Comparison of alogliptin and glipizide for composite endpoint of glycated haemoglobin reduction, no hypoglycaemia and no weight gain in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Development and validation of an HPLC coupled with tandem mass spectrometry method for the determination of HSK7653, a novel super long-acting dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in human plasma and urine and its application to a pharmacokinetic study

HSK7653 is a novel super long-acting dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, which is promising for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus with the twice-monthly dosing regimen. In this article, a robust and sensitive HPLC coupled with tandem mass spectrometry method for determining the concentration of HSK7653 in human plasma and urine was developed and validated for the first time. Plasma and urine samples were prepared by protein precipitation. After that, the extracts were analyzed using an LC-20A HPLC system coupled with API 4000 tandem MS equipped with an electrospray ionization source in positive mode. Separation was obtained using an XBridge Phenyl column (2.1 × 50 mm, 3.5 μm) with a gradient elution of acetonitrile and water containing 0.1% formic acid and 5% acetonitrile at room temperature. This bioanalysis method has been fully validated and the results showed good sensitivity and specificity. In brief, the standard curves were linear over the concentration range of 2.00-2000 ng/ml for plasma and 20.0-20,000 ng/ml for urine, respectively. In addition, the precisions of inter- and intra-run of HSK7653 were less than 12.7% and the accuracies were -3.3% to 6.3% for both plasma and urine. Finally, this method was successfully applied to explore the pharmacokinetic characteristics of HSK7653 in Chinese healthy volunteers in a first-in-human study.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and gallbladder or biliary disease in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and gallbladder or biliary diseases.

DESIGN

Systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL from inception until 31 July 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of adult patients with type 2 diabetes who received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors compared with placebo or other antidiabetes drugs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases, cholecystitis, cholelithiasis, and biliary diseases.

DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the studies. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework (GRADE) approach. The meta-analysis used pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 82 randomised controlled trials with 104 833 participants were included in the pairwise meta-analysis. Compared with placebo or non-incretin drugs, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were significantly associated with an increased risk of the composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases (odds ratio 1.22 (95%confidence interval 1.04 to 1.43); risk difference 11 (2 to 21) more events per 10 000 person years) and cholecystitis (odds ratio 1.43 (1.14 to 1.79); risk difference 15 (5 to 27) more events per 10 000 person years) but not with the risk of cholelithiasis and biliary diseases. The associations tended to be observed in patients with a longer duration of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor treatment. In the network meta-analysis of 184 trials, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors increased the risk of the composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases and cholecystitis compared with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors but not compared with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

CONCLUSIONS

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors increased the risk of cholecystitis in randomised controlled trials, especially with a longer treatment duration, which requires more attention from physicians in clinical practice.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021271647.

Long-term safety and efficacy of alogliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 3-year prospective, controlled, observational study (J-BRAND Registry)

INTRODUCTION

Given an increasing use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the real-world setting, we conducted a prospective observational study (Japan-based Clinical Research Network for Diabetes Registry: J-BRAND Registry) to elucidate the safety and efficacy profile of long-term usage of alogliptin.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We registered 5969 patients from April 2012 through September 2014, who started receiving alogliptin (group A) or other classes of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs; group B), and were followed for 3 years at 239 sites nationwide. Safety was the primary outcome. Symptomatic hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, skin disorders of non-extrinsic origin, severe infections, and cancer were collected as major adverse events (AEs). Efficacy assessment was the secondary outcome and included changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, fasting insulin and urinary albumin.

RESULTS

Of the registered, 5150 (group A: 3395 and group B: 1755) and 5096 (3358 and 1738) were included for safety and efficacy analysis, respectively. Group A patients mostly (>90%) continued to use alogliptin. In group B, biguanides were the primary agents, while DPP-4 inhibitors were added in up to ~36% of patients. The overall incidence of AEs was similar between the two groups (42.7% vs 42.2%). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed the incidence of cancer was significantly higher in group A than in group B (7.4% vs 4.8%, p=0.040), while no significant incidence difference was observed in the individual cancer. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the imbalanced patient distribution (more elderly patients in group A than in group B), but not alogliptin usage per se, contributed to cancer development. The incidence of other major AE categories was with no between-group difference. Between-group difference was not detected, either, in the incidence of microvascular and macrovascular complications. HbA1c and fasting glucose decreased significantly at the 0.5-year visit and nearly plateaued thereafter in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin as a representative of DPP-4 inhibitors was safe and durably efficacious when used alone or with other OHAs for patients with type 2 diabetes in the real world setting.

