Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, combined with metformin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a 16-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial

Comparison of teneligliptin and other gliptin-based regimens in addressing insulin resistance and glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of teneligliptin-based regimens and other gliptin-based regimens with respect to insulin resistance and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We enrolled T2DM subjects, inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride and taking one of the gliptins, and divided them into two groups, i.e. group 1 (teneligliptin-based regimens) and group 2 (other gliptin-based regimens). Fasting plasma insulin, adiponectin levels, homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and fasting blood glucose (FBG) were measured and compared. Costs of different gliptins were noted, and mean cost of per day therapy was compared.

RESULTS

Eighty-six subjects participated in this study (43 each in group 1 and group 2). No significant differences were observed in FBG, HbA1c, insulin levels, and HOMA-IR, but the trend was in favor of teneligliptin-based regimens. A significantly higher number of subjects achieved HbA1c target in group 1 (P < 0.001). Teneligliptin had significantly lower cost of per day therapy as compared to other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Teneligliptin seems to be cost-effective and safer option in T2DM subjects who were not adequately controlled with metformin and sulfonylureas. However, further prospective studies are needed.

Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

As a popular antidiabetic drug, teneligliptin has been used for over 10 years, but its efficacy and safety have rarely been systematically evaluated. Therefore, a Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing teneligliptin with placebo or active comparators in T2DM patients for at least 12 weeks were included in the study. Data analysis was performed using R 4.2.3 and Stata 17.0 software. Each outcome was presented as a mean difference (MD) or an odds ratio (OR) along with 95% confidence interval (CI) and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve value (SUCRA).

Results

A total of 18 RCTs with 3,290 participants with T2DM were included in this study. Generally, compared to placebo, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, and bromocriptine, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.78 [-0.86 to -0.70], -0.08 [-0.36 to 0.19], -0.04 [-0.72 to 0.60], -0.12 [-0.65 to 0.42], and -0.50 [-0.74 to -0.26], respectively) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (MD [95% CI], -18.02 [-20.64 to -15.13], 1.17 [-9.39 to 11.70], -8.06 [-30.95 to 14.35], -2.75 [-18.89 to 13.01], and -34.23 [-45.93 to -22.96], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin also showed better efficacy in reducing HbA1c (MD [95% CI], -0.84 [-1.03 to -0.65], -0.15 [-0.49 to 0.19], -0.10 [-0.81 to 0.57], -0.18 [-0.76 to 0.39], and -0.56 [-0.88 to -0.26], respectively) and FPG (MD [95% CI], -20.40 [-26.07 to -14.57], -1.20 [-13.21 to 10.38], -10.43 [-34.16 to 12.65], -5.13 [-22.21 to 11.66], and -36.61 [-49.33 to -24.01], respectively). Compared to placebo, 20 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidences of hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal adverse events (OR [95% CI], 1.30 [0.70 to 2.19] and 1.48 [0.78 to 2.98], respectively), and 40 mg of teneligliptin showed no significant difference in incidence of hypoglycemia (OR [95% CI], 2.63 [0.46 to 8.10]). Generally, antidiabetic effect and hypoglycemia risk of teneligliptin gradually increased as its dose increased from 5 mg to 40 mg. Compared to 20 mg of teneligliptin, 40 mg of teneligliptin showed superior efficacy and no-inferior safety, which was considered as the best option in reducing HbA1c, FPG, and 2h PPG and increasing proportion of the patients achieving HbA1c < 7% (SUCRA, 85.51%, 84.24%, 79.06%, and 85.81%, respectively) among all the included interventions.

