Efficacy and safety of adding the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin to metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Retagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of retagliptin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled with metformin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multicentre, phase 3 trial consisted of a 16-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled period, where patients with HbA1c levels between 7.5% and 11.0% were randomized to receive either once-daily (QD) retagliptin 100 mg (n = 87) or placebo (n = 87), both as an add-on to metformin. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 16.

RESULTS

At week 16, the least squares mean change in HbA1c from baseline, compared with placebo, was -0.82% (95% CI, -1.05% to -0.58%) for the retagliptin 100 mg QD group (P < .0001) per treatment policy estimand. Significantly higher proportions of patients in the retagliptin 100 mg QD group achieved HbA1c levels of less than 6.5% (11.5%) and less than 7.0% (26.4%) compared with those receiving placebo (0% and 4.6%; P = .0016 and P < .0001, respectively) at week 16. Retagliptin 100 mg QD also lowered fasting plasma glucose and 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose levels. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) during the treatment period was similar between the two groups. However, slightly higher proportions of increased lipase and increased amylase in the retagliptin 100 mg QD group were observed. No patients discontinued treatment permanently because of AEs, and no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Retagliptin 100 mg QD as an add-on therapy to metformin offers a new therapeutic option for treating Chinese patients with T2D inadequately controlled by metformin alone, and is generally well tolerated.

Dermatological side effects of dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors in diabetes management: a comprehensive review

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of drugs that enhance the incretin-insulin pathway and offer effective glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, these drugs may be associated with various dermatological side effects, ranging from mild to severe. This review article summarizes the current literature on the dermatological side effects of DPP-4 inhibitors, including bullous pemphigoid, severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions, fixed drug eruptions, and other mucocutaneous reactions. The review also discusses the possible mechanisms, risk factors, diagnosis, and management of these side effects. This review aims to increase the awareness and vigilance of healthcare providers in recognizing and managing the dermatological side effects of DPP-4 inhibitors and to emphasize the need for further research and surveillance to optimize diabetes care and patient safety.

DPP-4 inhibitors for treating T2DM - hype or hope? an analysis based on the current literature

DPP-4 inhibition is an interesting line of therapy for treating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and is based on promoting the incretin effect. Here, the authors have presented a brief appraisal of DPP-4 inhibitors, their modes of action, and the clinical efficiency of currently available drugs based on DPP-4 inhibitors. The safety profiles as well as future directions including their potential application in improving COVID-19 patient outcomes have also been discussed in detail. This review also highlights the existing queries and evidence gaps in DPP-4 inhibitor research. Authors have concluded that the excitement surrounding DPP-4 inhibitors is justified because in addition to controlling blood glucose level, they are good at managing risk factors associated with diabetes.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021271647.

An overview of alogliptin + pioglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a progressive condition, and sequential additions of therapy are usually required to maintain glycemic control. The options for glucose lowering therapies have increased considerably in recent years. Fixed-dose combinations such as alogliptin with pioglitazone provide a convenient choice which can improve medication adherence.

AREAS COVERED

The authors performed a literature search to identify publications describing the efficacy and safety of alogliptin and pioglitazone when used separately and in combinations.

EXPERT OPINION

Pioglitazone activates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma which improves insulin sensitivity and helps to preserve β-cell function with a durable improvement in glycemic control. Pioglitazone can retard the progression of atherosclerosis and reduce cardiovascular events, but it is associated with adverse events including weight gain, fluid retention, and increased risk of fractures. Alogliptin improves glycemic control and appears neutral in terms of cardiovascular events. It does not appear to increase the adverse events associated with pioglitazone and use of the combination may permit the use of lower doses of pioglitazone with reduced adverse effects. There are no cardiovascular outcome studies with the combination but the cardiovascular benefits of pioglitazone and additional glucose lowering effects of alogliptin provide a useful combination with convenient once daily dosing.

Symptomatic Hypoglycemia After Gastric Bypass: Incidence and Predictive Factors in a Cohort of 1,138 Consecutive Patients

OBJECTIVE

After Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), postprandial hyperinsulinemic hypoglycemia (PPHH) is particularly critical because of the risk of trauma. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and identify risk factors for symptomatic PPHH.

METHODS

Patients with RYGB were classified into moderate PPHH (MH) or severe hypoglycemia (SH), which is defined as patients with neuroglycopenic symptoms. Logistic multivariate linear regressions were performed to identify predictive factors for symptomatic PPHH and more specifically for SH with neuroglycopenic symptoms. Patients with diabetes and those with a follow-up shorter than 2 years were excluded.

RESULTS

Among the 1,138 patients, 44.2% had at least one episode of hypoglycemia with a mean delay of 25.5 (21.3) months, 32.6% had MH, and 11.6% had SH. The annual incidence rate of SH was 2.5% the first year, 3.7% the second year, and 1.5% the third year. Independent predictive factors for higher risk of SH were: younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01; 95% CI: 1.05-16.69; P = 0.0007), lower BMI after RYGB (OR = 1.61; 95% CI: 1.17-2.22; P = 0.0035), and maximal weight loss (OR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.39-1.23; P = 0.0106), whereas higher preoperative BMI was protective (OR = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0112).

CONCLUSIONS

This observational cohort study showed that the incidence of severe PPHH with neuroglycopenic symptoms after RYGB was higher than expected.

Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin added to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin: A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Introduction

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin compared with placebo when added to metformin therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Methods

This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study enrolled type 2 diabetes patients with glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0%-<10.0% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <270 mg/dl, receiving a stable metformin dose ≥1000 mg/day. Teneligliptin 20 mg or placebo was administered orally once daily (qd) before breakfast for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end-point was change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24. Safety end-points included the incidence of adverse events (AEs).

