Glucose-lowering activity of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor saxagliptin in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes

Pancreatic beta-cell mass and function and therapeutic implications of using antidiabetic medications in type 2 diabetes

Nowadays, the focus of diabetes treatment has switched from lowering the glucose level to preserving glycemic homeostasis and slowing the disease progression. The main pathophysiology of both type 1 diabetes and long-standing type 2 diabetes is pancreatic β-cell mass loss and dysfunction. According to recent research, human pancreatic β-cells possess the ability to proliferate in response to elevated insulin demands. It has been demonstrated that in insulin-resistant conditions in humans, such as obesity or pregnancy, the β-cell mass increases. This ability could be helpful in developing novel treatment approaches to restore a functional β-cell mass. Treatment strategies aimed at boosting β-cell function and mass may be a useful tool for managing diabetes mellitus and stopping its progression. This review outlines the processes of β-cell failure and detail the many β-cell abnormalities that manifest in people with diabetes mellitus. We also go over standard techniques for determining the mass and function of β-cells. Lastly, we provide the therapeutic implications of utilizing antidiabetic drugs in controlling the mass and function of pancreatic β-cells.

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.

Efficacy and safety of DBPR108 (prusogliptin) as an add-on to metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: A 24-week, multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, superiority, phase III clinical trial

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DBPR108 (prusogliptin), a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, as an add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) that is inadequately controlled with metformin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this 24-week, multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, superiority, phase III study, adult T2D patients with HbA1c levels ranging from 7.0% to 9.5% on stable metformin were enrolled and randomized (2:1) into the DBPR108 + metformin and placebo + metformin groups. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24 of DBPR108 versus placebo as an add-on therapy to metformin.

RESULTS

At week 24, the least-square mean (standard error) change from baseline in HbA1c was significantly greater in the DBPR108 group (-0.70% [0.09%]) than in the placebo group (-0.07% [0.11%]) (P < .001), with a treatment difference of -0.63% (95% confidence interval: -0.87%, -0.39%) on the full analysis set. A higher proportion of patients achieved an HbA1c of 6.5% or less (19.7% vs. 8.5%) and an HbA1c of 7.0% or less (50.0% vs. 21.1%) at week 24 in the DBPR108 + metformin group. Furthermore, add-on DBPR108 produced greater reductions from baseline in fasting plasma glucose and 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose without causing weight gain. The overall frequency of adverse events was similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DBPR108 as add-on therapy to metformin offered a significant improvement in glycaemic control, was superior to metformin monotherapy (placebo) and was safe and well-tolerated in patients with T2D that is inadequately controlled with metformin.

Development of Bilayer Tablet Containing Saxagliptin Immediate Release and Metformin Sustained Release Using Quality by Design Approach

Objective:

Adequate glycemic control in diabetes patients requires oral combination therapy. Saxagliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor having fewer adverse effects, and metformin is the first-line medicine for diabetes treatment. The aim of this research work is to develop a bilayer tablet of saxagliptin and metformin in fixed-dose combination (FDC) using quality by design (QbD) to acquire the immediate release of saxagliptin and sustained release of metformin from bilayer tablet to ultimately achieve superior patient compliance.

Methods:

The development of the bilayer tablet was done in four stages using QbD. In the first step, quality target product profile (QTPP) of bilayer tablet was defined, and critical quality attributes (CQAs) were identified by risk estimation matrix and taguchi design; an immediate release saxagliptin layer was optimized in the second step, optimization of sustained-release metformin layer was carried out in the third step, and in the final step, bilayer tablet was prepared and characterized. The effect of independent parameters, i.e., magnesium stearate level (X1), kneading time (X2) and lubrication time (X3) on Carr’s Index (Y1), percentage relative standard deviation of content uniformity (Y2) and drug release at 30 minutes (Y3), were estimated for optimization of immediate release saxagliptin layer using Box-Behnken design (BBD). The effect of independent parameters, i.e., hydroxypropyl methylcellulose level (X4), compritol level (X5) and magnesium stearate level (X6) on Carr’s Index (Y4), drug release at 2 h (Y5), drug release at 5 h (Y6) and drug release at 10 h (Y7) were estimated for optimization of sustained-release metformin layer using BBD.

Results:

The optimized composition of immediate release saxagliptin layer estimated using numerical optimization by Design expert was 0.88% (X1), 15 minutes (X2) and 3.85 minutes (X3) with predicted variables, i.e., 10.59% (Y1), 3.16% (Y2) and 85% (Y3). The optimized composition of sustained- release saxagliptin layer predicted through numerical optimization was 30% (X4), 3.36% (X5) and 0.9% (X6) having 10.89% (Y4), 43.44% (Y5), 60% (Y6) and 85.14% (Y7). In-vitro dissolution study of bilayer tablet showed immediate release of Saxagliptin (approximately 85% in 30 minutes) and sustained release of metformin illustrating 43.21±1.21, 60.86±2.96 and 86.26±1.38% drug release at 2, 5 and 10 h, respectively. The release exponent for the Korsmeyer-Peppas model for Saxagliptin and metformin was 0.237 (<0.45) and 1.536 (n>0.85), indicating Fickian and super case II transport drug release behavior, respectively.