Conclusion

Compared to sitagliptin, vildagliptin, metformin, bromocriptine, and placebo, teneligliptin displayed favorable efficacy and acceptable safety in treating T2DM. Twenty milligrams or 40 mg per day was the optimal dosage regimen of teneligliptin. The results of this study will provide important evidence-based basis for rational use of teneligliptin and clinical decision-making of T2DM medication.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There are efficacy and safety concerns related to teneligliptin treatment. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken to comprehensively profile the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Thirteen studies were chosen from a search of scientific databases for RCTs using teneligliptin as a monotherapy or as an adjunct to other glycemic agents with pre-specified inclusion criteria. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in each included trial and pooled the data using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies enrolled 2853 patients were identified. Teneligliptin treatment was associated with weight gain (vs. placebo, weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.28 kg; 95% CI - 0.20-0.77 kg; I² = 86%; P = 0.25). Compared to monotherapy, add on therapy with teneligliptin showed significant improvement in FPG mg/dl levels (WMD - 16.75 mg/dl; 95% CI - 19.38 to - 14.13 mg/dl), HOMA-β (WMD 7.91; 95% CI 5.38-10.45) and HOMA-IR (WMD - 0.27; 95% CI - 0.46 to - 0.07). The improvement in HbA1c was greater with monotherapy (WMD - 8.88 mmol/mol; 95% CI - 9.59 to - 8.08 mmol/mol). There was no significant risk of any hypoglycemia with teneligliptin compared to placebo (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.44-1.60; I² = 0%; P = 0.60). However, the risk was 1.84 times high when combined with other glycemic agents. The risk of cardiovascular events was comparable, regardless of treatment duration when compared to placebo or any other active comparator (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.40-1.57; I² = 0%; P = 0.50). [PROSPERO, CRD42022360785].

CONCLUSIONS

Teneligliptin is an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with T2DM, both as monotherapy and as add-on therapy. However, additional large-scale, high-quality, long-term follow-up clinical trials with diverse ethnic populations are required to confirm its long-term efficacy and safety.

Effectiveness and safety of teneligliptin added to patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by oral triple combination therapy: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled study

AIM

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of teneligliptin over placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled by triple therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This trial was a prospective, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The 12-week double-blind period was followed by a 12-week, open-label clinical trial. One hundred patients with T2D who failed to achieve the glycaemic target (7.1% ≤ HbA1c ≤ 9.0%) with conventional triple oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) of metformin, sulphonylurea, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor were assigned randomly 1:1 into teneligliptin and placebo-teneligliptin groups. The primary endpoint was mean change in HbA1c level from baseline in each group at 12 weeks.

RESULTS

For a total of 99 patients (n = 51 for the teneligliptin group, and n = 48 for the placebo-teneligliptin group), the mean age and duration of diabetes were 60.7 and 13.6 years, respectively, and HbA1c was 7.8% at baseline. At 12 weeks, the teneligliptin group achieved a significant reduction in HbA1c from baseline (-0.9% ± 0.6%, P < .001), with an intergroup difference of -0.75% compared with the placebo group (95% CI [-0.99%, -0.51%], P < .001). At the end of the 24-week treatment period, both groups showed significant reductions in HbA1c level from baseline (placebo-teneligliptin group, -0.8% ± 0.6% [P < .001], teneligliptin group, -0.9% ± 0.6% [P < .001]), without significant intergroup difference (-0.17%, 95% CI [-0.41%, 0.07%], P = .156). There was no significant difference between the groups in the rate of adverse events (placebo-teneligliptin group, n = 3 [6.3%]; teneligliptin group, n = 11 [11.1%]; P = .550), and the safety profiles were favourable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study shows that teneligliptin could be a valid option as a fourth OAD for the treatment of patients with T2D inadequately controlled with a triple combination of OADs.

Effects of Teneligliptin on HbA1c levels, Continuous Glucose Monitoring-Derived Time in Range and Glycemic Variability in Elderly Patients with T2DM (TEDDY Study)

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effects of teneligliptin on glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived time in range, and glycemic variability in elderly type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study was conducted in eight centers in Korea (clinical trial registration number: NCT03508323). Sixty-five participants aged ≥65 years, who were treatment-naïve or had been treated with stable doses of metformin, were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to receive 20 mg of teneligliptin (n=35) or placebo (n=30) for 12 weeks. The main endpoints were the changes in HbA1c levels from baseline to week 12, CGM metrics-derived time in range, and glycemic variability.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks, a significant reduction (by 0.84%) in HbA1c levels was observed in the teneligliptin group compared to that in the placebo group (by 0.08%), with a between-group least squares mean difference of -0.76% (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.08 to -0.44). The coefficient of variation, standard deviation, and mean amplitude of glycemic excursion significantly decreased in participants treated with teneligliptin as compared to those in the placebo group. Teneligliptin treatment significantly decreased the time spent above 180 or 250 mg/dL, respectively, without increasing the time spent below 70 mg/dL. The mean percentage of time for which glucose levels remained in the 70 to 180 mg/dL time in range (TIR70-180) at week 12 was 82.0%±16.0% in the teneligliptin group, and placebo-adjusted change in TIR70-180 from baseline was 13.3% (95% CI, 6.0 to 20.6).

