A randomized controlled clinical trial of vildagliptin plus metformin combination therapy in patients with type II diabetes mellitus

Choice across 10 pharmacologic combination strategies for type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend a stepped-escalation treatment strategy for type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Across multiple treatment strategies varying in efficacy and costs, no clinical or economic studies directly compared them. This study aims to estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of 10 commonly used pharmacologic combination strategies for T2DM.

METHODS

Based on Chinese guideline and practice, 10 three-stepwise add-on strategies were identified, which start with metformin, then switch to metformin plus one oral drug (i.e., sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, α-glucosidase inhibitor, glinide, or DPP-4 inhibitor) as second line, and finally switch to metformin plus one injection (i.e., insulin or GLP-1 receptor agonist) as third line. A cohort of 10,000 Chinese patients with newly diagnosed T2DM was established. From a healthcare system perspective, the Cardiff model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the strategies, with clinical data sourced from a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison of 324 trials, costs from claims data of 1164 T2DM patients, and utilities from an EQ-5D study. Outcome measures include costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and net monetary benefits (NMBs).

RESULTS

Over 40-year simulation, the costs accumulated for a patient ranged from $7661 with strategy 1 to $14,273 with strategy 10, while the QALY gains ranged from 13.965 with strategy 1 to 14.117 with strategy 8. Strategy 7 was dominant over seven strategies (strategies 2~6, 9~10) with higher QALYs but lower costs. Additionally, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,787/QALY (i.e., 3 times GDP/capita for China), strategy 7 was cost-effective compared with strategy 1 (ICER of strategy 7 vs. 1, $3371/QALY) and strategy 8 (ICER of strategy 8 vs. 7, $132,790/QALY). Ranking the strategies by ICERs and NMBs, strategy 7 provided the best value for money when compared to all other strategies, followed by strategies 5, 9, 8, 1, 3, 6, 10, 2, and 4. Scenario analyses showed that patients insist on pharmacologic treatments increased their QALYs (0.456~0.653) at an acceptable range of cost increase (ICERs, $1450/QALY~$12,360/QALY) or even at cost saving compared with those not receive treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence-based references for diabetes management. Our findings can be used to design the essential drug formulary, infer clinical practice, and help the decision-maker design reimbursement policy.

High-Throughput Algorithm for Discovering New Drug Indications by Utilizing Large-Scale Electronic Medical Record Data

Drug repositioning is an effective way to mitigate the production problem in the pharmaceutical industry. Electronic medical record (EMR) databases harbor a large amount of data on drug prescriptions and laboratory test results and may thus be useful for finding new indications for existing drugs. Here, we present a novel high-throughput data-driven algorithm that identifies and prioritizes drug candidates that show significant effects on specific clinical indicators by utilizing large-scale EMR data. We chose four laboratory tests as clinical indicators: hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, triglycerides (TGs), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. From a 5-year EMR database, we generated datasets consisting of paired data with averaged measurement values during on and off each drug in each patient, adjusted for co-administered drug effects at each timepoint, and applied one sample t-test with the Bonferroni correction for statistical analysis. Among 1,774 drugs, 45 were associated with increases in HDL cholesterol, and 41, 146, and 65 were associated with reductions in HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, and TGs, respectively. We compared the list of candidate drugs with that of drugs indicated for relevant clinical conditions and found that the algorithm had high values for both sensitivity (range 0.95-1.00) and negative predictive value (range 0.95-1.00). Our algorithm was able to rediscover well-known drugs that are used for diabetes and dyslipidemia while revealing potential candidates without current indications but have shown promising results in the literature. Our algorithm may facilitate the repositioning of drugs with proven safety profiles.

Effect of combined gliclazide/metformin treatment on oxidative stress, lipid profile, and hepatorenal functions in type 2 diabetic patients

Background

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition that requires pharmacotherapy interventions. Metformin and gliclazide are widely used drugs in monotherapy. However, their complementary action made utilization of the combination of these drugs an appealing approach.

Aims

The study compared major therapeutic potentials of combined metformin/gliclazide treatment over metformin monotherapy based on the following parameters: oxidative stress, lipid profile, and hepatorenal functions.

Subjects and methods

This is a comparative study was conducted from March 2015 to March 2016. The study screened 80 type 2 diabetic patients, of which 40 patients underwent combined metformin + gliclazide therapy (500 mg BD + 80 mg OD, respectively). The other 40 were matched for age and duration of diabetes mellitus with the previous group and received metformin monotherapy (500 mg BD). The levels of fasting blood glucose (FBG), total glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), lipid peroxidation, total antioxidant capacity, serum creatinine, aspartate and alanine transaminases, total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoproteins, and low-density lipoproteins were measured according to the standard methods.

Results

Oxidative stress, lipid profile, and hepatorenal functions were comparable in patients of both groups. However, patients on metformin treatment showed significantly lower levels of FBG [7.61 (6.70–8.89) mmol/L vs. 9.00 (7.30–10.68) mmol/L; P = .022] and HBA1c [7.00 (6.40–7.65)% vs. 8.20 (7.20–9.75)%; P < .001] compared to those on combined therapy.

Conclusion

Oxidative stress, lipids profile, and hepatorenal functions were not different in patients who were on combined metformin/gliclazide therapy and compared to those metformin alone. In contrast, glycemic control was poor in the diabetic patients undergoing combined therapy.