Impact of Weight Change in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Literature Review and Critical Analysis

Objective

Weight reduction is a key component of diabetes management in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), yet the benefits of weight loss in T2DM patients have been difficult to quantify. We examined the medical literature regarding the relationships between weight change and 1) glycemic control and 2) cost and resource use.

Methods

Systematic searches were conducted in the electronic databases Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify publications regarding the impact of weight change on T2DM outcomes from 2007 onward. Identified publications were screened for relevance against predefined eligibility criteria, and methodological approaches and results were extracted. Evidence for the impact of weight change on outcomes was evaluated and used to identify strengths, limitations, and gaps in the current literature.

Results

The number of studies meeting eligibility criteria for each outcome was: glycemic control (n=38) and cost and resource use (n=11). The relationship between weight change and glycemic control was dependent on the interplay of multiple factors, eg, the weight loss interventions employed, the antidiabetic medication classes used, the time horizon, and baseline BMI and glycemic control. With respect to cost and resource use, the review indicated that savings were associated with weight loss, and increased costs were associated with weight gain.

Conclusion

Studies regarding weight change in T2DM patients demonstrated varying effects on glycemic control and a positive association with costs and resource use, where weight loss was associated with decreased costs and resource use. Future studies may be able to clarify these relationships.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Alogliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) alogliptin is an oral, antidiabetic treatment that is approved in many countries to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), including the USA, Europe, and Japan. Alogliptin is efficacious both as monotherapy and as add-on/combination therapy with other commonly prescribed T2DM treatments, such as metformin and pioglitazone. Overall, alogliptin is well-tolerated in patients with T2DM, including older patients, those with renal and/or hepatic impairment, and those at high risk of cardiovascular events. There is a low risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, acute pancreatitis, and gastrointestinal adverse events with alogliptin treatment, as demonstrated in long-term trials (lasting up to 4.5 years) and in a real-world setting. Additionally, alogliptin has a generally favorable or similar safety profile in comparison to other antidiabetic agents (metformin, thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, and insulin). However, further evaluation would be required to determine the mechanism and effect of alogliptin on heart failure, bullous pemphigoid, and inflammatory bowel disease. Of note, due to the ethnic diversity in the epidemiology of T2DM, alogliptin has been shown to be more efficacious in Asian patients than in non-Asian patients with T2DM, but with a similar tolerability profile. These data indicate that DPP-4is, including alogliptin, are important treatment options, especially for Asian patients with T2DM, for whom they have potential as a first-line therapy. This benefit-risk assessment aims to place alogliptin within the current armamentarium of T2DM and aid physicians when choosing optimal diabetes treatment for their patients.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

De vuelta a la clínica: sin justificación no existe pregunta de investigación que valga

A clinical research question requires the concurrence of clinical experience and knowledge on methodology and statistics in that who formulates it. Initially, a research question should have a structure that clearly establishes what is that which is being sought (consequence or outcome), in whom (baseline status), and by action of what (maneuver). Subsequently, its reasoning must explore four aspects: feasibility and reasonableness of the questioning, lack of a prior answer, relevance of the answer to be obtained, and applicability. Once these aspects are satisfactorily covered, the question can be regarded as being "clinically relevant", which is different from being statistically significant, which refers to the probability of the result being driven by chance, which does not reflect the relevance of the question or the outcome. One should never forget that every maneuver entails adverse events that, when serious, discredit good results. It is imperative to have the possible answer estimated from within the structure of the question. The function of clinical research is to corroborate or reject a hypothesis, rather than to empirically test to find out what the outcome is.