Results

The least square mean (LSM) change from baseline (standard error [SE]) was -0.72 (0.07) (95% confidence intervals [CI], -0.87, -0.58) for teneligliptin and -0.01 (0.07) (95% CI, -0.16, 0.13) for placebo. The differences (LSM ± SE) between the placebo and teneligliptin groups in HbA1c and FPG were -0.71% ± 0.11% (p < .0001) and -16.5 ± 4.7 mg/dl (p = .0005), respectively. Teneligliptin yielded significant changes in HbA1c (-0.81%; p < .0001) and FPG (-22.2 mg/dl; p < .0001) at Week 12. At Week 24, more patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with teneligliptin (41.7%) compared with placebo (16.1%; p < .0001). Treatment-emergent AE incidence was similar with teneligliptin (58.9%) and placebo (68.3%); upper respiratory tract infection, hyperuricaemia and hyperlipidaemia were the most common AEs.

Conclusions

Teneligliptin 20 mg qd for 24 weeks added to ongoing metformin treatment significantly decreased HbA1c and FPG levels compared with placebo in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. The combination was safe and tolerable.

Comparative Efficacy of Dual and Single Initiation of Add-On Oral Antihyperglycemic Agents in Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin Alone: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend adding an oral antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on metformin. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that adding dual AHAs instead of a single AHA provided more effective glycemic control. However, the comparative efficacy of approved single and dual initiation strategies is unknown. Therefore, we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of dual and single add-on oral AHAs in patients uncontrolled on metformin.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of RCTs was conducted following Cochrane and ISPOR guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to November 19, 2019. Approved oral doses of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in single or dual initiation therapies were indirectly compared. Outcomes focused on efficacy and included mean change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), weight, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure, and achieving HbA1c target < 7% at 24-26 weeks. Fixed and random effects models with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations were used.

RESULTS

Of 1955 unique records screened, 25 RCTs (14,264 participants) were included. In patients uncontrolled on metformin, dual AHA added to metformin had statistically significant or a trend of greater reduction in HbA1c compared to single AHAs, with ertugliflozin + sitagliptin showing the greatest improvement. Statistically significant reductions in weight and SBP were observed with ertugliflozin + sitagliptin, ertugliflozin, or canagliflozin compared to single initiation DPP-4 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

For reduction of HbA1c, weight, and SBP in patients uncontrolled on metformin, add-on dual AHAs showed greater improvement compared to single AHAs. These findings can further inform the treatment of T2DM patients uncontrolled on metformin.

Incretin mimetics and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors as monotherapy or add-on to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Although there are many different methods of treating type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is still difficult to draw coincident conclusions concerning the efficacy and safety of different classes of new drugs, and the recommendation level of them has still kept uncertain as second anti-diabetic agents. Therefore, the aim of this study was to summarize evidence on the efficacy and safety of DPP-4is, GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is as monotherapy or add-on to metformin (Met) for treatment of T2D.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant articles in keeping with established methods using terms associated with anti-diabetic agents up to February, 2020, with no start date restriction. Weighted mean difference and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated within traditional and network meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were the mean change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) change and the frequency of hypoglycemic events from baseline after 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 64 eligible studies comprising 37,780 patients and 7 treatment strategies were included. The results of primary outcomes showed that GLP-1RAs were significantly more effective than DPP-4is or SGLT-2is in reducing HbA1c when add-on to Met. For FPG, both GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is significantly reduced FPG compared with DPP-4is whether add-on to Met or not. For hypoglycemia, monotherapy has a lower risk than combination therapy except for SGLT-2is. Ranking probability analysis indicated that GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is, respectively, reduced HbA1c and FPG most when add-on to Met. Meanwhile, GLP-1RAs took the lowest risk to induce the hypoglycemia, whereas GLP-1RAs plus Met the highest.

CONCLUSIONS

Both GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is have their own advantages in efficacy and safety. Monotherapy is beneficial for reducing the risk of hypoglycemia. The recommendation should be a patient-centered approach when selecting treatment choices.

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.

[Specific features of the use of alogliptin in various groups of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: additional results of the ENTIRE study]

BACKGROUND

Since the obtaining of data on the effect of Alogliptin towards the lipid profile, body weight and blood pressure (BP) of patients, the additional analysis of the results of the ENTIRE study, completed in the Russian Federation in 2018, was conducted.

AIMS

Assess the dynamics of HbA1c, body weight, fats indices, blood pressure (BP), and characterize the profile of the patient who received the maximum clinical benefit on treatment of Alogliptin therapy in the ENTIRE study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective non-interventional observational study that included patients aged 18 years and older with first-onset type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) or patients with T2DM who did not achieve their glycemic targets during the previous therapy.

RESULTS

A decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) by more than 0.5% was detected in 73.5% of patients. The most significant absolute decrease of HbA1c was noticed in patients with initially higher values. Younger patients with a shorter duration of T2DM showed the more often compensation of carbohydrate metabolism. The average loss of weight was -2.6&plusmn;4.2 kg. 76.6% of patients showed the loss of weight. The most significant decrease in body weight was noticed in patients with a large initial body mass index and a shorter duration of the disease. 74.7% of patients showed a decrease of the level of low-density lipoproteins (LDL). The most significant absolute decrease in LDL was noticed in patients with initially higher values and more often in younger people with a shorter duration of T2DM. The average decrease in systolic blood pressure (BP) was 5.9&plusmn;0.3 mm Hg; the average decrease in diastolic blood pressure (BP) was 2.7&plusmn;0.2 mm Hg. 59% of patients showed decrease of blood pressure during the group analyzing. The most frequent BP reduction was observed in younger patients with shorter duration of T2DM. At the same time, a more significant absolute decrease in blood pressure was noticed in patients with initially higher indicators, and an increase, on the contrary, was observed in patients with initially lower indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

The intensification of Alogliptin therapy allowed to achieve the compensation of carbohydrate metabolism, moderate decrease of body weight, blood pressure and LDL indices within the majority of patients with T2DM. The most frequent achievement of HbA1c targets was noticed in young patients with a shorter duration of T2DM.

Efficacy of Modern Diabetes Treatments DPP-4i, SGLT-2i, and GLP-1RA in White and Asian Patients With Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes differs markedly by ethnicity.

