Long-term safety and efficacy of linagliptin as monotherapy or in combination with other oral glucose-lowering agents in 2121 subjects with type 2 diabetes: up to 2 years exposure in 24-week phase III trials followed by a 78-week open-label extension

The efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to other oral glucose-lowering medications in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is), which belong to the class of incretin-based medications, are recommended as second or third-line therapies in guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. They have a favorable drug tolerability and safety profile compared to other glucose-lowering agents.

OBJECTIVE

This review discusses data concerning the use of DPP-4is and their cardiovascular profile, and gives an updated comparison with the other oral glucose-lowering medications with regards to safety and efficacy. Currently available original studies, abstracts, reviews articles, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the review.

DISCUSSION

DPP4is are moderately efficient in decreasing the HbA1c by an average of 0.5% as monotherapy, and 1.0% in combination therapy with other drugs. They have a good tolerability and safety profile compared to other glucose-lowering drugs. However, there are possible risks pertaining to acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSION

Cardiovascular outcome trials thus far have proven the cardiovascular safety for ischemic events in patients treated with sitagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, linagliptin and vildagliptin. Data showing increased rate of hospitalisation in the case of saxagliptin did not seem to be a class effect.

Post-marketing Study of Linagliptin: A Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Linagliptin is a high-cost oral antidiabetic that has been widely used, and studies on its effectiveness and safety for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) in the real world is rare and necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the values of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and adverse events before and after the use of linagliptin in the post-marketing context of a pilot study.

METHODS

This is a descriptive observational and exploratory study with a retrospective longitudinal approach, conducted between January 2014 and December 2016. All patients who participated in the study were over 18 years of age, with DM2, assisted by the Brazilian Public Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde - SUS) and had been indicated for use of linagliptin. The users were followed up and the variables of interest were collected from a computerized health information system (sistema informatizado de saúde - SIS) and patient records. For effectiveness analysis, HbA1c before (T0) and after (T1) the use of linagliptin was considered in patients registered as having collected linagliptin at the pharmacy for at least three consecutive months. For safety analysis, registered adverse events (AE) were verified in patients' records. The sample was stratified according to the pharmacotherapeutic scheme of the users. To compare the means before (T0) and after (T1), a paired t-test (data with normal distribution) and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Sum test (non-normal distribution data) were performed.

RESULTS

Considering the total population of the study, in a different pharmacotherapeutic regimen, a median reduction in HbA1c of -0.86% (p < 0.05) was observed. After stratification by pharmacotherapeutic regimen, the most significant reduction of HbA1c was -1.07% (p = 0.014) for the linagliptin group associated with insulins and oral antidiabetic agents (n = 13). On the other hand, patients taking linagliptin in monotherapy had the lowest HbA1c reduction, -0.48% (p > 0.05). AE occurred in 12 (36.4%) patients, and 16.7% were in monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Linagliptin did not presented, in real world, the desired performance as showed in randomized premarketing clinical trials and it should be carefully evaluated in public health services.

Linagliptin safety profile: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To describe the safety profile of linagliptin.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic review using PubMed/MEDLINE, BVS and Web of Science. The search strategy "Linagliptin" AND "safety" was used. The inclusion criteria were clinical trials with a control group composed of conventional DM2 pharmacotherapy.

RESULTS

We identified 16 studies, and the most frequent adverse events (AEs) were nasopharyngitis with linagliptin at 5 and 10mg in monotherapy (31.6% and 29.6%, respectively) and gastrointestinal events (>10.0%) with linagliptin in combination. Of the AEs, 14.9 (±3.1)% were associated with the use of linagliptin in monotherapy, and 17.6 (±6.0)% in combination. The linagliptin AEs have a varied occurrence and frequency, ranging from mild to moderate intensity.

Safety and Tolerability of Combinations of Empagliflozin and Linagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Pooled Data from Two Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Two 52-week Phase III studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily combinations of empagliflozin/linagliptin as monotherapy or add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). The aim of this analysis was to further assess the safety and tolerability of empagliflozin/linagliptin compared with their individual components in patients with T2DM, using pooled data from these trials.

