Dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes: effectiveness across the spectrum of disease and over time

Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin as Add-On to Metformin with or without Other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Multicentre, Retrospective, Real-World Database Study

BACKGROUND

Real-world Indian studies evaluating effectiveness of dapagliflozin as an add-on to other oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) are scarce.

METHODS

An electronic medical record (EMR)-based, retrospective, multicentre study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of dapagliflozin as add-on therapy in adult patients with inadequately controlled DM on metformin with or without other OAD. Baseline characteristics (visit 1: metformin or metformin plus OAD treatment for at least 30 days) and treatment-related outcomes (visit 2: follow-up) considered between 60 and 140 days after adding/switching dapagliflozin [glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)] were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 3616 patients were screened from 478 centres. Most patients had received dapagliflozin (D) + metformin (M) + at least one other OAD [D + M + OAD, n = 2907 (80.4%), 408 followed-up with HbA1c reported], while 709 patients (19.6%, 138 followed-up with HbA1c reported) received dapagliflozin + metformin (D + M). Treatment with dapagliflozin as an add-on therapy resulted in significant change in HbA1c (-1.1 ± 1.44%; p < 0.05 for HbA1c subgroup ≥ 7.5%; -1.6 ± 1.41%; p < 0.05 for HbA1c subgroup ≥ 8%) at visit 2 compared with visit 1. Significant change in body weight (-1.4 ± 3.31 kg; p < 0.05 for HbA1c subgroup ≥ 7.5%; - 1.5 ± 3.22 kg; p < 0.05 for HbA1c subgroup ≥ 8%) was observed at visit 2. Similarly, a significant change in BMI was noted for the HbA1c subgroup ≥ 7.5% (-1.0 ± 8.38 kg/m2). However, the change in BMI in the HbA1c subgroup ≥ 8% was noted to be -1.4 ± 10.4 kg/m2, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). In the overall study population, significant change in the SBP (-4.5 ± 14.9 mmHg; p < 0.05 for HbA1c subgroup ≥ 7.5%; -4.5 ± 15.1 mmHg; p < 0.0001 for HbA1c subgroup ≥ 8%) was observed at visit 2 compared with visit 1. On identical lines, significant change in DBP (-1.5 ± 8.94 mmHg; p < 0.05 for HbA1c subgroup ≥ 7.5%; -1.4 ± 8.91 mmHg; p < 0.05 for HbA1c subgroup ≥ 8%) was noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Dapagliflozin showed significant improvement in glycemic parameter, BMI and BP when added to metformin, with or without other OADs in a real-world scenario.

Differential pharmacology and clinical utility of dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes

Dapagliflozin belongs in the family of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and acts by reducing glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule. The aim of this review is to present the differential pharmacology and clinical utility of dapagliflozin. Dapagliflozin is orally administered, has a long half-life of 12.9 hours and (similar to empagliflozin) is a much weaker SGLT1 inhibitor compared with canagliflozin. Dapagliflozin significantly decreases glycated hemoglobin and fasting glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The drug improves body weight, blood pressure, uric acid, triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. In the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial, a large trial of 17,160 T2DM patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or without established CVD but with multiple risk factors, dapagliflozin compared with placebo resulted in a significantly lower rate of the composite outcome of CVD death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF); this effect was mainly due to a lower rate of HHF in the dapagliflozin group (HR: 0.73; 95%CI: 0.61–0.88), whereas no difference was observed in the rate of CVD death (HR: 0.98; 95%CI: 0.82–1.17). Moreover, dapagliflozin was noninferior to placebo with respect to major adverse CVD events. Dapagliflozin exerts beneficial effects on albuminuria. Additionally, in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial it significantly reduced the composite renal endpoint (40% decrease in glomerular filtration rate, end stage renal disease, or renal death) in both patients with established CVD and patients with multiple risk factors (overall HR: 0.53; 95%CI: 0.43–0.66). However dapagliflozin, like the other SGLT2 inhibitors, is associated with an increased risk of genital and urinary tract infections (usually mild mycotic infections) and acute kidney injury in cases of reduced extracellular volume. Dapagliflozin is a useful antidiabetic treatment which also exerts beneficial effects in the management of heart failure and diabetic kidney disease.

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.

Effects of Dapagliflozin on 24-Hour Glycemic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and measures of short-term glycemia do not fully capture daily patterns in plasma glucose dynamics. This study evaluated 24-h glycemic profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiated on dapagliflozin treatment using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).