Primary Endpoints in Pediatric Efficacy Trials Submitted to the US FDA

The selection of appropriate endpoints in pediatric drug development trials is a critical aspect of trial design. Given the high pediatric trial failure rate, selecting optimal trial design elements, such as the primary efficacy endpoint, is essential to ensuring increased potential for trial success. The objectives of this study were to identify the primary efficacy endpoints measured in pediatric drug development trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration and to relate endpoint attributes to trial and label outcome. The analysis included pediatric pivotal efficacy studies submitted from September 2007 to July 2016 for which there was a corresponding adult trial for the same indication. Two hundred and thirty-four efficacy trials on 138 unique products studied in pediatric patients were assessed. The adult and pediatric endpoints were the same in 141 of the 234 trials (60.3%), and these trials succeeded in meeting their primary endpoint more often (122 of 141 [86.5%]) than when the adult and pediatric endpoints differed (57 of 93 [61.3%]; odds ratio, 4.03; 95%CI, 2.10-7.80). Trials that included both pediatric and adult patients succeeded more frequently than those trials that did not combine pediatric and adult patients (85 of 95 versus 94 of 139, respectively; odds ratio, 4.05; 95%CI, 1.94-9.31). No differences were observed in pediatric trial success between those using subjective and objective endpoints. Using the same endpoint in the pediatric trial as was measured in the corresponding adult trial and enrolling pediatric and adult patients in the same trial were attributes associated with trial success.

Weight effects of antidiabetic agents

Obesity and diabetes are on the rise, which remains a continuous health concern worldwide. It is important to consider weight effects of antidiabetic agents prior to initiation as different antidiabetic agents impact weight differently. Areas covered: New agents to treat diabetes, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, have emerged over recent years that have been shown to result in weight reduction. Unfortunately, other antidiabetic medications used can cause weight gain such as with insulin, sulfonylureas, and thiazolidediones while some remain weight neutral (metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors). The weight effects of these antidiabetic medications described are from select relevant guidelines, clinical trials, reviews, and meta-analysis found through PubMed and Ovid databases up to July 2017. Expert commentary: This article summarizes the current evidence available on the weight effects of these agents in patients with diabetes. Evaluating potential risks, such as weight gain, with potential benefits, such as improvement in glycemic control, will help with designing optimal therapeutic diabetes regimens.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Alogliptin Versus Sulfonylurea as Add-on Therapy to Metformin in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

ENDURE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00856284), a multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled study of 2639 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), found that metformin in combination with alogliptin (12.5 and 25 mg doses), when compared to standard add-on therapy (sulfonylurea, SU), exerted sustained antihyperglycemic effects over 2 years. This economic analysis of ENDURE aimed to quantify the relationship between increased glycemic durability and cost-effectiveness of alogliptin in the UK clinical setting, and communicate its sustained glycemic benefit in economic terms.

METHODS

Using baseline characteristics and treatment effects from the ENDURE trial population, between-group cost-effectiveness analyses compared the combined use of metformin and alogliptin (MET + ALO_12.5/25) in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM, as an alternative to metformin and SU (MET + SU). In scenario analyses, an intragroup cost-effectiveness analysis compared MET + ALO_12.5/25 with MET + SU; a between-group cost-effectiveness analysis also compared MET + ALO_12.5/25 versus MET + SU within a subpopulation of patients who achieved HbA1c control (<7.5%) at 2 years on study drug.

RESULTS

Compared with baseline profiles of patients, combination therapies with alogliptin or SU were associated with improvements in length and quality of life and were cost-effective at established norms. Despite increased drug acquisition costs, alogliptin at 12.5 mg and 25 mg doses resulted in greater predicted lifetime quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains with associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £10,959/QALY and £7217/QALY compared to SU, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The ENDURE trial and the present cost-effectiveness analysis found that the glycemic durability of alogliptin therapy was associated with improved long-term patient outcomes, QALY gains, and ICERs that were cost-effective when evaluated against standard threshold values. Alogliptin therefore represents a cost-effective treatment alternative to SU as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with poorly managed T2DM.

FUNDING

Takeda Development Centre Europe Ltd.