METHODS

A total of 1363 patients were treated with empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg (n = 273), empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg (n = 272), empagliflozin 25 mg (n = 276), empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 275), or linagliptin 5 mg (n = 267). Adverse events (AEs) were assessed descriptively in patients who took ≥ 1 dose of study drug.

RESULTS

Total exposure was 251, 255, 256, 249, and 243 patient-years in the empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg, and linagliptin 5 mg groups, respectively. The proportion of patients with ≥ 1 AE was similar across groups (70.4-74.9%). The percentage of patients with confirmed hypoglycemic AEs (plasma glucose ≤ 70 mg/dL and/or requiring assistance) was low in all groups (1.1-2.2%); none required assistance. Events consistent with urinary tract infection were reported in similar percentages of patients in all groups (11.4-13.8%), and in a greater proportion of female than male patients. Events consistent with genital infection were reported in higher percentages of patients on empagliflozin/linagliptin or empagliflozin (4.0-6.5%) than linagliptin 5 mg (2.6%), and in a greater proportion of females than males. The risks of hypersensitivity reactions and events consistent with volume depletion were low across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Empagliflozin/linagliptin as monotherapy or add-on to metformin for 52 weeks was well tolerated in patients with T2DM, with safety profiles similar to individual components, including a low risk of hypoglycemia.

FUNDING

The Boehringer Ingelheim & Eli Lilly and Company Diabetes Alliance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT01422876 & NCT01422876.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin according to patient baseline characteristics: A pooled analysis of three phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed to determine if patient baseline characteristics affect responses to linagliptin and identify relevant predictors of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data were pooled from three 24-week, placebo-controlled trials of similar design (linagliptin, n = 1651; placebo, n = 607). Patients were categorized according to baseline characteristics: age, T2DM duration, gender, body mass index (BMI), Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), and metabolic syndrome (MetS). Changes from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks were assessed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The proportion of patients with baseline HbA1c >7% achieving HbA1c of ≤7% at week 24 were evaluated. Independent predictors of HbA1c response with linagliptin were analyzed in a multivariate analysis with ANCOVA. Linagliptin treatment led to significant mean (SE) placebo-corrected reductions from baseline in HbA1c across all subgroups (-0.42% [±0.11] to -0.79% [0.08]; all p < 0.001). Within subgroups, HbA1c reduction was more pronounced in patients without MetS (-0.74% [0.06]; treatment interaction p = 0.0489). The proportion of patients with baseline HbA1c >7% achieving a target HbA1c ≤7% was greater with linagliptin versus placebo (30.2% vs 11.5%; odds ratio 3.82; 95% CI 2.82 to 5.17; p < 0.001). Characteristics significantly predicting HbA1c reductions after 24 weeks were fasting plasma glucose and race (both p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This post-hoc analysis supports that linagliptin achieved clinically meaningful improvements in hyperglycemia in patients with diverse clinical characteristics. These improvements were more pronounced in patients without MetS.

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.

Implications of incretin-based therapies on cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Incretin-based therapies offer another treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes. Agents that provide glycaemic control in addition to attenuating cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors are important for diabetes management. This review will focus on the off-target effects of incretin-based therapies on CVD risk factors [body weight, blood pressure (BP), lipid profile and albuminuria], major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), heart failure (HF) and beta-cell preservation.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify English-language publications for incretin-based therapies evaluating the following off-target end-points: body weight, BP, lipid profile, albuminuria, MACE, HF and beta-cell function. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were prioritised as the primary source of information.

