A randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of twice-daily saxagliptin plus metformin combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy

Cost-effectiveness of a self-management and comprehensive training intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes up to 5 years of diagnosis in a specialized hospital in Mexico City

INTRODUCTION

To assess the cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary and comprehensive innovative diabetes care program (CAIPaDi) versus usual treatment in public health institutions.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Using a cost-effectiveness analysis, we compared the CAIPaDi program versus usual treatment given in Mexican public health institutions. The analysis was based on the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model, a validated simulation model used to estimate long-term clinical outcomes. Data were prospectively obtained from the CAIPaDi program and from public databases and published papers. Health outcomes were expressed in terms of life-years gained and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health and economic outcomes were estimated from a public perspective and discounted at 5% per year over a 20-year horizon. Costs are reported in US dollars (US$) of 2019. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using life-years gained and QALYs.

RESULTS

The CAIPaDi costs on average US$559 (95% CI: -$879 to -$239) less than the usual treatment (95% CI: -$879 to -$239) and produced a difference in mean life-years gained (0.48, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.52) and mean QALYs (1.43, 95% CI: 1.40 to 1.46). The cost-effectiveness ratio resulted in a saving per life-year gained of -US$1155 (95% CI: -$1962 to -$460). Mean differences in QALYs resulted in a saving per QALY of -US$735 (95% CI: -$1193 to -$305). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis proved the results are robust on both life-years gained and QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

CAIPaDi has a better cost-effectiveness ratio than the usual therapy in Mexican public health institutions.

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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Network meta-analysis of lorcaserin and oral hypoglycaemics for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and obesity

In addition to weight loss, randomized controlled trials have shown improvement in glycaemic control in patients taking lorcaserin. The aim of this study aim was to compare adding lorcaserin or other glucose lowering medications to metformin on weight and glycaemic control. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials were conducted. Included studies (published 1990-2014) were of lorcaserin or glucose lowering medications in type 2 diabetic patients compared to placebo or different active treatments. Studies had to report ≥1 key outcome (change in weight or HbA1c, % HbA1c <7, hypoglycaemia). Direct meta-analysis was performed using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models, and network meta-analysis with Bayesian Markov-chain Monte Carlo random effects models; 6552 articles were screened and 41 included. Lorcaserin reduced weight significantly more than thiazolidinediones, glinides, sulphonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, some of which may have led to weight gain. There were no significant differences in weight change between lorcaserin and alpha-glucoside inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Network meta-analysis showed lorcaserin was non-inferior to all other agents on HbA1c reduction and % achieving HbA1c of <7%. The risk of hypoglycaemia was not significantly different among studied agents except that sulphonylureas were associated with higher risk of hypoglycaemia than lorcaserin. Although additional studies are needed, this analysis suggests in a population of patients with a body mas index of ≥27 who do not achieve glycaemic control on a single agent, lorcaserin may be added as an alternative to an add-on glucose lowering medication.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Treatment Strategy for Type 2 Diabetes with Obesity: Focus on Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists

PURPOSE

The progressive nature of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) calls for step-wise intensification of therapy for maintaining normal glycemic levels and lowering cardiovascular (CV) risk. Because obesity is a prominent risk factor and comorbidity of T2DM, it further elevates the CV risk in T2DM. Therefore, it is vital to manage weight, obesity, and glycemic parameters for effective T2DM management. Few oral antidiabetic drugs (sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones) and insulin are not suitable for obese patients with T2DM because these drugs cause weight gain. The present review discusses the place of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) in the treatment of obese patients with T2DM and the significance of these drugs in the prevention of future CV risk in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

A literature search of PubMed and EMBASE was conducted by using the search terms T2DM, GLP-1RAs, obesity, and cardiovascular complication. Randomized controlled trials measuring the effect of GLP-1RAs versus that of placebo on CV outcomes were included in the review.

