0.80), and a statistically significant increase in heart failure outcomes (n = 39,953, RR = 1.16, 95% CI 1.01-1.33, P = 0.04).

DISCUSSION

Treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with placebo shows no increase in risk with regards to all-cause mortality, CV mortality, ACS, or stroke, but a statistically significant trend toward increased risk of HF outcomes.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest no cardiovascular harm (or benefit) with DPP-4 inhibitors; further large-scale CV outcome studies will resolve the issue of excess HF risk.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin as monotherapy or add-on treatment in Asian patients with suboptimal glycemic control: a pooled analysis

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor linagliptin in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a rapidly increasing population.

METHODS

Data were pooled for Asian patients receiving linagliptin orally once daily, as monotherapy or added to existing oral antidiabetes therapies, in multinational randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials. Efficacy data were taken from four pivotal trials with 24-week durations to allow for robust efficacy assessment. Safety data were pooled from a wider group of 10 trials with varying durations to capture the largest possible incidence of adverse events (AEs). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c. AEs were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA1c (±SD) in this population was 8.2 ± 0.9%. Placebo-corrected mean change in HbA1c after 24 weeks was -0.79% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.92 to -0.67; p < 0.0001). Placebo-corrected mean change in fasting plasma glucose was -17.8 ± 2.4 mg/dL (95% CI: -22.6, -13.0; p < 0.0001). In a small subgroup, mean post-prandial glucose was reduced by a placebo-corrected -56.9 ± 14.0 mg/dL (95% CI: -85.2, -28.5). AEs occurred in 58.0% of linagliptin patients (serious AEs in 2.4%) and 58.2% of placebo patients (serious AEs in 3.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study was limited by the post hoc nature of the analysis, and because the pooling did not differentiate between geographically distant Asian regions. Nonetheless, this analysis provides evidence that linagliptin was efficacious and well tolerated as monotherapy or added to other oral antidiabetes therapies in Asian patients with T2DM.

Meta-analysis of the cardiovascular outcomes with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors: validation of the current FDA mandate

BACKGROUND

Earlier meta-analyses have demonstrated a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with dipeptidyl peptidase 4-inhibitor (DPPI) use, as compared with placebo or alternative anti-diabetic therapies. However, the large phase III/IV trials, namely SAVOR-TIMI 53 and the EXAMINE trials, failed to demonstrate any significant differences in MACE between DPPI and placebo. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the differences in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke between DPPI and placebo/alternative agents.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for relevant phase III/IV RCTs. Unpublished trials with results available on national clinical trials registers were also included. RCTs with follow-up duration ≥24 weeks were included if they compared DPPI with placebo or an alternative anti-diabetic agent.

RESULTS

A total of 82 RCTs including 73,678 patients were included. We did not observe any significant difference in the pooled odds of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke in the composite DPPI arm as compared with the control arm. Similarly, the pooled odds of all-cause death and MACE were statistically similar between the two groups. None of the clinical outcomes studied demonstrated evidence of statistical heterogeneity or publication bias. Due to a larger sample size and a longer duration of follow-up, both SAVOR-TIMI 53 and EXAMINE trials had a considerably larger contribution to the pooled estimates in our meta-analysis, driving the updated pooled estimates towards null for all clinical outcomes assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

DPPI use was not associated with increased incidence of cardiovascular mortality, MI, stroke, or MACE compared with placebo or alternative anti-diabetic agents.

Linagliptin: from bench to bedside

PURPOSE

The nature of biomedical research affords a broad range of investigational topics at the preclinical stage, not all of which may be explored in subsequent clinical studies. To provide a comprehensive perspective on the physiologic effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin, this review will discuss the results of both preclinical and clinical research, summarizing data describing outcomes associated with its use.

SUMMARY

Clinical studies demonstrate an overall favorable safety profile, low risk for hypoglycemia, weight neutrality, primarily nonrenal clearance, and efficacy for glycosylated hemoglobin reduction, typically ranging from 0.6% to 0.8% depending on baseline levels. In addition to these characteristics, preclinical research on linagliptin has yielded several interesting findings such as improved wound healing, reduced hepatic fat content, decreased infarct size following myocardial infarction or intracranial stroke, and improved vascular function with decreased oxidative stress. In accordance with its preclinical profile, linagliptin is unique among available dipeptidyl peptidase-4 compounds because it does not require dose adjustment when used in patients with renal dysfunction. Reduction of albuminuria with linagliptin on top of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in both preclinical and post hoc clinical analysis serves as the foundation for ongoing clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

In addition to its efficacy for glycemic control, current literature points to other potential opportunities associated with linagliptin therapy. These results warrant further investigation and underscore the importance of translational study based on findings from preclinical research. Moving forward, we can expect that future research on linagliptin and other incretin-based therapies will continue to expand their applications beyond the maintenance of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

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.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin in Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pooled analysis from six randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trials

OBJECTIVE

The number of individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus is expected to rise disproportionately in Hispanic/Latino populations. We therefore aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin specifically in Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data from 745 patients who self-identified their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino were pooled from six randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials. Participants received linagliptin (5 mg/day) or placebo as monotherapy, or in combination with other oral antidiabetes drugs for 18 or 24 weeks.