RESULTS

Overall, incretin-based therapies have shown beneficial effects on CVD risk factors, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists appear to have a more pronounced effect compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. RCTs are being conducted to determine if these positive effects on CVD risk factors translate to a reduction in MACE. To date, these studies have not shown an increase in MACE. A signal of increased hospitalisations for HF was observed with saxagliptin, warranting continued evaluation and vigilance in high-risk patients. In addition, incretin-based therapies have shown positive effects on measures of beta-cell function supporting their durability in the management of diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Incretin-based therapies are an important treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes, offering beneficial effects on CVD risk factors without increasing MACE.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin co-administered with low-dose metformin once daily versus high-dose metformin twice daily in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: a double-blind randomized trial

Introduction

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin + low-dose (LD) metformin once daily versus high-dose (HD) metformin twice daily in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

Patients (n = 689) were randomized (1:1) to double-blind treatment with linagliptin 5 mg + LD metformin (1000 mg) or HD metformin (2000 mg) for 14 weeks. Metformin was initiated at 500 mg/day and up-titrated within 2 weeks; the dose then remained unchanged. The primary endpoint was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to Week 14 in patients who tolerated a daily metformin dose of ≥1000 mg after 2 weeks.

Results

At Week 14, HbA1c changed from a mean baseline of 8.0% (64 mmol/mol) by −0.99% (−11 mmol/mol) for linagliptin + LD metformin, and −0.98% (−11 mmol/mol) for HD metformin [treatment difference −0.01% (95% confidence interval −0.13, 0.12) (0 mmol/mol), P = 0.8924]. The proportion of patients who achieved HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) without occurrence of moderate or severe gastrointestinal (GI) events (including abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and decreased appetite) was the same in both groups (51.3% for both). Although the occurrence of moderate or severe GI events was similar, the linagliptin + LD metformin group had fewer mild GI events (18.5% versus 24.3%). The incidence of hypoglycemia was low in both groups.

Conclusion

Linagliptin + LD metformin combination showed similar efficacy and safety to HD metformin. This combination may be an alternative treatment option in patients who may have difficulty tolerating metformin doses >1000 mg/day.

Funding

Boehringer Ingelheim.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0195-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Initial combination of empagliflozin and linagliptin in subjects with type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin/linagliptin in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Subjects not receiving antidiabetes therapy for ≥12 weeks were randomized to empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg (n = 137), empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg (n = 136), empagliflozin 25 mg (n = 135), empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 134), or linagliptin 5 mg (n = 135) for 52 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24.

RESULTS

Mean HbA1c at baseline was 7.99-8.05% (64 mmol/mol). At week 24, adjusted mean (SE) changes from baseline in HbA1c with empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg, and linagliptin 5 mg were -1.08 (0.06)% (-11.8 [0.7] mmol/mol), -1.24 (0.06)% (-13.6 [0.7] mmol/mol), -0.95 (0.06)% (-10.4 [0.7] mmol/mol), -0.83 (0.06)% (-9.1 [0.7] mmol/mol), and -0.67 (0.06)% (-7.3 [0.7] mmol/mol), respectively. Reductions in HbA1c were significantly greater for empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg compared with linagliptin 5 mg (P < 0.001) but not compared with empagliflozin 25 mg and were significantly greater for empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg compared with the individual components (P < 0.001 for both). At week 24, 55.4%, 62.3%, 41.5%, 38.8%, and 32.3% of subjects with baseline HbA1c ≥7% (≥53 mmol/mol) reached HbA1c <7% with empagliflozin 25 mg/linagliptin 5 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg/linagliptin 5 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg, and linagliptin 5 mg, respectively. Efficacy was maintained at week 52. The proportion of subjects with adverse events (AEs) over 52 weeks was similar across groups (68.9-81.5%), with no confirmed hypoglycemic AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Reductions from baseline in HbA1c with empagliflozin/linagliptin were significantly different versus linagliptin and empagliflozin 10 mg but not versus empagliflozin 25 mg. Empagliflozin/linagliptin was well tolerated.

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

INTRODUCTION

Established treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have side effects that limit their use in specific populations. New therapies with improved safety profiles are needed, especially because of the chronic and progressive nature of T2DM.

AREAS COVERED

This review describes the overall safety and tolerability of linagliptin--a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor that improves glycemic control without increasing risk for hypoglycemia and without weight gain. Specifically, the safety of linagliptin is evaluated in difficult-to-treat patients with T2DM, in relation to risk of cardiovascular (CV) events and acute pancreatitis, and in comparison with other antihyperglycemic drugs.