PURPOSE

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of ethnicity on the glucose-lowering efficacy of the newer oral agents, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), using evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted in PubMed of all randomized, placebo-controlled trials of DPP-4i, SGLT-2i, and GLP-1RA. The search strategy was developed based on Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 64 studies that qualified for meta-analysis after full-text review based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria-RCTs with at least 50 patients in each arm, >70% of population from Asian or white group, duration ≥24 weeks, and publication up to March 2019-were selected for systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction was done for aggregated study-level data by two independent researchers. Absolute changes in HbA_1c (%) from baseline to 24 weeks between the drug and placebo were considered as the primary end point of the study.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Change in HbA_1c was evaluated by computing mean differences and 95% CIs between treatment and placebo arms.

LIMITATIONS

The study is based on summarized data and could not be separated based on East Asians and South Asians.

CONCLUSIONS

The glucose-lowering efficacy of SGLT-2i, and to a lesser extent DPP-4i, was greater in studies of predominantly Asian ethnicity compared with studies of predominantly white ethnicity. There was no difference seen by ethnicity for GLP-1RA.

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

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

Reduction in HbA1c with SGLT2 inhibitors vs. DPP-4 inhibitors as add-ons to metformin monotherapy according to baseline HbA1c: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

This study compared the reduction of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) with sodium-glucose cotransporter type-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) as add-ons to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with a specific focus on HbA1c changes according to baseline HbA1c.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were scrutinized for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the reduction of HbA1c from baseline (Δ HbA1c) with an SGLT2i or DPP-4i in patients with T2DM not well controlled by metformin monotherapy. The endpoint was Δ HbA1c using both indirect and direct comparisons.

RESULTS

Overall, Δ HbA1c was slightly greater with SGLT2is (-0.80±0.20% from 8.03±0.35%; 44 analyses, 29 RCTs, 15 with two doses, n=9321) than with DPP-4is (-0.71±0.23% from 8.05±0.43%; 61 analyses, 59 RCTs, n=17,914; P=0.0354). When the mean baseline HbA1c was<8% ([64mmol/mol] 7.79±0.15% vs. 7.71±0.23%), Δ HbA1c averaged -0.735±0.17% vs. -0.62±0.16% (P=0.0117) with SGLT2is vs. DPP-4is, respectively. However, this difference vanished when the mean baseline HbA1c was≥8% (-0.87±0.22% from 8.27±0.32% with SGLT2is vs. -0.80±0.24% from 8.35±0.33% with DPP-4is; P=0.2756). The relationship between Δ HbA1c and baseline HbA1c was only slightly stronger with SGLT2is (slope: -0.39, r²=-0.43; P<0.0001) than with DPP-4is (slope: -0.26, r²=-0.25; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Because of the small difference in Δ HbA1c whatever the baseline HbA1c level with SGLT2is vs. DPP-4is as add-ons to metformin, choosing between these glucose-lowering agents in clinical practice should be based on other efficacy criteria (such as weight and blood pressure changes, cardiovascular and renal protection) or on safety profiles rather than on HbA1c levels.

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.

Maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY): current perspectives on diagnosis and treatment

Maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) is characterized by autosomal dominant inheritance, onset before 25 years of age, absence of β-cell autoimmunity, and sustained pancreatic β-cell function. To date, mutations have been identified in at least 14 different genes, including six genes encoding proteins that, respectively, correspond to MODY subtypes 1-6: hepatocyte nuclear factor (HNF) 4α (HNF4α), glucokinase (GCK), HNF1α (HNF1 α), pancreatic and duodenal homeobox 1 (PDX1), HNF1β (HNF1 β), and neurogenic differentiation 1 (NEUROD1). Diagnostic tools based on currently available genetic tests can facilitate the correct diagnosis and appropriate treatment of patients with MODY. Candidates for genetic testing include nonobese subjects with hyperglycemia, no evidence of β-cell autoimmunity, sustained β-cell function, and a strong family history of similar-type diabetes among first-degree relatives. Moreover, identification of the MODY subtype is important, given the subtype-related differences in the age of onset, clinical course and progression, type of hyperglycemia, and response to treatment. This review discusses the current perspectives on the diagnosis and treatment of MODY, particularly with regard to the six major subtypes (MODY 1-6).

DPP-4 Inhibition and the Path to Clinical Proof

In the 1990s it was discovered that the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inactivates the incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). DPP-4 inhibition results in raised levels of the two incretin hormones which in turn result in lowering of circulating glucose through stimulation of insulin secretion and inhibition of glucagon secretion. Since then, several small orally available molecules have been developed with DPP-4 inhibitory action. Early studies in the 1990s showed that the DPP-4 inhibitors improve glycemia in animals. Subsequent clinical studies during the 2000s showed a glucose-lowering action of DPP-4 inhibitors also in human subjects with type 2 diabetes. This action was seen when DPP-4 inhibitors were used both as monotherapy and as add-on to other therapies, i.e., metformin, sulfonylureas, tiazolidinediones or exogenous insulin. The DPP-4 inhibitors were also found to have a low risk of adverse events, including hypoglycemia. Five of the DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, alogliptin, saxagliptin and linagliptin) were approved by regulatory authorities and entered the market between 2006 and 2013. DPP-4 inhibitors have thereafter undergone long-term cardiovascular outcome trials, showing non-inferiority for risk of major acute cardiovascular endpoints. Also the risk of other potential adverse events is low in these long-term studies. DPP-4 inhibitors are at present included in guidelines as a glucose-lowering concept both as monotherapy and in combination therapies. This article summarizes the development of the DPP-4 inhibition concept from its early stages in the 1990s. The article underscores that the development has its basis in scientific studies on pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes and the importance of targeting the islet dysfunction, that the development has been made possible through academic science in collaboration with the research-oriented pharmaceutical industry, and that the development of a novel concept takes time and requires focused efforts, persistence and long-term perserverance.

Ethnic Differences in Efficacy and Safety of Alogliptin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Alogliptin is a highly selective, potent, and orally available dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. This study compared the glucose-lowering efficacy and safety of alogliptin between Asian and non-Asian patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science databases for articles published June 2017 and earlier in English. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with type 2 diabetes that compared alogliptin with placebo as either monotherapy or add-on therapy. We divided subgroups by ethnicity, and compared the results of alogliptin use in Asian and non-Asian-dominant studies.