Conclusion:

By QbD approach, bilayer tablet containing saxagliptin and metformin was successfully developed, and influence of various formulation parameters on CQAs of drug products was understood with fewer experiments. This leads to the conclusion that cost can be reduced using QbD in the development of FDC for improving patient compliance.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor treatment and the risk of bullous pemphigoid and skin-related adverse events: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the risk of developing bullous pemphigoid (BP) and other skin-related adverse events (AEs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) undergoing dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) treatment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for RCTs, which involve patients with T2DM reporting skin-related AEs. RCTs that comparatively evaluated the effects of DPP-4i treatment and placebo on patients with T2DM and reported skin-related AEs were included in the analysis. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the Peto's methods. The GRADE approach was used to rate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 46 randomized placebo-controlled trials, including 3 trials with reports of BP (n = 38 011), that reported skin-related AEs were included (n = 59 332). Compared to the placebo group, the risk of developing BP was significantly higher in the DPP-4i treatment group (OR = 7.38, 95% CI 2.00-27.25, I² = 0%, P = .003; quality rating: very low). Additionally, DPP-4i treatment was associated with an increased overall risk of developing skin-related AEs (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.02-1.46, I² = 32%, P = .03; quality rating: moderate).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggested that treatment with DPP-4is, including sitagliptin, saxagliptin, and linagliptin, was associated with an increased risk of developing BP. Additionally, the risk of developing skin-related AEs increased when all DPP-4is were combined. Skin lesion, especially BP, should be monitored in patients with diabetes undergoing DPP-4i treatment. Future studies should evaluate the susceptible population and develop strategies for early detection of skin-related AEs.

Age, sex, disease severity, and disease duration difference in placebo response: implications from a meta-analysis of diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The placebo response in patients with diabetes mellitus is very common. A systematic evaluation needs to be updated with the current evidence about the placebo response in diabetes mellitus and the associated factors in clinical trials of anti-diabetic medicine.

METHODS

Literature research was conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published between the date of inception and June 2019. Randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in type 1and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) were included. Random-effects model and meta-regression analysis were accordingly used. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42014009373.

RESULTS

Significantly weight elevation (effect size (ES) = 0.33 kg, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.61 kg) was observed in patients with placebo treatments in T1DM subgroup while significantly HbA1c reduction (ES = - 0.12%, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.07%) and weight reduction (ES = - 0.40 kg, 95% CI, - 0.50 to - 0.29 kg) were observed in patients with placebo treatments in T2DM subgroup. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in patients with injectable placebo treatments (ES = - 0.22%, 95% CI, - 0.32 to - 0.11%) versus oral types (ES = - 0.09%, 95% CI, - 0.14 to - 0.04%) in T2DM (P = 0.03). Older age (β = - 0.01, 95% CI, - 0.02 to - 0.01, P < 0.01) and longer diabetes duration (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.03 to - 0.21 × 10^-2, P = 0.03) was significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T1DM. However, younger age (β = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.01), lower male percentage (β = 0.01, 95% CI, 0.22 × 10^-2, 0.01, P < 0.01), higher baseline BMI (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.04 to - 0.26 × 10^-2, P = 0.02), and higher baseline HbA1c (β = - 0.09, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.01, P = 0.02) were significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T2DM. Shorter diabetes duration (β = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.10, P < 0.01) was significantly associated with more weight reduction by placebo in T2DM. However, the associations between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response were insignificant after the adjusted analyses.

CONCLUSION

The placebo response in diabetes mellitus was systematically outlined. Age, sex, disease severity (indirectly reflected by baseline BMI and baseline HbA1c), and disease duration were associated with placebo response in diabetes mellitus. The association between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response may be the result of regression to the mean.

Efficacy and safety of DBPR108 monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial

Objective: DBPR108, a novel dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor, has shown great antihyperglycemic effect in animal models. This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DBPR108 monotherapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Methods: This was a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II clinical trial. The newly diagnosed or inadequately controlled untreated T2DM patients were randomized to receive 50, 100, 200 mg DBPR108 or placebo in a ratio of 1:1:1:1. The primary efficacy outcome was HbA1c change from baseline to week 12. Relevant secondary efficacy parameters and safety were assessed. The clinical trial registration is NCT04124484.Results: Overall, 271 of the 276 randomized patients, who received 50 mg (n = 68), 100 mg (n = 67), 200 mg (n = 69) DBPR108 or placebo (n = 67), were included in full analysis set. At week 12, HbA1c change from baseline was -0.04 ± 0.77 in placebo group, -0.51 ± 0.71, -0.75 ± 0.73, and -0.57 ± 0.78 (%, p < .001 vs. placebo) in 50, 100, and 200 mg DBPR108 groups, respectively. Since week 4, DBPR108 monotherapy resulted in significant improvements in secondary efficacy parameters. At end of 12-week treatment, the goal of HbA1c ≤7% was achieved in 29.85, 58.82, 55.22, and 47.83% of the patients in placebo, 50, 100, and 200 mg DBPR108 groups, respectively. The incidence of adverse events did not show significant difference between DBPR108 and placebo except mild hypoglycemia in DBPR108 200 mg group.Conclusions: The study results support DBPR108 100 mg once daily as the primary dosing regimen for T2DM patients in phase III development program.

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.

Comparing treatment intensification and clinical outcomes of metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes in Japan

Japan's guidelines emphasize tailored therapy, but do not guide physicians on the use of a specific regimen in drug-naive patients. The role of long-term initial therapy could be important in key elements of diabetes treatment, such as continuation of the initially prescribed drug. We investigated the frequency of occurrence to treatment intensification after the initiation of metformin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor treatment. In multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, initiation of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor was associated with a low hazard of intensification. The findings of this survey showed that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were the preferred first-line treatment in Japan because of the high continuation rate of the treatment and hemoglobin A1c-lowering effect. This information would provide guidance in selecting initial hypoglycemic drugs to optimize the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in Japan and Asia.

Cardiovascular risk of sitagliptin in treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a very high risk of cardiovascular related events, and reducing complications is an important evaluation criterion of efficacy and safety of hypoglycemic drugs. Previous studies have shown that the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (DPP4i), such as sitagliptin, might reduce the incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACEs). However, the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin remains controversial, especially the safety for cardiovascular related events. Here, a systematic review was conducted to assess the cardiovascular safety of sitagliptin in T2DM patients. The literature research dating up to October 2018 was performed in the electronic database. The clinical trials about sitagliptin for T2DM patients were included. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was the MACE, and the secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Finally, 32 clinical trials composed of 16082 T2DM patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that: there was no significant difference between sitagliptin group and the control group on MACE (odds ratio (OR) = 0.85, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) = 0.63–1.15), myocardial infarction (MI) (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.38–1.16), stroke (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.44–1.54) and mortality (OR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.26–1.07). These results demonstrated that sitagliptin did not increase the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with T2DM.