METHODS

This randomized double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter parallel-design 4-week study compared dapagliflozin (10 mg/d; n = 50) with placebo (n = 50) in adult patients with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c 7.5%-10.5%) on either stable doses of metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg/d) or insulin (≥30 U/d with or without up to two oral antidiabetes drugs). CGM was used to measure 24-h glycemic profiles for 7 days pretreatment and during week 4 of treatment. The primary outcome was change from baseline in 24-h mean glucose (MG) at week 4.

RESULTS

The 24-h MG decreased 18.2 mg/dL with dapagliflozin and increased 5.8 mg/dL with placebo (P < 0.001). The proportion of time spent in the target glucose range (70-180 mg/dL) increased significantly with dapagliflozin versus placebo (69.6% vs. 52.9%; P < 0.001), with a small (0.3%) increase in time spent in the hypoglycemic range (<70 mg/dL), driven by those on background insulin therapy. Dapagliflozin reduced postprandial glucose and significantly decreased overall glucose variability. Few events of symptomatic hypoglycemia occurred. The most common adverse event was urinary tract infection (6% in each treatment arm).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin improved measures of glycemic control and variability as assessed by CGM. Glycemic improvements were more pronounced in the group on background metformin than those receiving basal insulin.

Durability of response to dapagliflozin: a review of long-term efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Due to the chronic nature of type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is essential for an anti-diabetic drug to have durable efficacy and a good long-term safety profile. Dapagliflozin is a member of a unique class of anti-diabetic drugs that inhibit the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) in the renal tubules and have an insulin-independent mechanism of action. In short-term studies (≤ 24 weeks), dapagliflozin reduced glycated hemoglobin (A1c), weight, and systolic blood pressure, and had a good safety profile.

METHODS

This review summarizes the findings of long-term studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin.

RESULTS

These findings indicate that dapagliflozin is effective as monotherapy and in combination with other anti-hyperglycemic agents, including insulin and oral anti-diabetic therapies, in improving glycemic control and reducing blood pressure and weight for up to 4 years. The findings were fairly consistent across various patient populations with T2D, including those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mild renal impairment. Extended use of dapagliflozin was not associated with an increase in safety signals over time. Frequently observed adverse events (AEs) were consistent with the drug's mechanism of action and were generally mild in intensity. No substantial impact of dapagliflozin on renal function was observed, and findings show that the drug is safe in T2D patients with CVD or mild renal impairment, as well as elderly patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings across the studies support the use of dapagliflozin for the long-term treatment of T2D across a broad spectrum of patients.

Diabetes drugs and the incidence of solid cancers: a survey of the current evidence

INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of the relationship between the use of antidiabetic drug and the occurrence of cancer is extremely challenging, both from the clinical and pharmacoepidemiological standpoint. This narrative review described the current evidence supporting a relationship between the use of antidiabetic drugs and the incidence of solid cancers. Areas covered: Data from pharmacoepidemiological studies on cancer incidence were presented for the main antidiabetic drugs and drug classes, including human insulin and insulin analogues, metformin, sulfonylureas, glinides, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, incretin mimetics, and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. The relationship between the use of antidiabetics and the incidence of solid cancer was described in strata by any cancer and by organ-specific cancer and by drug and by drug classes. Information supporting biological evidence and putative mechanisms were also provided. Expert opinion: The history of exploration of the relationship between antidiabetic drugs and the risk of solid cancers has showed several issues. Unrecognized biases and misinterpretations of study results have had important consequences that delayed the identification of actual risk and benefits of the use of antidiabetic drugs associated with cancer occurrence or progression. The lesson learned from the past should address the future research in this area, since in the majority of cases findings are controversial and confirmatory studies are warranted.

Dapagliflozin: potential beneficial effects in the prevention and treatment of renal and cardiovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic kidney disease is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease, a significant contributor to cardiovascular (CV) disease, responsible for much of the morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Strategies to slow or prevent the onset and progression of diabetic kidney disease are critical for effectively managing T2DM and reducing CV risk. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are effective antidiabetic agents, which may provide nephroprotective and CV protective effects. Areas covered: This review examines the role of the kidney in glucose homeostasis, discusses renal hemodynamic changes in diabetes, and outlines the major hypotheses regarding the mechanisms underlying renal injury in diabetes. The potential benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors in the prevention and treatment of CV complications in patients with T2DM are reviewed, with particular focus on dapagliflozin. Expert opinion: Dapagliflozin and other SGLT2 inhibitors have the capacity to decrease hyperglycemia and visceral fat, components of the metabolic syndrome particularly associated with the progression of CV disease. However, the mechanisms of action of SGLT2 inhibitors resulting in their positive CV effects remain unclear. Furthermore, the mechanism of action of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart function in non-diabetic patients with decompensated heart failure remains to be explored.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin versus Acarbose as a Monotherapy in Type 2 Diabetes in China

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus acarbose as monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in China.