RESULTS

A total of 15 RCTs with 4456 patients with type 2 diabetes were included in this study. Alogliptin lowered glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) to a much greater extent in Asian-dominant studies [- 0.75% (95% CI - 0.84 to - 0.65)] than in non-Asian-dominant studies [- 0.61% (95% CI - 0.68 to - 0.54)] (P = 0.02). The risk ratio of achieving HbA1c goal was larger in Asian-dominant studies [2.88 (95% CI 2.15-3.87)] than in non-Asian-dominant studies [1.93 (95% CI 1.55-2.41)] (P = 0.03). The postprandial blood glucose-lowering efficacy was higher in Asian-dominant studies [- 2.42 mmol/l (95% CI - 2.99 to - 1.85)] than in non-Asian-dominant studies [- 0.60 mmol/l (95% CI - 1.60 to 0.40)] (P = 0.002), while the fasting blood glucose and body weight changes were similar between the two subgroups. The incidence of adverse events, including hypoglycemia, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and diarrhea, were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin is more effective in improving glycemic levels in Asians than in other ethnic populations. Future studies are required to explore the potential mechanisms.

Incretin-based therapy in type 2 diabetes: An evidence based systematic review and meta-analysis

Incretin based therapies such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ra) are increasingly used for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. In clinical practice and in previously performed clinical trials, these agents are often used in combination with other oral anti-diabetic agents (OADs) and Insulin. Prior meta-analytic reviews however do not adequately address the impact of background therapy and active comparator arms. Accordingly, we aimed to further investigate the efficacy of incretin based therapies by updating existing reviews by including clinical trial evidence after 2008; estimating the pooled effect of incretin therapies on glycemic efficacy and weight-loss, stratified by comparator therapy (placebo, mono-therapy, etc.), estimating the impact of background OADs and within class (GLP-1Ra or DPP-4i) comparative efficacy, on glycemia control. 82 randomized controlled trials after 2008 with glycemic control and weight loss as primary end-points were included. Both DPP-4i and GLP-1Ra reduced HbA1c, but only GLP-1Ra caused weight loss when compared to either active comparator drugs or placebo. GLP-1Ra were more effective than DPP-4i in glycemia lowering. Long acting GLP-1Ra were more effective in HbA1c lowering than short-acting agents but with similar weight loss effect. The effect of DPP-4i incretin glycemic efficacy was not modified by background therapy used in the study.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Efficacy and safety of alogliptin in a pediatric patient with maturity-onset diabetes of the young type 1

The first-line pharmacological treatment for patients with maturity-onset diabetes of the young type 1 (MODY1) and maturity-onset diabetes of the young type 3 (MODY3) are sulfonylureas (SUs) or insulin. However, several reports have suggested the possibility of using incretin-associated drugs, including dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, for the treatment of patients with these types of MODY. Here we report a case of a pediatric patient with MODY1 who was successfully treated with a DPP-4 inhibitor, alogliptin. A 13-yr-old Japanese girl with diabetes was initially treated with insulin for 5 mo. After diagnosis of MODY1, confirmed via a genetic analysis, treatment was changed from insulin to alogliptin. SUs were prescribed temporarily, but monotherapy with alogliptin finally resulted in good glycemic control. After changing to alogliptin, the patient maintained optimal glycemic control with glycated hemoglobin levels of 6.3–7.0% while maintaining substantial β-cell function. No adverse events associated with alogliptin were observed. These results suggest that DPP-4 inhibitors may be a potential treatment for patients with MODY1 at the early stage of the disease when residual insulin secretion is still being sustained.

Adherence, persistence, and treatment discontinuation with sitagliptin compared with sulfonylureas as add-ons to metformin: A retrospective cohort database study

BACKGROUND

Data are limited regarding adherence to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.

METHODS

The present retrospective cohort study of a claims database involved adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, continuous enrollment for 12 months before the first prescription of add-on sitagliptin (SITA) or a sulfonylurea (SU) to metformin (MET) monotherapy (index date), and ≥45 days of MET coverage ≤90 days before the index date. The SITA and SU users were matched on duration of follow-up and propensity score (PS). Logistic regression analysis incorporated age, gender, comorbidities, and concomitant medications as independent variables.

RESULTS

Approximately 99 % of SITA patients were PS matched, resulting in 14 807 well-balanced PS-matched SITA/SU pairs. Mean proportion of days covered (PDC) was significantly higher for SITA (vs SU) + MET after 1 year (P < 0.001). Adherence (PDC ≥80 %) to SITA (vs SU) + MET was 59.1 % (vs 55.9 %; P < 0.001) at 1 year and 52.6 % (vs 49.9 %; P = 0.007) at 2 years. Using logistic regression models including out-of-pocket expense (OPE) as a covariate, we found improved mean PDC and adherence for SITA (vs SU) + MET. Numbers of patients who continued to use SITA (vs SU) + MET were significantly higher after Years 1, 2, and 3 (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Users of SITA + MET had significantly higher mean PDC, adherence, and persistence than those on SU + MET. These trends were robust to model alterations and were more marked when accommodating OPEs.

Hypoglycemia: a review of definitions used in clinical trials evaluating antihyperglycemic drugs for diabetes

Objective

To understand the severity and potential impact of heterogeneity in definitions of hypoglycemia used in diabetes research, we aimed to review the hypoglycemia definitions adopted in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

We reviewed 109 RCTs included in the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health reports for the second- and third-line therapy for the patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Results

Nearly 60% (n=66) of the studies reviewed presented the definitions for overall hypoglycemia, and another 20% (n=22) of the studies reported the results for hypoglycemia but did not report a definition. Among these 66 studies, only 9 (14%) followed the American Diabetes Association/European Medicines Agency specified guidelines to define hypoglycemia, with an exact threshold of plasma glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L. Fifty-two of the 66 studies (79%) used a threshold considerably lower than the recommended ≤3.9 mmol/L, and 16 studies used a threshold between 3.8 and 4.0 mmol/L. The proportion of the trials that used a cutoff value of <3.1 mmol/L appeared to be slightly similar among the more commonly used non-insulin treatments, GLP-1s (7 of 18 [39%]), thiazolidinediones (TZDs; 6 of 11 [55%]), DPP-4s (12 of 19 [64%]), and sulfonylureas (11 of 20 [55%]). Among trials with intermediate-long-acting insulins (neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, detemir, glargine), 7 of 26 trials (27%) used a cutoff of <3.1 mmol/L. The definition of severe hypoglycemia was also subject to substantial heterogeneity, in both the utilized threshold and accompanying soft definitions.