Medications that cause weight gain and alternatives in Canada: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

The cause of the obesity epidemic is multifactorial, but may, in part, be related to medication-induced weight gain. While clinicians may strive to do their best to select pharmacotherapy(ies) that has the least negative impact on weight, the literature regarding the weight effects of medication is often limited and devoid of alternative therapies.

RESULTS

Antipsychotics, antidepressants, antihyperglycemics, antihypertensives and corticosteroids all contain medications that were associated with significant weight gain. However, there are several medication alternatives within the majority of these classes associated with weight neutral or even weight loss effects. Further, while not all of the classes of medication examined in this review have weight-favorable alternatives, there exist many other tools to mitigate weight gain associated with medication use, such as changes in dosing, medication delivery or the use of adjunctive therapies.

CONCLUSION

Medication-induced weight gain can be frustrating for both the patient and the clinician. As the use of pharmaceuticals continues to increase, it is pertinent for clinicians to consider the weight effects of medications prior to prescribing or in the course of treatment. In the case where it is not feasible to make changes to medication, adjunctive therapies should be considered.

Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of saxagliptin for type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and two Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing saxagliptin with placebo or active comparators was performed up to July 2017. A complementary search was done to cover literature until March 2018. For continuous data, estimates were pooled using inverse variance methodology to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs). Dichotomous data were presented as Mantel-Haenzel risk ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine references of 30 RCTs involving 29,938 patients were analyzed. Compared with placebo, saxagliptin significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, WMD -0.52%, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.44) and fasting plasma glucose (WMD -13.78 mg/dL, 95% CI -15.31 to -12.25), and increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.75). When combined with submaximal-dose metformin, saxagliptin significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% compared with acarbose (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.83) and uptitrated metformin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.63). Saxagliptin was similar to other DPP-4 inhibitors but inferior to liraglutide and dapagliflozin on glycemic control. Saxagliptin significantly decreased the incidences of overall adverse events compared with acarbose (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89) and liraglutide (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) when added to metformin. Weight gain and hypoglycemia with saxagliptin was slightly but significantly higher than placebo and lower than sulfonylureas. Saxagliptin did not increase the risk of arthralgia, heart failure, pancreatitis and other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Generally, saxagliptin has similar efficacy compared with most oral antidiabetic drugs and may be more effective than acarbose, while having a better safety profile than both acarbose and sulfonylureas.

Self-knowledge of HbA1c in people with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and its association with glycaemic control

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of accurate self-knowledge of a patient's own HbA1c level (HbA1c_SK), as a component of structural education (University Hospital's of Leicester (UHL), 2013) and its association with glycaemic control.

METHODS

Data from the GUIDANCE study, a cross-sectional study involving 7597 participants from eight European countries was used. HbA1c_SK was evaluated and compared with laboratory measured HbA1c levels (HbA1c_LAB), which represented the measure of glycaemic control. Accuracy of the self-reported HbA1c was evaluated by using agreement statistical methods.

RESULTS

The prevalence of HbA1c_SK was 49.4%. Within this group, 78.3% of the participants had accurately reported HbA1c_SK. There was good level of agreement between HbA1c_SK and HbA1c_LAB (intra-class correlation statistic=0.84, p<0.0001). Participants with accurately reported HbA1c_SK were found to have a statistically significantly lower HbA1c_LAB compared to participants with inaccurately reported HbA1c_SK (7.0% versus 7.3%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Nearly half of the patients had self-knowledge of their own HbA1c level. Moreover, the participants with accurately reported HbA1c_SK were found to have associated better glycaemic control.

Assessment of Saxagliptin Efficacy: Meta-Analysis of 14 Phase 2 and 3 Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis of data from 14 phase 2 and 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled 12- and 24-week studies (N = 4632) summarizes saxagliptin efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across treatment regimens.

METHODS

Patients received saxagliptin 5 mg/d or control as either monotherapy (n = 1196 vs placebo), add-on therapy (n = 2139 vs placebo and n = 514 vs uptitrated sulfonylurea), or initial combination therapy (n = 619 vs control monotherapy). Patients with renal impairment received saxagliptin 2.5 mg/d or placebo (n = 164).

RESULTS

Mean baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1C) ranged from 8.07% to 9.43% for the saxagliptin and control groups across treatment regimens. A1C reduction from baseline was greater with saxagliptin versus control for all studies combined (mean treatment difference [95% CI]: -0.55% [-0.63%, -0.47%]) and when used as monotherapy (-0.52% [-0.63, -0.40%]), add-on (-0.55% [-0.69%, -0.40%] vs placebo; -0.72% [-0.88%, -0.56%] vs uptitrated sulfonylurea), initial combination therapy (-0.54% [-0.73%, -0.35%] vs control monotherapy), and in patients with renal impairment (-0.42% [-0.75%, -0.09%]). Similar reductions in A1C versus control were noted for patients <65 years (-0.55% [-0.67%, -0.43%]) and ≥65 years (-0.54% [-0.69%, -0.38%]) and for men (-0.54% [-0.69%, -0.40%]) and women (-0.55% [-0.64%, -0.47%]) across treatment regimens. More patients achieved A1C <7% (39% vs 23%) and A1C ≤6.5% (24% vs 14%) with saxagliptin than with placebo or active-control treatment. Saxagliptin versus control was associated with a reduction in glucagon area under the curve (AUC) from baseline and increases in insulin AUC, C-peptide AUC, and the homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function.

CONCLUSION

Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate the consistency of saxagliptin efficacy in different subgroups of patients with T2D across treatment regimens.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

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.

Effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on beta-cell function and insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a novel family of glucose-lowering agents. Accumulating evidence suggests that DPP-4 inhibitors preserve pancreatic beta-cell function, but results in previous studies have been inconsistent. We assessed the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on the homoeostasis model assessment beta-cell function (HOMA-B) or insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index in patients with type 2 diabetes through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Relevant articles were identified from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to December 27, 2016. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in each included trial and pooled the data using a random-effects model. Fifty-two trials were included in the present analysis. Compared with placebo control, DPP-4 inhibitors as monotherapy significantly improved HOMA-B (WMD 9.15; 95% CI 7.48, 10.81). Similarly, DPP-4 inhibitors as add-on therapy in combination with other drugs showed significant improvement in HOMA-B (WMD 9.04; 95% CI 5.72, 12.37). However, we found no significant improvement in HOMA-IR following treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors as mono-therapy or as add-on therapy. In conclusion, DPP-4 inhibitors as monotherapy or as add-on therapy significantly improved beta-cell function but had no significant effect on insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes.

Targeting orphan G protein-coupled receptors for the treatment of diabetes and its complications: C-peptide and GPR146

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are the most abundant receptor family encoded by the human genome and are the targets of a high percentage of drugs currently in use or in clinical trials for the treatment of diseases such as diabetes and its associated complications. Thus, orphan GPCRs, for which the ligand is unknown, represent an important untapped source of therapeutic potential for the treatment of many diseases. We have identified the previously orphan GPCR, GPR146, as the putative receptor of proinsulin C-peptide, which may prove to be an effective treatment for diabetes-associated complications. For example, we have found a potential role of C-peptide and GPR146 in regulating the function of the retinal pigment epithelium, a monolayer of cells in the retina that serves as part of the blood-retinal barrier and is disrupted in diabetic macular oedema. However, C-peptide signalling in this cell type appears to depend at least in part on extracellular glucose concentration and its interaction with insulin. In this review, we discuss the therapeutic potential of orphan GPCRs with a special focus on C-peptide and GPR146, including past and current strategies used to 'deorphanize' this diverse family of receptors, past successes and the inherent difficulties of this process.

Emerging use of combination therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes - focus on saxagliptin and dapagliflozin

AIMS

The aim of this article is to review the safety and efficacy data of dapagliflozin, saxagliptin, and their combination in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes. Evidence for the use of the single-tablet combination formulation is also presented.

METHODS

A nonsystematic literature review was performed using the Ovid, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases.

RESULTS

The addition of dapagliflozin/saxagliptin to metformin can lower mean hemoglobin A1c by as much as 1.47% and lead to weight loss of 0.5-2.0 kg. The risk of genital infections with combination therapy is lower than observed with dapagliflozin alone, suggestive of a protective effect. Adverse event risk at 52-week follow-up was not increased beyond that seen with either monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Dapagliflozin/saxagliptin combination is generally well tolerated and is an effective tool in helping patients with diabetes improve glycemic control.

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.

Update on the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

To achieve good metabolic control in diabetes and keep long term, a combination of changes in lifestyle and pharmacological treatment is necessary. Achieving near-normal glycated hemoglobin significantly, decreases risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications. At present there are different treatments, both oral and injectable, available for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Treatment algorithms designed to reduce the development or progression of the complications of diabetes emphasizes the need for good glycaemic control. The aim of this review is to perform an update on the benefits and limitations of different drugs, both current and future, for the treatment of T2DM. Initial intervention should focus on lifestyle changes. Moreover, changes in lifestyle have proven to be beneficial, but for many patients is a complication keep long term. Physicians should be familiar with the different types of existing drugs for the treatment of diabetes and select the most effective, safe and better tolerated by patients. Metformin remains the first choice of treatment for most patients. Other alternative or second-line treatment options should be individualized depending on the characteristics of each patient. This article reviews the treatments available for patients with T2DM, with an emphasis on agents introduced within the last decade.

Cut to the chase: a review of CD26/dipeptidyl peptidase-4's (DPP4) entanglement in the immune system

CD26/DPP4 (dipeptidyl peptidase 4/DP4/DPPIV) is a surface T cell activation antigen and has been shown to have DPP4 enzymatic activity, cleaving-off amino-terminal dipeptides with either L-proline or L-alanine at the penultimate position. It plays a major role in glucose metabolism by N-terminal truncation and inactivation of the incretins glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP) and gastric inhibitory protein (GIP). In 2006, DPP4 inhibitors have been introduced to clinics and have been demonstrated to efficiently enhance the endogenous insulin secretion via prolongation of the half-life of GLP-1 and GIP in patients. However, a large number of studies demonstrate clearly that CD26/DPP4 also plays an integral role in the immune system, particularly in T cell activation. Therefore, inhibition of DPP4 might represent a double-edged sword. Apart from the metabolic benefit, the associated immunological effects of long term DPP4 inhibition on regulatory processes such as T cell homeostasis, maturation and activation are not understood fully at this stage. The current data point to an important role for CD26/DPP4 in maintaining lymphocyte composition and function, T cell activation and co-stimulation, memory T cell generation and thymic emigration patterns during immune-senescence. In rodents, critical immune changes occur at baseline levels as well as after in-vitro and in-vivo challenge. In patients receiving DPP4 inhibitors, evidence of immunological side effects also became apparent. The scope of this review is to recapitulate the role of CD26/DPP4 in the immune system regarding its pharmacological inhibition and T cell-dependent immune regulation.

Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin, a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 24-week multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial

We assessed the 24-week efficacy and safety of teneligliptin, a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) that was inadequately controlled with diet and exercise. The present study was designed as a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase III study. Patients (n = 142) were randomized 2 : 1 into two different treatment groups as follows: 99 received teneligliptin (20 mg) and 43 received placebo. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level from baseline to week 24. Teneligliptin significantly reduced the HbA1c level from baseline compared with placebo after 24 weeks. At week 24, the differences between changes in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FBG) in the teneligliptin and placebo groups were -0.94% [least-squares (LS) mean -1.22, -0.65] and -1.21 mmol/l (-1.72, -0.70), respectively (all p < 0.001). The incidence of hypoglycaemia and adverse events were not significantly different between the two groups. This phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled study provides evidence of the safety and efficacy of 24 weeks of treatment with teneligliptin as a monotherapy in Korean patients with T2DM.

DPP-4 inhibitors and risk of infections: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the risk of infections in the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients with dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through electronic databases. The inclusion criteria included study duration of no less than 12 weeks developed in type 2 diabetes patients, the use of a randomized control group receiving a DPP-4 inhibitor and the availability of outcome data for infections. Out of 2181 studies, 74 studies were finally included.

RESULTS

The risk of overall infection for DPP-4 inhibitors treatment was comparable to placebo (odds ratio (OR) = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.91 to 1.04, p = 0.40), metformin treatment (OR = 1.22, 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.56, p = 0.12), sulphonylurea treatment (OR = 1.09, 0.93 to 1.29, p = 0.29), thiazolidinedione treatment (OR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.14, p = 0.29) and alpha glucosidase inhibitor treatment (OR = 1.03, 95% CI, 0.33 to 3.22, p = 0.96). When compared different DPP-4 inhibitors with placebo treatment, risks of infections were comparable for alogliptin, linagliptin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin and vildagliptin. Compared with placebo or active comparator treatment, risks of infection in different systems for DPP-4 inhibitors were all comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall risk of infections of DPP-4 inhibitor was not increased compared with control groups.

The Time Is Right for a New Classification System for Diabetes: Rationale and Implications of the β-Cell-Centric Classification Schema

The current classification system presents challenges to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), in part due to its conflicting and confounding definitions of type 1 DM, type 2 DM, and latent autoimmune diabetes of adults (LADA). The current schema also lacks a foundation that readily incorporates advances in our understanding of the disease and its treatment. For appropriate and coherent therapy, we propose an alternate classification system. The β-cell-centric classification of DM is a new approach that obviates the inherent and unintended confusions of the current system. The β-cell-centric model presupposes that all DM originates from a final common denominator-the abnormal pancreatic β-cell. It recognizes that interactions between genetically predisposed β-cells with a number of factors, including insulin resistance (IR), susceptibility to environmental influences, and immune dysregulation/inflammation, lead to the range of hyperglycemic phenotypes within the spectrum of DM. Individually or in concert, and often self-perpetuating, these factors contribute to β-cell stress, dysfunction, or loss through at least 11 distinct pathways. Available, yet underutilized, treatments provide rational choices for personalized therapies that target the individual mediating pathways of hyperglycemia at work in any given patient, without the risk of drug-related hypoglycemia or weight gain or imposing further burden on the β-cells. This article issues an urgent call for the review of the current DM classification system toward the consensus on a new, more useful system.

Managing recent-onset diabetes: choosing durable, well-tolerated therapies and understanding the role of incretin-based therapies

Management of recent-onset diabetes offers osteopathic physicians the opportunity to work with patients to set treatment goals and expectations for this progressive yet manageable disease, as well as intervene early to reduce the risk of diabetes-related complications. Starting effective therapy early--and intensifying therapy appropriately--to achieve and maintain glycemic goals has been shown to reduce microvascular risks and produce legacy effects that may have macrovascular benefits. Metformin remains a cornerstone of therapy for those patients who can tolerate it. Early combination therapy that is well tolerated reduces risks of hypoglycemia or unwanted weight gain, improves patient adherence, and addresses the multifactoral pathophysiology of even recent-onset diabetes. Incretin-based therapies have been shown to be effective across the spectrum of type 2 diabetes mellitus, including recent-onset diabetes. The present article reviews the use of incretin-based therapies early in the disease process of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Adenylyl Cyclase Type 5 Deficiency Protects Against Diet-Induced Obesity and Insulin Resistance

Adenylyl cyclase type 5 knockout (AC5KO) mice have increased longevity and share a similar phenotype with calorie-restricted wild-type (WT) mice. To determine the in vivo metabolic properties of AC5 deficiency, we compared the effects of standard diet (SD) and high-fat diet (HFD) on obesity, energy balance, glucose regulation, and insulin sensitivity. AC5KO mice on SD had reduced body weight and adiposity compared with WT mice. Blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels were also significantly reduced in AC5KO mice. Indirect calorimetry demonstrated increased oxygen consumption, respiratory exchange ratio, and energy expenditure in AC5KO compared with WT mice on both SD and HFD. AC5KO mice also displayed improved glucose tolerance and increased whole-body insulin sensitivity, accompanied by decreased liver glycogen stores. Euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp studies confirmed the marked improvement of glucose homeostasis and insulin sensitivity in AC5KO mice primarily through increased insulin sensitivity in skeletal muscle. Moreover, the genes involved in mitochondrial biogenesis and function were significantly increased in AC5KO skeletal muscle. These data demonstrate that deficiency of AC5 protects against obesity, glucose intolerance, and insulin resistance, supporting AC5 as a potential novel therapeutic target for treatment of obesity and diabetes.

Clinical trial simulation methods for estimating the impact of DPP-4 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease

Introduction

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of oral antidiabetic agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, which lower blood glucose without causing severe hypoglycemia. However, the first cardiovascular (CV) safety trials have only recently reported their results, and our understanding of these therapies remains incomplete. Using clinical trial simulations, we estimated the effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in a population like that enrolled in the SAVOR-TIMI (the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus – Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) 53 trial.

Methods

We used the Archimedes Model to simulate a clinical trial of individuals (N=11,000) with diagnosed type 2 diabetes and elevated CV risk, based on established disease or multiple risk factors. The DPP-4 class was modeled with a meta-analysis of HbA_1c and weight change, pooling results from published trials of alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin. The study treatments were added-on to standard care, and outcomes were tracked for 20 years.