EXPERT OPINION

Linagliptin is generally well tolerated in a broad range of patient populations. It can be used in patients with renal impairment without dose titration and may be a rational alternative treatment in this vulnerable population. Ongoing long-term trials are fully evaluating the CV and renal safety profile of linagliptin.

Evidence-based practice use of incretin-based therapy in the natural history of diabetes

The incretin class of anti-hyperglycemic agents, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-inhibitors, is an important addition to the therapeutic armamentarium for the management of appropriate patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as an adjunct to diet and exercise and/or with the agents metformin, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, or any combination thereof. More recently, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications for incretins were expanded to include use with basal insulin. This review article takes an evidence-based practice approach in discussing the importance of aggressive treatment for diabetes, the principles of incretin physiology and pathophysiology, use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and patient types and contexts where incretin therapy has been found beneficial, from metabolic syndrome to overt diabetes.

Linagliptin: from bench to bedside

PURPOSE

The nature of biomedical research affords a broad range of investigational topics at the preclinical stage, not all of which may be explored in subsequent clinical studies. To provide a comprehensive perspective on the physiologic effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin, this review will discuss the results of both preclinical and clinical research, summarizing data describing outcomes associated with its use.

SUMMARY

Clinical studies demonstrate an overall favorable safety profile, low risk for hypoglycemia, weight neutrality, primarily nonrenal clearance, and efficacy for glycosylated hemoglobin reduction, typically ranging from 0.6% to 0.8% depending on baseline levels. In addition to these characteristics, preclinical research on linagliptin has yielded several interesting findings such as improved wound healing, reduced hepatic fat content, decreased infarct size following myocardial infarction or intracranial stroke, and improved vascular function with decreased oxidative stress. In accordance with its preclinical profile, linagliptin is unique among available dipeptidyl peptidase-4 compounds because it does not require dose adjustment when used in patients with renal dysfunction. Reduction of albuminuria with linagliptin on top of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in both preclinical and post hoc clinical analysis serves as the foundation for ongoing clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

In addition to its efficacy for glycemic control, current literature points to other potential opportunities associated with linagliptin therapy. These results warrant further investigation and underscore the importance of translational study based on findings from preclinical research. Moving forward, we can expect that future research on linagliptin and other incretin-based therapies will continue to expand their applications beyond the maintenance of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Dapagliflozin maintains glycaemic control while reducing weight and body fat mass over 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin

AIMS

Dapagliflozin, a highly selective inhibitor of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), reduces hyperglycaemia and weight in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by increasing urinary glucose excretion. Long-term glycaemic control, body composition and bone safety were evaluated in patients with T2DM after 102 weeks of dapagliflozin treatment.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT00855166) enrolled patients with T2DM [mean: age 60.7 years; HbA1c 7.2%; body mass index (BMI) 31.9 kg/m(2) ; body weight 91.5 kg] inadequately controlled on metformin. Patients (N = 182) were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo added to open-label metformin for a 24-week double-blind treatment period followed by a 78-week site- and patient-blinded extension period. At week 102, changes from baseline in HbA1c, weight, waist circumference, total body fat mass as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), serum markers of bone turnover, bone mineral density (BMD) as measured by DXA, and adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients (76.9%) completed the study. Over 102 weeks, dapagliflozin-treated patients showed reductions in HbA1c by -0.3%, weight by -4.54 kg, waist circumference by -5.0 cm and fat mass by -2.80 kg without increase in rate of hypoglycaemia. Compared with placebo, no meaningful changes from baseline in markers of bone turnover or BMD were identified over 102 weeks. One fracture occurred in each treatment group. The frequency of urinary tract infection (UTI) and genital infection was similar in both treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Over 102 weeks, dapagliflozin improved glycaemic control, and reduced weight and fat mass, without affecting markers of bone turnover or BMD in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on metformin.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin in Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a pooled analysis from six randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 trials

OBJECTIVE

The number of individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus is expected to rise disproportionately in Hispanic/Latino populations. We therefore aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin specifically in Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data from 745 patients who self-identified their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino were pooled from six randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials. Participants received linagliptin (5 mg/day) or placebo as monotherapy, or in combination with other oral antidiabetes drugs for 18 or 24 weeks.

