Teneligliptin versus sitagliptin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride: A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

Effect of glimepiride versus teneligliptin in combination with metformin in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

BACKGROUND

Long-term metabolic disease type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is distinguished by elevated blood glucose, insulin resistance, and drought of insulin with dyslipidemia. Oral hypoglycemic agents lower blood glucose levels as well as prevent both short-term and long-term complications such as micro/macrovascular atherosclerosis, chronic kidney diseases, and chronic heart disease. This study aims to compare the effect of glimepiride versus teneligliptin in combination with metformin in T2DM patients attending a tertiary care hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, open-label study was initiated in a tertiary care hospital after obtaining IEC approval. Written informed consent was obtained. The sample size was calculated using "Statistics and sample size software." Ninety-seven patients satisfying the inclusion criteria were assigned to two groups using simple randomization with allocation 1:1. Group A received metformin + glimepiride while Group B received metformin + teneligliptin for 12 weeks. Fasting blood sugar (FBS), postprandial blood sugar (PPBS), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and lipid profile were recorded at the baseline and at the end of 12 weeks. This study was conducted for 1 year. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23.0 software.

RESULTS

Out of 97 participants (Group A: 48 and Group B: 49), Group A showed a higher reduction in FBS (48.18 ± 9.64) whereas Group B showed 72.53 ± 5.01, 1.74 ± 0.42 of change in PPBS and HbA1c after 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The study found that combining metformin with teneligliptin was better tolerated and improved glycemic control and lipid profile compared to metformin plus glimepiride.

Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

As a popular antidiabetic drug, teneligliptin has been used for over 10 years, but its efficacy and safety have rarely been systematically evaluated. Therefore, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing teneligliptin with placebo or active comparators in T2DM patients for at least 12 weeks were included in the study. Data analysis was performed using R 4.2.3 and Stata 17.0 software. Each outcome was presented as a mean difference (MD) or an odds ratio (OR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value (SUCRA).

Results

A total of 18 RCTs with 3,290 participants with T2DM were included in this study. Generally, compared to placebo, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, and bromocriptine, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.78 [-0.86 to -0.70], -0.08 [-0.36 to 0.19], -0.04 [-0.72 to 0.60], -0.12 [-0.65 to 0.42], and -0.50 [-0.74 to -0.26], respectively) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (MD [95% CI], -18.02 [-20.64 to -15.13], 1.17 [-9.39 to 11.70], -8.06 [-30.95 to 14.35], -2.75 [-18.89 to 13.01], and -34.23 [-45.93 to -22.96], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin also showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.84 [-1.03 to -0.65], -0.15 [-0.49 to 0.19], -0.10 [-0.81 to 0.57], -0.18 [-0.76 to 0.39], and -0.56 [-0.88 to -0.26], respectively) and FPG (MD [95% CI], -20.40 [-26.07 to -14.57], -1.20 [-13.21 to 10.38], -10.43 [-34.16 to 12.65], -5.13 [-22.21 to 11.66], and -36.61 [-49.33 to -24.01], respectively). Compared to placebo, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidences of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal adverse events (OR [95% CI], 1.30 [0.70 to 2.19] and 1.48 [0.78 to 2.98], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia (OR [95% CI], 2.63 [0.46 to 8.10]). Generally, antidiabetic effect and hypoglycemia risk of teneligliptin gradually increased as its dose increased from 5 mg to 40 mg. Compared to 20 mg of teneligliptin, 40 mg of teneligliptin showed superior efficacy and no-inferior safety, which was considered as the best option in reducing HbA1c, FPG, and 2h PPG and increasing proportion of the patients achieving HbA1c < 7% (SUCRA, 85.51%, 84.24%, 79.06%, and 85.81%, respectively) among all the included interventions.

Conclusion

Compared to sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, bromocriptine, and placebo, teneligliptin displayed favorable efficacy and acceptable safety in treating T2DM. Twenty milligrams or 40 mg per day was the optimal dosage regimen of teneligliptin. The results of this study will provide important evidence-based basis for rational use of teneligliptin and clinical decision-making of T2DM medication.

Finding the most cost-effective option from commonly used Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in India: a systematic study

OBJECTIVE

To identify a preferred and cost-effective drug among Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) for Indian patients with T2DM.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search using standard databases for relevant literature. Original studies comparing the efficacy and/or safety of different DPP4Is were included. Two authors independently performed the literature search, screening, and collected relevant data from the selected studies. The costs of all brands of individual DPP4Is were noted and compared for lowest, highest, and average cost. Finally, we summarized the information with respect to Efficacy, safety, suitability, and cost to find the most cost-effective DPP4I.

RESULTS

We found 13 eligible studies containing data on 15,720 subjects. These studies showed similar efficacy (or better) and safety with teneligliptin as compared to other DPP4Is. Teneligliptin also showed additional benefits other than the glycemic control. The average cost per tablet of teneligliptin 20 mg was markedly lower as compared to sitagliptin, vildagliptin, and other commonly used DPP4Is. Teneligliptin also outscored other commonly used DPP4Is in India in suitability and seems to have better patient compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Teneligliptin 20 mg could be considered as the preferred and most cost-effective agent among commonly used DPP4Is for the effective management of patients with T2DM in India.