Conclusion

This review demonstrates that substantial heterogeneity exists in the definition of overall, severe/major, and nocturnal hypoglycemia across RCTs investigating T2D interventions.

Comparative Effectiveness of Adding Alogliptin to Metformin Plus Sulfonylurea with Other DPP-4 Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Alogliptin is an oral antihyperglycemic agent that is a selective inhibitor of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). There currently exists no comparative data to support the use of alogliptin in combination with metformin (met) and sulfonylurea (SU). A decision-focused network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to compare the relative efficacy and safety of alogliptin 25 mg once daily to other DPP-4 inhibitors as part of a triple therapy regimen for patients inadequately controlled on metformin and SU dual therapy.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify published papers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared alogliptin with other DPP-4 inhibitors (linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin) at their Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) recommended daily doses, added on to metformin and SU. Comprehensive comparative analysis involving frequentist meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA compared alogliptin to each DPP-4 inhibitor separately and collectively as a group. Quasi-random effect models were introduced when random effect models could not be estimated.

RESULTS

The review identified 2186 articles, and 94 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Eight RCTs contained appropriate data for inclusion in the NMA. All analyses over all trial population sets produced very similar results, and show that alogliptin 25 mg is as least as effective (as measured by change in HbA1c from baseline, but supported by other outcome measures: change in body weight and FPG from baseline) and safe (as measured by incidence of hypoglycemia and adverse events leading to study discontinuation) as all the other DPP-4 inhibitors in triple therapy.

CONCLUSION

This decision-focused systematic review and NMA demonstrated alogliptin 25 mg daily to have similar efficacy and safety compared to other DPP-4 inhibitors, for the treatment of T2DM in adults inadequately controlled on metformin and SU. (Funded by Takeda Development Centre Americas; EXAMINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00968708).

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.

Efficacy and safety of alogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A multicentre randomized double-blind placebo-controlled Phase 3 study in mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

This study determined the efficacy and safety of once-daily oral alogliptin in patients from mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

In this Phase 3 multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled 16-week trial, 506 patients were randomized to receive once-daily alogliptin 25 mg or placebo: 185 in the monotherapy group, 197 in the add-on to metformin group, and 124 in the add-on to pioglitazone group. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline (CFB) in HbA1c at Week 16; other efficacy measures included CFB to Week 16 in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), incidence of marked hyperglycemia (FPG ≥11.1 mmol/L), and the incidence of clinical HbA1c ≤6.5 % (48 mmol/mol) and ≤7.0 % (53 mmol/mol) at Week 16. Safety was assessed throughout the trial.

RESULTS

Alogliptin monotherapy provided a significantly greater decrease in HbA1c from baseline to Week 16 compared with placebo (-0.58 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.78 %, -0.37 %; P < 0.001). As an add-on to metformin or pioglitazone, alogliptin also significantly decreased HbA1c compared with placebo (-0.69 % [95 % CI -0.87 %, -0.51 %; P < 0.001] and -0.52 % [95 % CI -0.75 %, -0.28 %; P < 0.001], respectively). In any treatment group versus placebo, alogliptin led to greater decreases in FPG (P ≤ 0.004) and a higher percentage of patients who achieved an HbA1c target of ≤6.5 % and ≤7.0 % (P ≤ 0.003). No weight gain was observed in any treatment group. A similar percentage of patients experienced drug-related, treatment-emergent adverse events in the alogliptin and placebo arms. Four and two patients in the alogliptin and placebo arms, respectively, experienced mild or moderate hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Alogliptin 25 mg once daily reduced HbA1c and FPG and enhanced clinical response compared with placebo when used as monotherapy or as an add-on to metformin or pioglitazone. Therapy with alogliptin was well tolerated.

Addition of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, to ongoing therapy with the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide: A randomized controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIM

To determine whether the addition of sitagliptin to pre-existing therapy with liraglutide changes glycaemic excursions after a mixed meal.

METHODS

A total of 16 patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin and liraglutide (1.2 mg/d for ≥2 weeks) were randomized (sealed envelopes), within a cross-over design, to be studied on two occasions, after an overnight fast, with (1) sitagliptin (100 mg orally) and (2) placebo (patients and care givers blinded) administered 60 minutes before a mixed meal, or vice versa. Glucose excursions (incremental area under the curve [AUC]; primary endpoint) and insulin, C-peptide, glucagon and incretin concentrations were measured. The study setting was a metabolic study unit at a specialized diabetes hospital.

RESULTS

All 16 patients completed the study and were analysed. Glucose (AUC_glucose 319 ± 30 [placebo] vs 315 ± 18 mmol.L^-1 .min^-1 [sitagliptin], Δ 7 [95% confidence interval -50 to 63] mmol.L^-1 .min^-1 ), insulin, C-peptide and glucagon concentrations were not affected significantly by sitagliptin treatment ( P = .60-1.00). Intact glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) concentrations were augmented by sitagliptin, by 78.4% and 90.2%, respectively (both P < .0001). The influence of sitagliptin treatment on incretin plasma concentrations was similar to previously published results obtained in patients with type 2 diabetes on metformin treatment only.

CONCLUSIONS

Sitagliptin, in patients already treated with a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide), increased intact GLP-1 and GIP concentrations, but with marginal, non-significant effects on glycaemic control. GLP-1 receptors have probably been maximally stimulated by liraglutide. Our findings do not support combination treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors, but longer-term trials are needed to support clinical recommendations.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Given recent discrepant results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we examined the totality of RCT evidence assessing the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and heart failure.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched without language restrictions to August 2016 for RCTs comparing DPP-4 inhibitors to placebo or no therapy for a period of 24 weeks or more. We included all heart failure outcomes when listed either as a serious adverse event or adverse event. Pooled analyses used random-effects.