RESULTS

The placebo-adjusted mean change (95% CI) in glycated hemoglobin from baseline (mean 8.2%) was -0.63% (-0.77 to -0.48; p<0.0001) at week 18, and -0.58% (-0.74 to -0.42; p<0.0001) at week 24. The placebo-adjusted mean change (95% CI) in fasting plasma glucose from baseline was -11.7 mg/dL (-19.3 to -4.0; p=0.0028) at week 18 and -14.1 mg/dL (-22.0 to -6.3; p=0.0004) at week 24. Hypoglycemia incidence was 17.4% with linagliptin and 21% with placebo. In patients not receiving concomitant sulfonylurea, the hypoglycemia incidence was 10.1% with linagliptin and 19.4% with placebo. The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs), drug-related AEs, and serious AEs with linagliptin was similar to placebo (AEs 67.6% vs 68.9%; drug-related AEs 15.1% vs 18.7%; serious AEs 3.6% vs 3.0%). The mean body weight remained unchanged in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In Hispanic/Latino patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus, linagliptin provided clinically meaningful improvements in glycemic control without weight gain or increased risk of hypoglycemia.

Linagliptin added to sulphonylurea in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes patients with moderate-to-severe renal impairment

Glucose-lowering treatment options are limited for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with advanced stages of renal impairment (RI). This retrospective analysis evaluated glycaemic efficacy and tolerability of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin added to sulphonylurea. Three randomized phase 3 studies (n = 619) including T2DM subjects with moderate or severe RI [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²] were analysed; only sulphonylurea-treated subjects who received additional linagliptin (n = 58) or placebo (n = 33) were evaluated. Linagliptin provided meaningful placebo-adjusted HbA1c reductions of -0.68% (95% confidence interval: -1.19, -0.17), -1.08% (-2.02, -0.14) and -0.62% (-1.25, 0.01) after 24, 18 and 12 weeks, respectively. There was a similar incidence of overall adverse events (linagliptin: 79.3%, placebo: 75.8%) and hypoglycaemia (linagliptin: 37.9%, placebo: 39.4%). Severe hypoglycaemia was more common with placebo (linagliptin: 1.7%, placebo: 6.1%). These data suggest that linagliptin is a safe and effective glucose-lowering treatment in T2DM patients with moderate-to-severe RI for whom sulphonylurea treatment is no longer sufficient.

Incretin-based therapies: focus on effects beyond glycemic control alone

Type 2 diabetes is associated with a high prevalence of comorbidities resulting from hypertension, dyslipidemia, and hyperglycemia. Inadequate management of these risk factors will eventually result in detrimental health consequences. Thus, the effect of a drug on factors such as weight, cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, and adherence is important to consider. A review was undertaken of the recent medical literature describing the extraglycemic characteristics of the two classes of incretin-based therapies-glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. PubMed searches were performed to identify published data on incretin therapies that describe their effects on CV risk factors, CV events, and factors related to medication adherence. The maintenance or loss of weight associated with the use of GLP-1RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors is well described in the medical literature. These agents also appear to be associated with a modest decrease in blood pressure and a reduced risk of CV events. In addition, several characteristics of incretin therapies may improve rates of medication adherence, such as generally favorable tolerability profiles (particularly with DPP-4 inhibitors), the availability of formulations that simplify treatment regimens, and a low risk for hypoglycemia. The literature on incretin therapies describes a number of clinical characteristics that are relevant to the management of extraglycemic risk factors. As part of a holistic treatment strategy, these properties constitute important considerations for tailoring therapy to individual patients with type 2 diabetes.

Novel therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: Part 2. Addressing the incretin defect in the clinical setting in 2013

The present short review summarizes and updates clinical experience with two classes of drugs introduced for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus over the past 8 years: (i) the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists; and (ii) the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. Both classes of agents address the so called "incretin defect" in patients with T2DM.