FINDINGS

GLP-1RAs have emerged as a therapeutic alternative; these drugs exert their actions by providing glycemic control, improving insulin resistance and ö̇-cell function, and reducing weight. The risk of hypoglycemia with GLP-1RAs is minimal; however, GLP-1RAs are associated with gastrointestinal adverse events and raise concerns regarding pancreatitis. Combining GLP-1RAs with insulin analogues results in higher efficacy, a lowered insulin dose, and reduced insulin-related hypoglycemia and weight gain. Longer acting GLP-1RAs are also associated with improvement in medication adherence. Improvement in CV risk factors such as blood pressure and lipid profile further increases their usability for improving CV outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

Overall, the properties of GLP-1RAs make them suitable for combination with oral antidiabetic drugs in the early stages of T2DM and with insulins in the later stages for optimizing comprehensive management of the disease.

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.

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.

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of antidiabetic drug regimens added to metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis

Introduction

When first line therapy with metformin is insufficient for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the optimal adjunctive therapy is unclear. We assessed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive antidiabetic agents in patients with inadequately controlled T2D on metformin alone.

Materials and Methods

A search of MEDLINE and CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, regulatory websites was performed. We included randomized controlled trials of 3–12 months duration, evaluating Food and Drug Administration or European Union approved agents (noninsulin and long acting, once daily basal insulins) in patients experiencing inadequate glycemic control with metformin monotherapy (≥1500 mg daily or maximally tolerated dose for ≥4 weeks). Random-effects network meta-analyses were used to compare the weighted mean difference for changes from baseline in HbA1c, body weight (BW) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), and the risk of developing hypoglycemia, urinary (UTI) and genital tract infection (GTI).

Results

Sixty-two trials evaluating 25 agents were included. All agents significantly reduced HbA1c vs. placebo; albeit not to the same extent (range, 0.43% for miglitol to 1.29% for glibenclamide). Glargine, sulfonylureas (SUs) and nateglinide were associated with increased hypoglycemia risk vs. placebo (range, 4.00–11.67). Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs, miglitol and empagliflozin/linagliptin significantly reduced BW (range, 1.15–2.26kg) whereas SUs, thiazolindinediones, glargine and alogliptin/pioglitazone caused weight gain (range, 1.19–2.44kg). SGLT2 inhibitors, empagliflozin/linagliptin, liraglutide and sitagliptin decreased SBP (range, 1.88–5.43mmHg). No therapy increased UTI risk vs. placebo; however, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of GTI (range, 2.16–8.03).

Conclusions

Adding different AHAs to metformin was associated with varying effects on HbA1c, BW, SBP, hypoglycemia, UTI and GTI which should impact clinician choice when selecting adjunctive therapy.

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

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

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Assessment of the cardiovascular safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: pooled analysis of 20 clinical trials

BACKGROUND

It is important to establish the cardiovascular (CV) safety profile of novel antidiabetic drugs.

METHODS

Pooled analyses were performed of 20 randomized controlled studies (N = 9156) of saxagliptin as monotherapy or add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as well as a subset of 11 saxagliptin + metformin studies. Adjudicated major adverse CV events (MACE; CV death, myocardial infarction [MI], and stroke) and investigator-reported heart failure were assessed, and incidence rates (IRs; events/100 patient-years) and IR ratios (IRRs; saxagliptin/control) were calculated (Mantel-Haenszel method).

RESULTS

In pooled datasets, the IR point estimates for MACE and individual components of CV death, MI, and stroke favored saxagliptin, but the 95% CI included 1. IRR (95% CI) for MACE in the 20-study pool was 0.74 (0.45, 1.25). The Cox proportional hazard ratio (95% CI) was 0.75 (0.46, 1.21), suggesting no increased risk of MACE in the 20-study pool. In the 11-study saxagliptin + metformin pool, the IRR for MACE was 0.93 (0.44, 1.99). In the 20-study pool, the IRR for heart failure was 0.55 (0.27, 1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of pooled data from 20 clinical trials in patients with T2DM suggests that saxagliptin is not associated with an increased CV risk.