RESULTS

We identified 100 RCTs (n = 79 867) - 3 large cardiovascular-safety RCTs (SAVOR-TIMI 53[saxagliptin]/n = 16 492, EXAMINE[alogliptin]/n = 5380, and TECOS[sitagliptin]/n = 14 735), and 97 smaller RCTs with a primary outcome that was usually change in glycated hemoglobin. Virtually all RCTs were high-quality, multicentre, placebo-controlled trials. A total of 96% (1192/1244) of heart failure events were prespecified, blindly adjudicated and required hospital admission. Pooled results suggested a 13% increase in heart failure (relative risk [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.26, I2 = 0%; 32 RCTs, n = 54 640, 1244 events). When including only the 3 large RCTs, the increase was similar, but not significant (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97-1.32; 3 RCTs, n = 36 543, 1169 adjudicated events; number needed to harm 246) owing to heterogeneity (I2 = 42%), which lead to wider CIs, because SAVOR-TIMI 53 showed increased heart failure (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.49) and TECOS showed no effect (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83-1.19).

INTERPRETATION

Despite pooled data from 79 867 patients, whether DPP-4 inhibitors increase heart failure overall or exhibit within-class differences remains unresolved. Our results highlight the importance of ongoing trials that are comparing DPP-4 inhibitors to placebo, although no large cardiovascular-safety RCTs are comparing different DPP-4 inhibitors to each other; consequently, these will address the overall but not class-difference question.

NRF2 activation by antioxidant antidiabetic agents accelerates tumor metastasis

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

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of alogliptin in children, adolescents, and adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Purpose

The aim of this study is to determine the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of a single 12.5- or 25-mg dose of alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, in pediatric (children and adolescents) and adult subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

A randomized, open-label, multicenter study was conducted in pediatric and adult subjects. Subjects in two pediatric groups (children and adolescents) were randomized 1:1 to receive a single oral dose of alogliptin 12.5 or 25 mg, respectively; all gender- and race-matched adult subjects received alogliptin 25 mg. Blood and urine samples were collected at prespecified time points for PK/PD analyses. A PK/PD model was developed using data from the study for steady-state simulations. Safety was also assessed.

Results

In pediatric subjects receiving the 25-mg dose, the mean alogliptin peak plasma concentrations (C_max) and AUC_0-inf values were 26 and 23% lower, respectively, than in adults receiving the 25-mg dose, but maximum observed DPP-4 inhibition effect (E_max) and AUEC_0–24 values were similar to those in adults. In pediatric subjects receiving the 12.5-mg dose, the mean alogliptin C_max and AUC_0-inf values were 58 and 54% lower, respectively, than those in adults, hence E_max and AUEC_0–24 values were also lower by 11 and 17%, respectively. The PK/PD model simulated data were consistent with study results. No safety concern was found.

Conclusions

A 25-mg dose of alogliptin in pediatric subjects achieved alogliptin exposures and DPP-4 inhibition similar to those in adult T2DM patients without safety concerns; therefore, this dose is recommended for a pediatric phase 3 trial.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00228-016-2175-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An update on the clinical pharmacology of the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor alogliptin used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor that is a class of relatively new oral hypoglycaemic drugs used in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), can be used as monotherapy or in combination with other anti-diabetic agents, including metformin, pioglitazone, sulfonylureas and insulin with a considerable therapeutic effect. Alogliptin exhibits favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles in humans. Alogliptin is mainly metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP2D6) and CYP3A4. Dose reduction is recommended for patients with moderate or worse renal impairment. Side effects of alogliptin include nasopharyngitis, upper-respiratory tract infections and headache. Hypoglycaemia is seen in about 1.5% of the T2DM patients. Rare but severe adverse reactions such as acute pancreatitis, serious hypersensitivity including anaphylaxis, angioedema and severe cutaneous reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome have been reported from post-marketing monitoring. Pharmacokinetic interactions have not been observed between alogliptin and other drugs including glyburide, metformin, pioglitazone, insulin and warfarin. The present review aimed to update the clinical information on pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, adverse effects and drug interactions, and to discuss the future directions of alogliptin.

An update on the 'gliptins'

Progressive impairment of insulin secretion in people with type 2 diabetes leads to blood glucose concentrations worsening over time, often resulting in escalation of blood glucose lowering therapy.¹ In 2015/2016, more money was spent on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors ('gliptins') than on any other class of antidiabetic drug except for insulins.² In 2008, we reviewed sitagliptin and vildagliptin.³ Here, we briefly review three other DPP-4 inhibitors, saxagliptin (Onglyza-AstraZeneca), linagliptin (Trajenta-Boehringer Ingelheim) and ▼alogliptin (Vipidia-Takeda), and consider data from recent cardiovascular outcomes studies.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

FUNDING

Takeda Development Centre Europe Ltd.

Adverse effects of incretin-based therapies on major cardiovascular and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Recent cardiovascular outcome trials of incretin-based therapies (IBT) in type 2 diabetes have not demonstrated either benefit or harm in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Earlier meta-analyses showed conflicting results but were limited in methodology. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of all available incretin therapies on the incidence of MACE plus arrhythmia and heart failure.

METHODS

We identified studies published through November 2014 by searching electronic databases and reference lists. We included RCTs in which the intervention group received incretin-based therapies and the control group received placebo or standard treatment; enrolled >100 participants in each group; interventions lasted >24 weeks; and reported data on one or more primary major adverse cardiovascular events endpoints plus terms for arrhythmia and heart failure. We used the Peto method for each CV event for individual IBT treatment.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis of 100 RCTs involving 54,758 incretin-based therapies users and 48,175 controls, exenatide was associated with increased risk of arrhythmia (OR 2.83; 95% CI, 1.06-7.57); saxagliptin was associated with an increased risk of heart failure (OR 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.46), and sitagliptin was associated with a significantly decreased risk of all cause death compared to active controls (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

In type 2 diabetes, exenatide may increase the risk of arrhythmia, and sitagliptin may reduce the risk of all cause death; however, the subgroup of patients most likely to experience harm or benefit is unclear. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Alogliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a drug safety evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors such as alogliptin are becoming more widely established as treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) because of their ability to improve glycemic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain. New therapies with improved safety profiles are needed, especially because of the chronic and progressive nature of T2DM.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, the overall safety and tolerability of alogliptin are evaluated based upon a review of the literature. In particular, adverse events (AEs) that have been of interest for the DPP-4 class of drugs, such as the risk of major cardiovascular (CV) events and acute pancreatitis, will be investigated in detail.