Results

The DPP-4 class was associated with an HbA_1c drop of 0.66% (0.71%, 0.62%) and a weight drop of 0.14 (−0.07, 0.36) kg. These biomarker improvements produced a relative risk (RR) for MACE at 5 years of 0.977 (0.968, 0.986). The number needed to treat to prevent one occurrence of MACE at 5 years was 327 (233, 550) in the elevated CV risk population.

Conclusion

Consistent with recent trial publications, our analysis indicates that DPP-4 inhibitors do not increase the risk of MACE relative to the standard of care. This study provides insights about the long-term benefits of DPP-4 inhibitors and supports the interpretation of the published CV safety trial results.

The Anthocyanin Delphinidin 3-Rutinoside Stimulates Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Secretion in Murine GLUTag Cell Line via the Ca2+/Calmodulin-Dependent Kinase II Pathway

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) is an incretin hormone secreted from enteroendocrine L-cells. Although several nutrients induce GLP-1 secretion, there is little evidence to suggest that non-nutritive compounds directly increase GLP-1 secretion. Here, we hypothesized that anthocyanins induce GLP-1 secretion and thereby significantly contribute to the prevention and treatment of diabetes. Delphinidin 3-rutinoside (D3R) was shown to increase GLP-1 secretion in GLUTag L cells. The results suggested that three hydroxyl or two methoxyl moieties on the aromatic ring are essential for the stimulation of GLP-1 secretion. Notably, the rutinose moiety was shown to be a potent enhancer of GLP-1 secretion, but only in conjunction with three hydroxyl moieties on the aromatic ring (D3R). Receptor antagonist studies revealed that D3R-stimulates GLP-1 secretion involving inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate receptor-mediated intracellular Ca²⁺ mobilization. Treatment of GLUTag cells with a Ca²⁺/calmodulin-dependent kinaseII (CaMKII) inhibitor (KN-93) abolished D3R-stimulated GLP-1 secretion. In addition, treatment of GLUTag cells with D3R resulted in activation of CaMKII. Pre-treatment of cells with a G protein-coupled receptor (GPR) 40/120 antagonist (GW1100) also significantly decreased D3R-stimulated GLP-1 secretion. These observations suggest that D3R stimulates GLP-1 secretion in GLUTag cells, and that stimulation of GLP-1 secretion by D3R is mediated via Ca²⁺-CaMKII pathway, which may possibly be mediated by GPR40/120. These findings provide a possible molecular mechanism of GLP-1 secretion in intestinal L-cells mediated by foods or drugs and demonstrate a novel biological function of anthocyanins in regards to GLP-1 secretion.

Efficacy of dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors and impact on β-cell function in Asian and Caucasian type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This work aimed to compare the efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitors and their impact on β-cell function in Asian and Caucasian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

Databases were systematically searched and qualifying studies that compared DPP-4 inhibitors with other antidiabetic medications in type 2 diabetes were included.

RESULTS

A total of 68 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison of DPP-4 inhibitors with placebo in Asian patients showed a decrease in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c ) favoring DPP-4 inhibitors (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.81%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.95% to -0.68%; P < 0.001). Comparison of HbA1c changes between Asian and Caucasian patients showed a significant between-group difference of -0.18% (95% CI, -0.32% to -0.04%; P = 0.011) when compared with placebo. In Asian patients, the homeostatic model assessment for β-cell function (HOMA-β) was increased with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with placebo (WMD, 7.90; 95% CI, 4.29 to 11.51; P < 0.001), although to a lesser extent in Caucasian patients. Comparisons between Asian and Caucasian patients showed a significant between-group difference of -4.97 (95% CI, -9.86 to -0.09; P = 0.046) compared with placebo. Body weight increase with DPP-4 inhibitors compared with placebo was comparable in Asian and Caucasian studies (WMD, 0.37 kg and 0.45 kg and 95% CI, 0.04-0.69 and 0.27-0.62, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The glucose-lowering efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors was greater in Asian patients than in Caucasian patients, although the effect on β-cell function was inferior in Asian patients. The effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on insulin resistance and body weight in Asian patients was comparable with that observed in Caucasian patients.

Determinants of saxagliptin use among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with oral anti-diabetic drugs

BACKGROUND

The patterns and determinants of saxagliptin use among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are unknown in real-world settings. We compared the characteristics of T2DM patients who were new initiators of saxagliptin to those who were new initiators of non-dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) and identified factors associated with saxagliptin use.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), The Health Improvement Network (THIN), US Medicare, and the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD(SM)) across the first 36 months of saxagliptin availability (29 months for US Medicare). Patients were included if they were: 1) ≥18 years old, 2) newly prescribed saxagliptin or a non-DPP-4 inhibitor OAD, and 3) enrolled in their respective database for 180 days. For each saxagliptin initiator, we randomly selected up to ten non-DPP-4 inhibitor OAD initiators matched on age, sex, and geographic region. Conditional logistic regression was used to identify determinants of saxagliptin use.

RESULTS

We identified 64,079 saxagliptin initiators (CPRD: 1,962; THIN: 2,084; US Medicare: 51,976; HIRD(SM): 8,057) and 610,660 non-DPP-4 inhibitor OAD initiators (CPRD: 19,484; THIN: 19,936; US Medicare: 493,432; HIRD(SM): 77,808). Across all four data sources, prior OAD use, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were associated with saxagliptin use. Saxagliptin initiation was also associated with hemoglobin A1c results >8% within the UK data sources, and a greater number of hemoglobin A1c measurements in the US data sources.

CONCLUSIONS

In these UK and US data sources, initiation of saxagliptin was associated with prior poor glycemic control, prior OAD use, and diagnoses of hypertension and hyperlipidemia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT01086280 , NCT01086293 , NCT01086319 , NCT01086306 , and NCT01377935.

Pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetes: oral medications

OBJECTIVE

To review the oral and injectable pharmacologic treatment options for type 2 diabetes.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted using PubMed electronic database for studies published in English between 1993 and September 2014. Search terms included diabetes mellitus, type 2 diabetes, and the individual name for each antidiabetic medication reviewed. In addition, manual searches were performed for cross-references from publications. Package inserts, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Web site, Institute for Safe Medication Practices Web site, American Diabetes Association Web site and scientific session poster presentations, and individual drug company Web pages were also reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

This review focused on information elucidated over the past 10 years to assist prescribers in choosing optimal therapy based on individual patient characteristics. Studies leading to the approval of or raising safety concerns for the antidiabetic medications reviewed in this article were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In the past 10 years, there have been 4 novel oral antidiabetic medication classes and 9 new injectable agents and insulin products approved by the FDA for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as well as new information regarding the safety and use of several older antidiabetic medication classes. The distinctions were reviewed for each individual agent, and a comparison was completed if there was more than one agent in a particular therapeutic class. Using current information available, select investigational agents in phase III trials or those with a pending new drug application were highlighted.

CONCLUSION

There are now 9 distinct oral pharmacologic classes and a variety of insulin and noninsulin injectable medications available for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Metformin remains the first-line treatment option for most patients. When considering options for alternative or additional treatment, prescribers must weigh the benefits and risks using individual patient characteristics.

Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin vs glimepiride as a second-line therapy added to metformin in Type 2 diabetes in China

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin + metformin (SAXA + MET) vs glimepiride + metformin (GLI + MET) in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with MET in China.

METHODS

The Cardiff Model was used to simulate disease progression and estimate the long-term effect of treatments on patients. Systematic literature reviews and hospital surveys were conducted to obtain patients profiles, clinical data, and costs. Health insurance costs (2014¥) were estimated over a 40-year period. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

SAXA + MET had lower predicted incidences of cardiovascular and hypoglycemia events and a decreased total cost compared with GLI + MET (¥241,072,807 vs ¥285,455,177). There were increased numbers of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs; 1.01/patient) and life-years (Lys; 0.03/patient) gained with SAXA + MET compared with GLI + MET, and the incremental cost of SAXA + MET vs GLI + MET (-¥44,382) resulted in -¥43,883/QALY and -¥1,710,926/LY gained with SAXA + MET. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM in China, SAXA + MET was more cost-effective and was well tolerated with fewer adverse effects (AEs) compared with GLI + MET. As a second-line therapy for T2DM, SAXA may address some of the unmet medical needs attributable to AEs in the treatment of T2DM.

Overview of saxagliptin efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease or risk factors for cardiovascular disease

Most individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus have or will develop multiple independent risk factors for cardiovascular disease, particularly coronary artery disease (CAD). CAD is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and treating these patients is challenging. The risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, or fluid retention with some diabetes medications should be considered when developing a treatment plan for individuals with a history of CAD or at risk for CAD. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are oral antihyperglycemic agents that inhibit the breakdown of the incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, resulting in increased glucose-dependent insulin secretion and suppression of glucagon secretion. Saxagliptin is a potent and selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor that improves glycemic control and is generally well tolerated when used as monotherapy and as add-on therapy to other antihyperglycemic medications. This review summarizes findings from recently published post hoc analyses of saxagliptin clinical trials that have been conducted in patients with and without a history of cardiovascular disease and in patients with and without various risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The results show that saxagliptin was generally well tolerated and consistently improved glycemic control, as assessed by reductions from baseline in glycated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose concentration, and postprandial glucose concentration, regardless of the presence or absence of baseline cardiovascular disease, hypertension, statin use, number of cardiovascular risk factors, or high Framingham 10-year cardiovascular risk score.

Saxagliptin efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving concomitant statin therapy

AIMS

To examine whether concomitant statin therapy affects glycemic control with saxagliptin 2.5 and 5mg/d in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Efficacy and safety were analyzed post hoc for pooled data from 9 saxagliptin randomized, placebo-controlled trials with a primary 24-week treatment period (4 monotherapy, 2 add-on to metformin, 1 each add-on to a sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, or insulin±metformin). Safety was also assessed in an 11-study, 24-week pool and an extended 20-study pool, which included 9 additional 4- to 52-week randomized studies. Comparisons were performed for patient groups defined by baseline statin use.

RESULTS

Saxagliptin produced greater mean reductions in glycated hemoglobin than placebo, with no interaction between treatment and baseline statin use (P=0.47). In patients receiving saxagliptin 2.5 and 5mg and placebo, the proportion of patients with ≥1 adverse event (AE) was 78.1%, 64.0%, and 63.2%, respectively, in patients with any statin use and 70.6%, 57.9%, and 55.0% in patients with no statin use. Serious AEs, deaths, and symptomatic confirmed hypoglycemia (fingerstick glucose ≤50mg/dL) were few and similar, irrespective of baseline statin use.

CONCLUSIONS

Saxagliptin improves glycemic control and is generally well tolerated in patients with T2DM, irrespective of concomitant statin therapy.

Safety of saxagliptin: events of special interest in 9156 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

A post hoc pooled analysis was undertaken to evaluate the safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, with attention to events of special interest for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.

METHODS

Pooled analyses were performed for 20 randomized controlled studies (N = 9156) of saxagliptin as monotherapy or add-on therapy, and a subset of 11 saxagliptin + metformin studies. Adverse events and events of special interest (gastrointestinal adverse events, infections, hypersensitivity, pancreatitis, skin lesions, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, hypoglycaemia, bone fracture, severe cutaneous adverse reactions, opportunistic infection, angioedema, malignancy, worsening renal function, and specific laboratory events) were assessed; incidence rates (events/100 person-years) and incidence rates ratios (saxagliptin/control) were calculated (Mantel-Haenszel method).