Clinical utility of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have emerged as new options in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, demonstrating meaningful antihyperglycemic effects and good tolerability profiles. Glycemic control is improved by preventing the DPP-4-mediated degradation of incretin hormones, with a resulting increase in insulin secretion and inhibition of glucagon secretion.

PURPOSE

This article provides a discussion of the clinical utility of linagliptin.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Linagliptin is a xanthine-based, oral DPP-4 inhibitor that has been approved in the United States and Europe. It has been evaluated extensively in clinical trials, and results in improved glycemic control when used as monotherapy, initial combination therapy with metformin or pioglitazone, add-on therapy to metformin and/or a sulfonylurea, or add-on therapy to basal insulin (with or without oral antidiabetic drugs). Consistent with other members of its class, the benefits of linagliptin also include a low risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. However, linagliptin is the first DPP-4 inhibitor to be approved as a once-daily, 5-mg dose and, due to its primarily non-renal route of excretion, no dosage adjustment is required for patients with renal or hepatic impairment. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of linagliptin are not affected to a clinically meaningful degree by race or ethnicity and linagliptin has very low potential for drug-drug interactions.

Effect of vildagliptin on glucose and insulin concentrations during a 24-hour period in type 2 diabetes patients with different ranges of baseline hemoglobin A1c levels

BACKGROUND

Currently, it is still unknown whether differences in glycemic control have any effect on glucose and insulin kinetics after vildagliptin administration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of vildagliptin on glucose and insulin concentrations during a 24-h period in type 2 diabetes patients with different ranges of baseline hemoglobin A1c (A1C) levels.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled clinical trial was carried out in 12 drug-naive adult volunteers with type 2 diabetes and overweight or obesity. Subjects had fasting glucose values between 7.2 and 13.3 mmol/L. Six patients had A1C between 7.0% and 8.4% (Group A), and the remaining subjects had A1C between 8.5% and 10.0% (Group B). Patients received oral administration of vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) or placebo in a crossover manner for two consecutive days. Until the second day of the interventions, glucose and insulin concentrations were measured every hour during a 24-h period, and areas under the curve (AUCs) were calculated. Statistical analyses were evaluated with Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

There were significant decreases in glucose concentrations after vildagliptin administration in both groups when comparing placebo in all measurements throughout the 24-h period and in the AUC. There were no significant changes in insulin concentration in both groups after vildagliptin administration when comparing placebo in all measurements throughout the 24-h period and in the AUC.

CONCLUSIONS

Vildagliptin administration improved glucose control during a 24-h period in type 2 diabetes patients, independent of the basal A1C level, without changes in insulin levels.

Linagliptin: farmacology, efficacy and safety in type 2 diabetes treatment

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has a high prevalence and incidence around the world. The complex pathophysiology mechanism is among the barriers for diabetes treatment. Type 2 diabetes patients have dysfunction in incretin hormones (as glucagon-like peptide-1 or GLP-1, and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide or GIP). By inhibiting the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) enzyme, it is possible to slow the inactivation of GLP-1 and GIP, promoting blood glucose level reduction in a glucose-dependent manner. Linagliptin is a highly specific and potent inhibitor of DPP-4 that is currently indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Clinical studies with linagliptin demonstrated efficacy in reducing glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in type 2 diabetes patients, while maintaining a placebo-like safety and tolerability profile. Linagliptin has an interesting pharmacokinetic profile in terms of its predominantly non-renal elimination and the main implication of this characteristic is that no dose adjustment is necessary in patients with renal disease. Also, no dose adjustment is required in patients with hepatic insufficiency, as well in elderly or obese patients. This article will review the pharmacokinetic profile, efficacy data and safety aspects of linagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients.

Linagliptin is more effective than glimepiride at achieving a composite outcome of target HbA₁c < 7% with no hypoglycaemia and no weight gain over 2 years

Linagliptin treatment for 104 weeks was recently reported to achieve non-inferior glucose-lowering effects compared with glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. Additional analyses from this randomised, active-controlled, double-blind trial have been performed in individuals completing the study on study drug without requiring rescue therapy. In this population, significantly more patients receiving linagliptin achieved HbA1c < 7% without hypoglycaemia and without body weight gain after 2 years compared with those receiving glimepiride (54% and 23%, respectively; odds ratio of 3.9, 95% confidence interval 2.6-5.7, p < 0.0001).