Effectiveness and safety of teneligliptin added to patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by oral triple combination therapy: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study

AIM

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of teneligliptin over placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled by triple therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This trial was a prospective, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The 12-week double-blind period was followed by a 12-week, open-label clinical trial. One hundred patients with T2D who failed to achieve the glycaemic target (7.1% ≤ HbA1c ≤ 9.0%) with conventional triple oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) of metformin, sulphonylurea, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor were assigned randomly 1:1 into teneligliptin and placebo-teneligliptin groups. The primary endpoint was mean change in HbA1c level from baseline in each group at 12 weeks.

RESULTS

For a total of 99 patients (n = 51 for the teneligliptin group, and n = 48 for the placebo-teneligliptin group), the mean age and duration of diabetes were 60.7 and 13.6 years, respectively, and HbA1c was 7.8% at baseline. At 12 weeks, the teneligliptin group achieved a significant reduction in HbA1c from baseline (-0.9% ± 0.6%, P < .001), with an intergroup difference of -0.75% compared with the placebo group (95% CI [-0.99%, -0.51%], P < .001). At the end of the 24-week treatment period, both groups showed significant reductions in HbA1c level from baseline (placebo-teneligliptin group, -0.8% ± 0.6% [P < .001], teneligliptin group, -0.9% ± 0.6% [P < .001]), without significant intergroup difference (-0.17%, 95% CI [-0.41%, 0.07%], P = .156). There was no significant difference between the groups in the rate of adverse events (placebo-teneligliptin group, n = 3 [6.3%]; teneligliptin group, n = 11 [11.1%]; P = .550), and the safety profiles were favourable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study shows that teneligliptin could be a valid option as a fourth OAD for the treatment of patients with T2D inadequately controlled with a triple combination of OADs.

Effect of Switching from Linagliptin to Teneligliptin Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in Older Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are widely prescribed for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and their glycemic control effects are well studied. However, information regarding the effects of switching DPP-4 inhibitors is limited, especially in older patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We investigated whether switching from linagliptin to teneligliptin decreases blood glucose in older (≥65 years) T2D patients. In total, 164 patients with T2D who switched from linagliptin to teneligliptin for >12 weeks were included and the primary outcome was glycemic changes.

RESULTS

Switching from linagliptin to teneligliptin ameliorated fasting blood glucose (148.1 ± 47.1 to 139.6 ± 43.4 mg/dL), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c; 7.9 ± 1.3 to 7.5 ± 1.2%), and postprandial blood glucose (224.8 ± 77.4 to 205.8 ± 70.8 mg/dL) levels (all P < 0.05). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration was reduced while liver and kidney functions were maintained. Subgroup analysis showed that glucose control improved more in patients with uncontrolled hyperglycemia (HbA1c > 8.0%) and chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <90 mL/min/1.73m2). Multiple logistic analysis indicated higher baseline HbA1c was the strongest predictor of teneligliptin switching response.

CONCLUSION

Switching from linagliptin to teneligliptin helps maintain kidney function and reduce blood glucose safely in older patients with T2D.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Teneligliptin in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Subgroup Analysis of a 3-Year Post-Marketing Surveillance in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Teneligliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, was approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan in 2012. However, clinical trials of teneligliptin involved limited numbers of elderly patients. Therefore, we investigated the safety and efficacy of teneligliptin in elderly patients with T2DM.

METHODS

This 3-year follow-up RUBY surveillance registered patients with T2DM who started treatment with teneligliptin between May 2013 and February 2015 in Japan. Collected data included demographics, treatments, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and laboratory variables. Data were analysed for patients in three age subgroups (< 65, ≥ 65 to < 75, or ≥ 75 years old). Safety was assessed as the incidence of ADRs and efficacy was assessed in terms of glycaemic control, for up to 3 years.

RESULTS

The ADRs and serious ADRs occurred in 3.35% and 0.65% of 4596 patients aged < 65 years, in 4.42% and 1.22% of 3371 patients aged ≥ 65 to < 75 years, and in 3.99% and 1.69% of 2729 patients aged ≥ 75 years. The most common ADRs in patients aged ≥ 65 to < 75 years and ≥ 75 years were gastrointestinal disorders, but the incidence of these ADRs did not show an age-dependent increase. Hypoglycaemia occurred in 0.24%, 0.56%, and 0.29% of patients in each age subgroup, respectively. The least-squares mean changes in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) adjusted for baseline were - 0.66 ± 0.02% (n = 2177), - 0.72 ± 0.02% (n = 1689), and - 0.77 ± 0.03% (n = 1161) at 3 years.

CONCLUSION

There was no clear difference in the number of ADRs among the three age subgroups, although the incidence of serious ADRs was higher in elderly patients than in patients aged < 65 years. We found no additional safety or efficacy concerns among elderly patients beyond those already described in the package insert. The present results support the use of teneligliptin in elderly patients with T2DM in real-world clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japic Clinical Trials Information identifier, Japic CTI-153047.