EXPERT OPINION

Alogliptin is generally well-tolerated in a broad range of patient populations including different ethnic groups and the elderly. In the pivotal EXAMINE clinical trial, alogliptin was found not to be associated with an increased risk of major CV events or acute pancreatitis/pancreatic cancer.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy, safety and impact on β-cell function of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and the difference between Asians and Caucasians: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the efficacy, safety and impact on β-cell function of DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin in T2DM patients and their difference between Asians and Caucasians.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search (from 1 January 2000 to 14 April 2015) for RCTs of DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy in T2DM.

RESULTS

A total of 27 RCTs were included. Compared with metformin, DPP-4 inhibitor plus metformin therapy was associated with higher reduction in HbA1c [-0.61 %, -0.69 to -0.52], FPG [-1.10 mmol/l, -1.29 to -0.92], TC [-0.11 mmol/l, -0.20 to -0.02], TG [-0.21 mmol/l, -0.33 to -0.10], HOMA-IR [-0.19, -0.36 to -0.02], gastrointestinal adverse events [OR 0.86, 0.77-0.97] and higher increment in HOMA-β [10.21, 7.73-12.69]. Comparison of HbA1c, FPG, body weight and HOMA-IR changes between Asian and Caucasian patients did not show a significant between-group difference of -0.05 % (-0.30, 0.20; P = 0.69), 0.17 mmol/l (-0.52, 0.85; P = 0.62), -0.15 kg (-0.64, 0.35; P = 0.53) and 0.27 (-0.98, 1.53; P = 0.64) compared with metformin. Comparisons of HOMA-β between Asian and Caucasian patients showed a significant between-group difference of -7.68 (-14.95, -0.42; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin therapy was effective and safe for T2DM patients. The glucose-lowering efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors was same in Asian and Caucasian patients, although the effect on HOMA-β was inferior in Asian patients. The effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on HOMA-IR and body weight in Asian patients was comparable with that observed in Caucasian patients.

The effect of alogliptin on pulmonary function in obese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy

BACKGROUND

To observe the effect of alogliptin combined with metformin on pulmonary function in obese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy (500 mg, bid po, for at least 3 months), and evaluate its efficacy and safety.

METHODS

After a 2-week screening period, adult patients (aged 36-72 years) entered a 4-week run-in/stabilization period. Then, patients were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n = 55) or the control group (n = 50) for 26 weeks. The patients in the control group were given metformin (1000 mg, bid po) and the patients in the intervention group were given metformin (500 mg, bid po) combined with alogliptin (25 mg, qd po). All the patients received counseling about diet and exercise from a nutritionist during run-in and treatment periods.The primary endpoints were the between-group differences in the changes in pulmonary function parameters (vital capacity [VC]%, forced vital capacity [FVC]%, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)%, peak expiratory force [PEF]%, maximal voluntary ventilation [MVV]%, total lung capacity [TLC%], forced expiratory volume in 1 second/forced vital capacity [FEV1/FVC%], diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide of lung [DLCO]%, and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide of lung/unit volume [DLCO/VA%]) between pretherapy and posttreatment. The secondary endpoints were changes from baseline to week 26 in glycosylated hemoglobinA1c (HbA1c), FPG, 2hPG, homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), waist circumference (WC), and BMI. The tertiary endpoints were the changes from baseline to week 26 in blood-fat (total cholesterol [TC], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], and triglycerides [TG]). The quartus endpoints were the changes from baseline to week 26 in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The 5th endpoints were the changes from baseline to week 26 in oxidative/antioxidative parameters (reactive oxygen species [ROS], malondialdehyde [MDA], superioxide dismutase [SOD], and glutathione peroxidase [GSH-Px]). In addition, safety endpoints were assessed (AEs, clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, and electrocardiographic readings).

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients completed our clinical trial: intervention group (n = 44) and control group (n = 37). At week 26, pulmonary function parameters (VC%, FVC%, FEV1%, PEF%, MVV%, TLC%, FEV1/FVC%, DLCO%, and DLCO/VA%) had increased significantly from pretherapy values in both groups (P < 0.05), and the pulmonary function tests were significantly greater (P < 0.05) in intervention group than in controls posttherapy. Pulmonary function (FVC%, FEV1%, PEF%, TLC%, FEV1/FVC%, DLCO%, and DLCO/VA%) was lower in the group with HbA1c levels ≥8.0 at 26 weeks, but VC%, FEV1%, MVV%, and TLC% were not significantly lower (P > 0.05). Pulmonary function parameters were positively correlated with GSH-Px and SOD and negatively correlated with ROS and MDA. Mean declines in HbA1c, FPG, 2hPG, HOMA-IR, and blood-fat (TC, HDL-C, LDL-C, and TG) were significantly greater (P < 0.05) in intervention group compared with the controls, but mean declines in BMI, WC, and BP (SBP, DBP) did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). SOD and GSH-Px increased more (P < 0.05) in the intervention group, compared with the controls; ROS and MDA declined more (P < 0.05) in intervention group, as compared with the control group. The most common AEs were gastrointestinal events, headaches, skin-related AEs (mostly pruritic events), and hypoglycemia. The incidences of AEs did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) between the 2 groups except for the headache and skin-related adverse events (the incidence of headache was higher in the intervention group than in controls; P < 0.05). No patient died during the study.

CONCLUSION

In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy, the addition of alogliptin contributed to clinically significant increases in pulmonary function through regulating glycemia and improving the imbalance of the oxidative-related substances in the serum, without increasing the incidence of hypoglycemia, dyslipidemia, dysarteriotony, and any notable increase in body weight.

Prevalence and Predictors of Metformin Prescribing in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A National Cross-Sectional Study

OBJECTIVE

Metformin is the first-line oral type 2 diabetes treatment. Despite an abundance of evidence, metformin is routinely underused. This study evaluated the rates of metformin use in an appropriate outpatient type 2 diabetes population and identified predictors of metformin use.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Office visits involving patients aged 18-79 years with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes were included, and visits involving patients with a diagnosis of chronic renal failure or heart failure were excluded. The primary outcome was metformin-prescribing rate. Multivariate logistic regression identified variables associated with metformin prescribing.