Linagliptin: a review of its use in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Linagliptin (Trajenta®, Tradjenta™, Trazenta™, Trayenta™) is an oral, highly selective inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 and is the first agent of its class to be eliminated predominantly via a nonrenal route. Linagliptin is indicated for once-daily use for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and a twice-daily fixed-dose combination of linagliptin/metformin (Jentadueto®) is also available. In this article, the pharmacological, clinical efficacy and tolerability data relevant to the use of linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes are reviewed. The efficacy of oral linagliptin in the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes has been investigated in several double-blind, multicentre trials. Following 12-24 weeks of treatment, improvements in glycaemic control parameters, including glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c); primary endpoint in all trials), were seen with linagliptin relative to placebo when used as monotherapy, initial combination therapy (with metformin or pioglitazone) or add-on therapy to other oral antihyperglycaemia agents (metformin and/or a sulfonylurea) or basal insulin (with or without metformin and/or pioglitazone). In terms of lowering HbA(1c), linagliptin was more effective than voglibose in a 26-week monotherapy trial and noninferior to glimepiride when used as add-on therapy to metformin in a 104-week study. Additional trials and subgroup analyses of pooled data suggest that linagliptin improves glycaemic control regardless of factors such as age, duration of type 2 diabetes, ethnicity and renal function, and as linagliptin is eliminated primarily via a nonrenal route, it can be used without dosage adjustment in patients with renal impairment of any degree. Oral linagliptin was generally well tolerated and was associated with a low likelihood of hypoglycaemia (except when used in combination with a sulfonylurea) and had little effect on bodyweight. Further long-term and comparative efficacy and tolerability data are required to help position linagliptin more definitively with respect to other antihyperglycaemia agents. However, clinical data currently available indicate that linagliptin is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment option for use in patients with type 2 diabetes, including those with renal impairment for whom other antihyperglycaemia agents require dosage adjustment or are not suitable.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily versus 5 mg once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is often not achieved or not sustained using monotherapy such as metformin, necessitating the addition of other antihyperglycaemic agents. Linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, is licensed for 5 mg once-daily dosing. As metformin is administered twice daily, a fixed-dose combination of these compounds would require twice-daily administration of linagliptin. This study evaluated whether 2.5 mg twice-daily dosing of linagliptin has comparable efficacy and safety to 5 mg once-daily dosing when given in addition to metformin twice daily in patients with inadequate glycaemic control.

METHODS

A total of 491 T2DM patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.0-10.0% were randomised (5:5:1) to double-blind treatment with linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily, 5 mg once daily or placebo, respectively, in addition to continuing metformin twice daily (≥1500 mg/day or maximally tolerated dose). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c after 12 weeks. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01012037.

RESULTS

Mean baseline HbA1c for all patients was 7.97%. After 12 weeks, linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily and 5 mg once daily both significantly reduced HbA1c (placebo-adjusted changes from baseline -0.74% (95% CI -0.97, -0.52) and -0.80% (95% CI -1.02, -0.58), respectively, both p<0.0001). The treatment difference (twice daily-once daily) between the linagliptin regimens was 0.06 (95% CI -0.07, 0.19), the upper bound of which was less than the predefined noninferiority margin (0.35%). The overall incidence of adverse events with linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily, 5 mg once daily and placebo was 43.0%, 34.8%, and 38.6% respectively. Hypoglycaemia was rare (3.1% with linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily, 0.9% with 5 mg once daily, 2.3% with placebo) with no severe episodes. Study limitations include duration, patient population (mainly white) and absence of postprandial glucose data.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily had non-inferior HbA1c-lowering effects after 12 weeks compared to 5 mg once daily, with comparable safety and tolerability, in T2DM patients inadequately controlled with metformin.