A network meta-analysis for efficacy and safety of seven regimens in the treatment of type II diabetes

The efficacy and safety of seven regimens based on metformin (placebo plus metformin, dapagliflozin plus metformin, vildagliptin plus metformin, saxagliptin plus metformin, empagliflozin plus metformin, exenatide plus metformin and sitagliptin plus metformin) on type 2 diabetes (T2D) were compared based on network meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were applied in the computer-based retrieval process. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which were related with the above seven regimens based on metformin in the treatment of T2D were included in this study. Network meta-analysis merged the direct and indirect comparison evidence for the estimation of the weighted mean difference (WMD), odd ratios (ORs) and surface under the cumulative sequencing ranking curve (SUCRA) values. Eight eligible RCTs were applied in this network meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that: in terms of efficacy, the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of T2D patients receiving vildagliptin plus metformin were relatively lower when compared with placebo plus metformin (WMD=-1.95, 95%CI=-3.70--0.23); in comparison with exenatide plus metformin, the triglyceride level in T2D patients taking vildagliptin plus metformin remained relatively lower (WMD=-1.36, 95%CI=-2.64--0.01). In terms of safety, the rate of adverse events in patients with T2D who received empagliflozin plus metformin was relatively lower when compared with saxagliptin plus metformin (OR=0.37, 95%CI=0.14-0.98). Furthermore, the SUCRA value of vildagliptin plus metformin was comparatively higher in efficacy, and that the SUCRA value of saxagliptin plus metformin was relatively lower in safety. The efficacy of vildagliptin plus metformin in patients with T2D is relatively better, while the safety of saxagliptin plus metformin in patients with T2D is relatively poorer.

Evaluating the costs of glycemic response with canagliflozin versus dapagliflozin and empagliflozin as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Arab Emirates

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the cost of achieving glycemic control with three sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from the payer perspective in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials of antihyperglycemic agents as add-on to metformin in patients with T2DM of 26 ± 4 weeks in duration, published by 10 September 2014. A Bayesian network-meta analysis (NMA) compared HbA1c changes with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg versus dapagliflozin 10 mg and empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg. The cost associated with a 1% placebo-adjusted HbA1c reduction with each SGLT2 inhibitor as add-on to metformin was calculated based on NMA results and UAE drug costs.

RESULTS

In the NMA, canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg were associated with HbA1c reductions (-0.67% and -0.79%) compared with dapagliflozin 10 mg (-0.41%) and empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg (-0.57% and -0.64%). Probabilities of canagliflozin 100 mg performing better were 79%, 60%, and 53% versus dapagliflozin 10 mg and empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively; probabilities for canagliflozin 300 mg performing better were 88%, 72%, and 65%, respectively. The cost per 1%-point reduction in HbA1c was projected to be lower with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg ($448 and $422) compared with dapagliflozin 10 mg ($785) and empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg ($527 and $563).

CONCLUSIONS

Canagliflozin may provide a greater glycemic response at a lower effective cost than dapagliflozin or empagliflozin for patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin from the payer perspective in the UAE.

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.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin versus metformin uptitration in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: a randomized, open-label, prospective study (VISION)

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of combination of vildagliptin and metformin therapy with metformin uptitration in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) inadequately controlled with low-dose metformin.

METHODS

In this 24-week prospective, randomized, multicentre, open-label study, patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin ≤1000 mg daily were divided 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 into four prespecified subgroups based on age and body mass index (BMI). Patients in each subgroup were randomized 5 : 1 to receive either vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) plus metformin [500 mg twice daily; vildagliptin and low-dose metformin (VLDM) group] or metformin uptitration [1000 mg twice daily; high-dose metformin (HDM) group]. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline at week 24. The key secondary endpoints included percentage of patients achieving target HbA1c without adverse gastrointestinal (GI) events and mean change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

A total of 3084 patients were randomized. HbA1c reduction of 0.54% at week 24 in the VLDM group was non-inferior and statistically superior compared with 0.40% in the HDM group (P < 0.0001). VLDM's non-inferiority to HDM was confirmed in the four subgroups and its superiority was shown for all subgroups (p < 0.05) except for the subgroup of patients aged <60 years with a BMI of ≥24 kg/m(2) . Compared with HDM, VLDM significantly increased the percentage of patients achieving HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c ≤6.5% without GI events. FPG levels in the VLDM group were lower at week 24 numerically than in the HDM group. The two treatment arms had similar safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

VLDM was non-inferior and statistically superior to HDM in glycaemic control in Chinese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with low-dose metformin.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of vildagliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an update on the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We searched MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE and the drug manufacturer's website for randomised controlled trials of vildagliptin in patients with T2DM. Sixty-nine studies (28,006 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo vildagliptin reduced HbA1c (weighted mean difference WMD -0.69 %; 95 % CI -0.83 to -0.56 %; I (2) = 82 %), and it was as effective as other antidiabetic agents (WMD -0.01 %; 95 % CI -0.16 to 0.14 %; I (2) = 93 %), without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia (OR 0.83; 95 % CI 0.59 to 1.16; I (2) = 0 % vs. placebo, and OR 0.19; 95 % CI 0.15 to 0.24; I (2) = 78 % versus active comparators). However, it was associated with an increase in the incidence of arthralgia compared with other comparators (OR 1.23; 95 % CI 1.02 to 1.48; I (2) = 0 %). On the contrary, vildagliptin did not increase the incidence of pancreatitis (OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.37 to 2.53; I (2) = 0 %), serious adverse events (OR 0.98; 95 % CI 0.88 to 1.09; I (2) = 0 %) or death (OR 1.10, 95 % CI 0.75 to 1.61; I (2) = 0 %). Finally, odds ratio (OR) for heart failure, and overall cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 0.77 (95 % CI 0.46 to 1.30; I (2) = 0 %) and 0.91 (95 % CI 0.73 to 1.14; I (2) = 0 %), respectively. Vildagliptin is an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with T2DM, both as monotherapy and as add-on treatment.