METHODS

The Cardiff Diabetes Model, an economic model designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of comparator therapies in diabetes was used to simulate disease progression and estimate the long-term effect of treatments on patients. Systematic literature reviews, hospital surveys, meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison were conducted to obtain model-required patient profiles, clinical data and costs. Health insurance costs (2015¥) were estimated over 40 years from a healthcare payer perspective. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The model predicted that dapagliflozin had lower incidences of cardiovascular events, hypoglycemia and mortality events, was associated with a mean incremental benefit of 0.25 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and with a lower cost of ¥8,439 compared with acarbose. This resulted in a cost saving of ¥33,786 per QALY gained with dapagliflozin. Sensitivity analyses determined that the results are robust.

CONCLUSION

Dapagliflozin is dominant compared with acarbose as monotherapy for Chinese T2DM patients, with a little QALY gain and lower costs. Dapagliflozin offers a well-tolerated and cost-effective alternative medication for treatment-naive patients in China, and may have a direct impact in reducing the disease burden of T2DM.

Lipid effects and cardiovascular disease risk associated with glucose-lowering medications

Diabetes is a global epidemic, associated with a high burden of complications and 4.6 million deaths annually worldwide. As a result of decreasing levels of physical activity and increasing rates of obesity, diabetes is shifting from a disease affecting the elderly to one that affects younger patients or even children. Thus, aggressive treatment and optimal control of risk factors is the key to improve outcomes in those patients. Accumulating evidence of the cardiovascular and lipid effects of glucose-lowering medications suggest that treatment efficacy in diabetes can be further improved. This review provides an overview of the lipid effects and cardiovascular disease risk of current anti-diabetic medications and highlights opportunities and challenges in clinical practice.

Patient considerations in type 2 diabetes - role of combination dapagliflozin-metformin XR

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review article is to provide guidance to health care providers regarding the use of dapagliflozin-metformin XR (extended release) as a therapeutic option for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched through August 2015 to identify clinical trials and meta-analyses evaluating the use of the sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin administered as monotherapy or in combination with metformin.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included for this review, six of which evaluated dapagliflozin in combination with metformin, one of which evaluated dapagliflozin monotherapy, and four of which evaluated dapagliflozin as an add-on therapy to other antidiabetic agents. The combination of dapagliflozin and metformin resulted in an A1C decrease of up to 2%, weight loss of 2-3 kg, and modest systolic blood pressure decrease of 3-5 mmHg. However, long-term effects on cancer and cardiovascular health are still being investigated. Providing patients with a fixed-dose combination therapy such as dapagliflozin-metformin XR can increase medication adherence and patient satisfaction, and improve glycemic control. Dapagliflozin-metformin XR is ideal because it can be administered orally once a day, is associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia, and provides the added benefit of weight reduction and modest blood pressure lowering.

CONCLUSION

The unique combined mechanism of action and favorable efficacy and safety profile of dapagliflozin-metformin XR support consideration of this fixed-dose combination as a treatment option for patients with T2DM.

Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, in diabetes mellitus

Although antidiabetic agents have been developed to target one or more of the core defects of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), many patients do not achieve glycemic goals. Inhibition of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) induces glycosuria, reduces glucose toxicity and improves insulin sensitivity and β-cell function. As the mechanism of action of SGLT2 inhibitors is different from other agents and completely insulin-independent, the use of these drugs might potentially be efficacious alone or in combination with any other antidiabetic drug, including insulin. Dapagliflozin is a highly selective and reversible SGLT2 inhibitor approved for use in adult patients with T2DM as monotherapy in patients intolerant of metformin or as adjunctive therapy in patients inadequately controlled on existing antidiabetic medications, including insulin. A literature search conducted using PubMed identified key publications related to the use of dapagliflozin in the treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus. No date limits were applied. This review focuses on the safety and efficacy of this SGLT2 inhibitor. Dapagliflozin produces dose-related reductions in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as monotherapy and as add-on to other antidiabetic agents, with significant reductions in body weight. Hypoglycemia is uncommon. Preliminary data from a phase 2 pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study suggest that dapagliflozin may also improve glycemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Clinical trials published to date show that dapagliflozin is safe and effective as monotherapy or as an add-on to insulin or oral antidiabetic agents in patients with T2DM.