RESULTS

A total of 2348 patient visits were eligible for inclusion, representing 88,671,714 office visits nationally. Metformin was continued or initiated in 40.6% of these visits. The strongest independent predictors of metformin prescribing were insulin use (odds ratio [OR] 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.47), presence of four or more chronic conditions (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.34-0.98), patients with Medicare insurance (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.39-0.83), visit with a surgical specialist (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.25-0.61) or a medical specialist (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.38-0.92), and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.28-3.22).

CONCLUSION

Metformin-prescribing rates are low, particularly in patients receiving insulin, with Medicare insurance, seen by medical or surgical specialists, or with four or more chronic conditions. The observed low rates of metformin use represent an important opportunity to improve the quality of care for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Clinical pharmacology of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of oral antidiabetic drugs that improve glycaemic control without causing weight gain or increasing hypoglycaemic risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The eight available DPP-4 inhibitors, including alogliptin, anagliptin, gemigliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, teneligliptin, and vildagliptin, are small molecules used orally with identical mechanism of action and similar safety profiles in patients with T2DM. DPP-4 inhibitors may be used as monotherapy or in double or triple combination with other oral glucose-lowering agents such as metformin, thiazolidinediones, or sulfonylureas. Although DPP-4 inhibitors have the same mode of action, they differ by some important pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties that may be clinically relevant in some patients. The main differences between the eight gliptins include: potency, target selectivity, oral bioavailability, elimination half-life, binding to plasma proteins, metabolic pathways, formation of active metabolite(s), main excretion routes, dosage adjustment for renal and liver insufficiency, and potential drug-drug interactions. The off-target inhibition of selective DPP-4 inhibitors is responsible for multiorgan toxicities such as immune dysfunction, impaired healing, and skin reactions. As a drug class, the DPP-4 inhibitors have become accepted in clinical practice due to their excellent tolerability profile, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia, a neutral effect on body weight, and once-daily dosing. It is unknown if DPP-4 inhibitors can prevent disease progression. More clinical studies are needed to validate the optimal regimens of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of T2DM when their potential toxicities are closely monitored.

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 placebo response of injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists vs. oral DPP-4 inhibitors and SGLT-2 inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The size of the placebo response in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) treatment and its relation to the route of drug administration have not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to determine weight loss, change in HbA1c and incidence of adverse events after treatment with injectable placebo GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1ra), compared with oral placebo DPP-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) and placebo SGLT-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and Central were searched up to September 2014 for randomized placebo controlled trials investigating GLP-1ra, DPP-4i or SGLT2-i. Data on placebo groups were extracted and pooled using a generic inverse variance random effects model.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven trials were included, involving 2522, 5290 and 2028 patients randomized to placebo GLP-1ra, placebo DPP-4i and placebo SGLT-2i, respectively. Body weight decreased by -0.67 kg (95% CI -1.03, -0.31) after treatment with placebo GLP-1ra (-0.76 kg [95% CI -1.10, -0.43] with placebo short acting GLP-1ra and -0.32 kg [95% CI -1.75, 1.10] with placebo long acting GLP-1ra) and by -0.31 kg (95% CI -0.64, 0.01) with placebo DPP-4i (P = 0.06 for difference with placebo short acting GLP-1ra). Placebo SGLT-2i resulted in an intermediate -0.48 kg (95% CI -0.81, -0.15) weight loss. Weight loss with placebo showed a strong correlation with the active comparator drug (r(2)  = 0.40-0.78). HbA1c changed little with placebo treatment (-0.23%, 0.10% and -0.13% for placebo GLP-1ra, DPP-4i and SGLT-2i). Adverse events occurred frequently with placebo, were often similar to the active comparator drug and led to drop-out in 2.0-2.7% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The response to placebo treatment was related to its active comparator, with injectable placebo GLP-1ra showing a relevant response on weight, whereas oral placebo DPP4i showed no significant response. These findings may suggest that subjective expectations influence T2DM treatment efficacy, which can possibly be employed therapeutically.

Cardiovascular Effect of Incretin-Based Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess the cardiovascular (CV) risk associated with the use of incretin-based therapy in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) primary prevention group with low CV risks.

METHODS

The clinical studies on incretin-based therapy published in medical journals until August 2014 were comprehensively searched using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL with no language restriction. The studies were systemically reviewed and evaluated for CV risks using a meta-analysis approach and where they meet the following criteria: clinical trial, incidence of predefined CV disease, T2DM with no comorbidities, age > 18 years old, duration of at least 12 weeks, incretin-based therapy compared with other antihyperglycaemic agents or placebo. Statistical analyses were performed using a Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) test. The odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated and displayed for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 75 studies comprising 45,648 patients with T2DM were selected. The pooled estimate demonstrated no significance in decreased CV risk with incretin-based therapy versus control (M-H OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that incretin-based therapy show no significant protective effect on CV events in T2DM primary prevention group with low CV risks. Prospective randomized controlled trials are required to confirm the results of this analysis.

A systematic review of the safety of incretin-based therapies in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Large randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that incretin-based therapies provide effective glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Long-term safety assessments are ongoing.

METHODS

This systematic review of incretin-based therapy safety is based on 112 randomized clinical trials of duration ≥26 weeks published between January 2000 and February 2015 in patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

As expected, hypoglycemia rates were lower with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) versus other oral antidiabetic drugs and insulin. The most common adverse events were infection and infestation (DPP-4is) and gastrointestinal (GLP-1 RAs). Pancreatitis cases were rare across all studies and, in the SAVOR-TIMI and EXAMINE trials, pancreatitis rates were similar in DPP-4i- and placebo-treated patients. No thyroid tumors were reported, and increased risk of cardiovascular events was not associated with DPP-4is in SAVOR-TIMI and EXAMINE, albeit over a short follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, incretin-based therapies were well tolerated; however, their long-term safety profile should continue to be periodically assessed.