Long-Term, Real-World Safety and Efficacy of Teneligliptin: A Post-Marketing Surveillance of More Than 10,000 Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Teneligliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor that was approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan in 2012. We performed a long-term post-marketing surveillance (RUBY) to obtain real-world evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of teneligliptin in Japan.

METHODS

This 3-year follow-up RUBY surveillance registered patients with T2DM who started treatment with teneligliptin between May 2013 and February 2015 in Japan. Collected data included demographics, treatments, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and laboratory variables. Data were evaluated in all patients and in patients divided according to baseline renal function across categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (G1-G5) and dialysis. Safety was assessed as the incidence of ADRs and efficacy was assessed in terms of glycaemic control, for up to 3 years.

RESULTS

Of 11,677 patients registered, 10,696 and 10,249 were evaluable for safety and efficacy analyses, respectively. The median duration of exposure was 1096 days. ADRs occurred in 412 patients (3.85%) and were serious in 117 patients (1.09%). The most frequent ADR class was gastrointestinal disorders (0.68%), which included constipation. There were no new ADRs warranting attention beyond those already described in teneligliptin's package insert. ADRs and serious ADRs in renal function subgroups occurred in 3.24-7.14% and 0.65-5.36% in G1-G5, and 4.49% and 1.92% in patients on dialysis, respectively. Reduction in HbA1c was sustained for 3 years after starting teneligliptin (- 0.70% ± 1.36%, p < 0.001 at 3 years). The least-squares mean changes in HbA1c adjusted for baseline were - 0.76% to - 0.66% in G1-G5 at 3 years. Glycated albumin levels decreased in patients on dialysis (- 2.92% ± 4.78% at 3 years).

CONCLUSION

There were no new safety or efficacy concerns about teneligliptin used in long-term, real-world, clinical settings in patients with T2DM with any stages of renal impairment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center clinical trials database identifier: Japic CTI-153047. Plain language summary available for this article.

Efficacy and Safety of Switching to Teneligliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors: A 12-Week Interim Report

INTRODUCTION

Teneligliptin, an antidiabetic agent classified as a class III dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, has a unique structural feature that provides strong binding to DPP-4 enzymes. We investigated the efficacy and safety of switching patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycemic control on a stable dose of other DPP-4 inhibitors to teneligliptin.

METHODS

Patients with T2DM whose glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were ≥ 7% despite taking DPP-4 inhibitors other than teneligliptin, with or without other hypoglycemic agents, for at least 3 months were enrolled. The DPP-4 inhibitors taken before participating in the study were switched to 20 mg qd teneligliptin, and this was to be maintained for 52 weeks. The primary end point was the change in HbA1c levels after 12 weeks. Metabolic parameters including fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and blood lipids were assessed also. To assess safety, adverse and hypoglycemic events were monitored. The data from baseline to week 12 were used for analysis in this interim report.

RESULTS

The mean change in HbA1c levels from baseline to week 12 was - 0.44%. At week 12, the percentage of patients achieving HbA1c < 7.0% was 31.6% and that of achieving HbA1c < 6.5% was 11.4%, respectively. In 41.2% of patients, the HbA1c levels decreased by at least 0.5% at 12 weeks. The mean change in FPG levels from baseline to week 12 was - 11.5 mg/dl. No severe hypoglycemia was reported.

CONCLUSION

After switching to teneligliptin, HbA1c levels decreased significantly in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with other DPP-4 inhibitors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03793023.

FUNDING

Handok Inc.

Teneligliptin versus sitagliptin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride: A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of add-on therapy with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor teneligliptin compared with sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of adult Korean subjects with T2DM (n = 201), with HbA1c ranging from 7.0% to 11.0%, on stable doses of metformin plus glimepiride. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive either oral teneligliptin 20 mg or sitagliptin 100 mg for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean age was 60.56 ± 9.41 years, body mass index was 25.23 ± 2.85 kg/m² and HbA1c was 8.11% ± 0.79%. At 24 weeks, both groups achieved significant reductions from baseline in HbA1c (teneligliptin, -1.03% ± 0.10% [P < 0.0001]; sitagliptin, -1.02% ± 0.10% [P < 0.0001]). The inter-group difference was -0.01% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.28, 0.26; P = 0.9497); the upper limit of the 95% CI was within the preset limit for non-inferiority (0.4%). There were no significant differences between groups in the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets, or changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, body weight or lipid levels at 24 weeks. Rates of adverse events (teneligliptin, n = 63 [61.76%]; sitagliptin, n = 61 [62.24%]; P = 0.9442) and hypoglycaemia (teneligliptin, n = 32 [31.37%]; sitagliptin, n = 28 [28.57%]; P = 0.6656) were similar.

CONCLUSION

Teneligliptin was non-inferior to sitagliptin in the context of triple therapy for T2DM and is an important option in this setting.