RESULTS

In both pooled datasets, the incidence rates for deaths, serious adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, pancreatitis, malignancy, and most other events of special interest, excepting bone fractures and hypersensitivity, were similar between treatments, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incidence rates ratios including 1. In the 20-study pool, the incidence rates per 100 person-years was higher with saxagliptin versus control for bone fractures [1.1 vs 0.6; incidence rates ratio (95% CI), 1.81 (1.04-3.28)] and hypersensitivity adverse events [1.3 vs 0.8; 1.67 (1.01-2.87)].

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled data from 20 studies confirm that saxagliptin has a favourable safety and benefit-risk profile.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: pharmacokinetics, efficacy, tolerability and safety in renal impairment

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a new class of blood glucose-lowering therapy with proven efficacy, tolerability and safety. Four of the five commercially available DPP-4 inhibitors are subject to significant renal clearance, and pharmacokinetic studies in people with renal impairment have led to lower recommended doses based on creatinine clearance in order to prevent drug accumulation. Data from these pharmacokinetic studies and from supratherapeutic doses in healthy individuals and people with uncomplicated diabetes during development suggest, however, that there is a wide therapeutic margin. This should protect against toxicity if people with renal impairment are inadvertently prescribed higher doses than recommended. Doses appropriate to renal function are associated with reductions in HbA1c that are equivalent to those observed in people with type 2 diabetes who do not have renal impairment. Recent large-scale cardiovascular safety trials of saxagliptin and alogliptin have identified heart failure as a potential concern and renal impairment may increase the risk of this complication. Although the incidence of pancreatitis does not appear to be significantly increased by DPP-4 inhibitor therapy, renal impairment is also an independent risk factor. Additional data from other ongoing DPP-4 inhibitor cardiovascular safety trials should provide a more precise assessment of the risks of these uncommon complications, including in people with renal impairment.

Beyond metformin: safety considerations in the decision-making process for selecting a second medication for type 2 diabetes management: reflections from a diabetes care editors' expert forum

The trend toward personalized management of diabetes has focused attention on the differences among available pharmacological agents in terms of mechanisms of action, efficacy, and, most important, safety. Clinicians must select from these features to develop individualized therapy regimens. In June 2013, a nine-member Diabetes Care Editors' Expert Forum convened to review safety evidence for six major diabetes drug classes: insulin, sulfonylureas (SUs), thiazolidinediones (TZDs), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. This article, an outgrowth of the forum, summarizes well-delineated and theoretical safety concerns related to these drug classes, as well as the panelists' opinions regarding their best use in patients with type 2 diabetes. All of the options appear to have reasonably wide safety margins when used appropriately. Those about which we know the most-metformin, SUs, insulin, and perhaps now also TZDs-are efficacious in most patients and can be placed into a basic initial algorithm. However, these agents leave some clinical needs unmet. Selecting next steps is a more formidable process involving newer agents that are understood less well and for which there are unresolved questions regarding risk versus benefit in certain populations. Choosing a specific agent is not as important as implementing some form of early intervention and advancing rapidly to some form of combination therapy as needed. When all options are relatively safe given the benefits they confer, therapeutic decision making must rely on a personalized approach, taking into account patients' clinical circumstances, phenotype, pathophysiological defects, preferences, abilities, and costs.

Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with dual combination of metformin and sulphonylurea

AIM

The broadly used combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (SU) often fails to bring patients to glycaemic goal. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin plus glimepiride combination in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycaemic control.

METHODS

A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized patients to receive treatment with vildagliptin 50 mg bid (n = 158) or placebo (n = 160) for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

After 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -1.01% with vildagliptin (baseline 8.75%) and -0.25% with placebo (baseline 8.80%), with a between-treatment difference of -0.76% (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients on vildagliptin achieved the HbA1c target <7% (28.3% vs. 5.6%; p < 0.001). The difference in fasting plasma glucose reduction between vildagliptin and placebo was -1.13 mmol/l (p < 0.001). In subgroup of patients with baseline HbA1c ≤8%, vildagliptin reduced HbA1c by 0.74% from baseline 7.82% (between-treatment difference: -0.97%; p < 0.001) with significantly more patients achieving the HbA1c target <7% (38.6% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.014). Vildagliptin was well tolerated with low incidence of hypoglycaemia, slightly higher than with placebo (5.1% vs. 1.9%) and no clinically relevant weight gain.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin significantly improved glycaemic control in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin plus glimepiride combination. The addition of vildagliptin was well tolerated with low risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain. This makes vildagliptin an attractive treatment option for patients failing on metformin plus SU particularly in patients with baseline HbA1c ≤8%.

The pharmacokinetic considerations and adverse effects of DPP-4 inhibitors [corrected]

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of anti-hyperglycemic agents with proven efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

AREAS COVERED

This review considers the pharmacokinetic profile, adverse effects and drug interactions of DPP-4 inhibitors. DPP-4 inhibitors have certain differences in their structure, metabolism, route of elimination and selectivity for DPP-4 over structurally related enzymes, such as DPP-8/DPP-9. They have a low potential for drug interactions, with the exception of saxagliptin that is largely metabolized by cytochrome CYP3A4/A5. Reports of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer have raised concerns regarding the safety of DPP-4 inhibitors and are under investigation. Post-marketing surveillance has revealed less common adverse effects, especially a number of skin- and immune-related adverse effects. These issues are covered in the present review.

EXPERT OPINION

DPP-4 inhibitors are useful and efficient drugs. DPP-4 inhibitors have similar mechanism of action and similar efficacy. However, DPP-4 inhibitors have certain differences in their pharmacokinetic properties that may be associated with different clinical effects and adverse event profiles. Although clinical trials indicated a favorable safety profile, post-marketing reports revealed certain safety aspects that need further investigation. Certainly, more research is needed to clarify if the differences among DPP-4 inhibitors could lead to a different clinical and safety profile.