RESULTS

The placebo-adjusted mean change (95% CI) in glycated hemoglobin from baseline (mean 8.2%) was -0.63% (-0.77 to -0.48; p<0.0001) at week 18, and -0.58% (-0.74 to -0.42; p<0.0001) at week 24. The placebo-adjusted mean change (95% CI) in fasting plasma glucose from baseline was -11.7 mg/dL (-19.3 to -4.0; p=0.0028) at week 18 and -14.1 mg/dL (-22.0 to -6.3; p=0.0004) at week 24. Hypoglycemia incidence was 17.4% with linagliptin and 21% with placebo. In patients not receiving concomitant sulfonylurea, the hypoglycemia incidence was 10.1% with linagliptin and 19.4% with placebo. The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs), drug-related AEs, and serious AEs with linagliptin was similar to placebo (AEs 67.6% vs 68.9%; drug-related AEs 15.1% vs 18.7%; serious AEs 3.6% vs 3.0%). The mean body weight remained unchanged in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In Hispanic/Latino patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus, linagliptin provided clinically meaningful improvements in glycemic control without weight gain or increased risk of hypoglycemia.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin in type 2 diabetes subjects at high risk for renal and cardiovascular disease: a pooled analysis of six phase III clinical trials

BACKGROUND

In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), hypertension and microalbuminuria are predictive markers for increased renal and cardiovascular risk. This post hoc analysis of data from a global development program aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in a population with joint prevalence of these two vascular risk factors.

METHODS

Data for patients with baseline microalbuminuria (urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio 30-300 mg/g) and hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mm Hg and/or a history of hypertension; and/or an antihypertensive treatment at baseline) who participated in any of six randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trials were analyzed. Participants received linagliptin 5 mg daily (alone or in combination with other oral antidiabetic drugs) or placebo for 18 to 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Of 3,119 patients, 512 had both microalbuminuria and hypertension (linagliptin, 366; placebo, 146). Baseline mean (SD) HbA1c was 8.3 (0.9)% and 8.4 (0.9)%; median (range) urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio was 60 (30-292) mg/g and 64 (30-298) mg/g; mean (SD) systolic blood pressure was 138 (15) mm Hg and 135 (16) mm Hg; and mean (SD) diastolic blood pressure was 81 (10) mm Hg and 81 (10) mm Hg, for linagliptin and placebo, respectively. Placebo-corrected mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 18 and week 24 was -0.57% (95% CI: -0.75, -0.39; P < 0.0001) and -0.59% (95% CI: -0.80, -0.39; P < 0.0001), respectively. Placebo-corrected mean change in FPG from baseline to week 24 was -21.3 mg/dl (95% CI: -31.0, -11.6; P < 0.0001). The incidence of drug-related adverse events was similar for linagliptin and placebo (10.4% and 8.2%, respectively). Changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, cholesterol and triglyceride levels were similar between linagliptin and placebo.

CONCLUSION

In T2DM patients with the two common vascular risk factors of hypertension and microalbuminuria, linagliptin achieved significant improvements in glycemic control. In this vulnerable patient population at high risk for micro- and macrovascular complications, linagliptin was well tolerated.

Clinical overview of linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus

Linagliptin is a pharmacologically unique, orally active, once-daily dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor indicated for the treatment of hyperglycemia in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Compared with other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, linagliptin has a favorable pharmacokinetic profile with a primarily nonrenal route of elimination that avoids the need for dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment. When administered as monotherapy or in combination with other antihyperglycemic drugs, linagliptin treatment leads to clinically meaningful reductions in glycated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose and postprandial plasma glucose levels. In addition, pancreatic β-cell function is enhanced. Linagliptin treatment is well tolerated, with weight-neutral effects and no increased risk of hypoglycemia. Of note, linagliptin treatment was associated with a significantly reduced risk of cardiovascular events in clinical trials of ≤2 years, although this finding remains to be confirmed in larger and longer clinical outcomes studies.

Linagliptin: A thorough Characterization beyond Its Clinical Efficacy

Linagliptin, one of the five dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors available, has recently entered the market both in the US and in most European countries for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. It presents a xanthine-based structure, and is characterized by unique pharmacokinetics, with non-linear profile, long terminal half-life allowing prolonged exposure to the drug. It is eliminated predominately through the intestinal tract and only minimally into urine, so that it can be administered, without any dose adjustment, in conditions of renal impairment. Linagliptin is effective in modifying all parameters of hyperglycemia either in monotherapy, or as add-on therapy, together with metformin or a sulfonylurea. It also exhibits a good tolerability profile with few side effects, absence (when used in monotherapy), or low risk (when in combination with a sulfonylurea) of hypoglycemia. More importantly it has a weight neutral effect. A comprehensive report of the literature on linagliptin is provided, paying attention in particular to preclinical studies, interactions with other drugs, safety and tolerability, and results obtained in animal models that highlight properties of linagliptin suggestive of potential additional uses. Particularly promising appear the data demonstrating a positive effect of linagliptin on metabolic dysfunction and renal and/or cardiovascular damage together with more recently reported effects of linagliptin on tissue repair and neuroprotection.