CONCLUSION

Teneligliptin effectively reduced HbA1c levels, time spent above the target range, and glycemic variability, without increasing hypoglycemia in our study population.

Efficacy and Safety of Switching to Teneligliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors: 52-Week Results from a Prospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of switching to teneligliptin from other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled despite treatment with a stable dose of other DPP-4 inhibitors.

METHODS

Patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 7% despite taking DPP-4 inhibitors other than teneligliptin, with or without other antidiabetic agents, for at least 3 months were enrolled in this study. Patients on DPP-4 inhibitors administered prior to participation in this study were switched to 20 mg teneligliptin once daily and the dose was maintained for the 52-week study period. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c at week 12. Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and the blood lipid profile were also evaluated. Adverse events were monitored for safety assessment.

RESULTS

At weeks 12, 24, and 52, the HbA1c values significantly decreased by - 0.39, - 0.44, and - 0.52%, respectively, compared to the baseline value (p < 0.0001); in addition, 56.3, 60.3, and 62.3% of patients, respectively, achieved decreases in HbA1c of at least 0.3%, and 40.1, 46.5, and 52.4% of patients, respectively, achieved decreases in HbA1c of at least 0.5%. The proportion of the patient population achieving HbA1c < 7.0% increased throughout the study period, reaching 30.4, 35.4, and 36.9% at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively; at these same time points, the percentage of patients achieving HbA1c < 6.5% increased to 9.5, 11.9, and 13.2% of the total study population. FPG levels and lipid parameters were also significantly decreased after teneligliptin treatment. There were no significant safety concerns.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest the significant glucose-lowering effect of teneligliptin after switching from other DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with T2DM. The improvement in glycemic control was maintained for up to 52 weeks without safety concerns.

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.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of DPP4 inhibitor, teneligliptin, on autonomic and peripheral neuropathy in type 2 diabetes: an open label, pilot study

BACKGROUND

Diabetic neuropathy increases risk of cardiovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, foot amputation and overall mortality. Not only hyperglycaemia induced nerve damage is harder to repair using currently approved medications, but also, the use of these agents is often limited by the extent of pain relief provided and side effects.

METHODOLOGY

In this prospective, open-label, pilot study, 20 type-2 diabetes mellitus patients (male/female=13/7, mean age- 56.1±8.04 years), meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria, were treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, Teneligliptin, 20mg once a day for three months. Efficacy parameters: Sudomotor function (Sudoscan score); parasympathetic dysfunction assessed using Ewing's criteria i.e. heart rate response to -standing (HRS), -valsalva (HRV) and -deep breath (HRD); sympathetic dysfunction assessed as blood pressure response to -standing (BPS) and -handgrip (BPH); ankle brachial index (ABI), vibration perception threshold (VPT), C-reactive protein, glycemic profile and health related quality of life (HRQoL); and, tolerability parameters: complete blood count, liver function tests, serum creatinine, thyroid stimulating hormone, QT- interval and serum vitamin B12 levels, were measured.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in BMI, SBP, DBP, HRD, BPH and all safety parameters. After 12 weeks treatment, there was improvement in HRS (p<0.01) and HRV (p<0.01), but not in HRD (p=0.12). BPS was significantly lowered (p <0.01), but not the BPH (p =0.06). Sudoscan score was increased, while VPT was significantly decreased (both p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Teneligliptin not only improves the glycemic status but also improves sudomotor function, peripheral and autonomic neuropathy, and reduces vascular inflammation in type 2 diabetes.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Teneligliptin in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Subgroup Analysis of a 3-Year Post-Marketing Surveillance in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Teneligliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, was approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan in 2012. However, clinical trials of teneligliptin involved limited numbers of elderly patients. Therefore, we investigated the safety and efficacy of teneligliptin in elderly patients with T2DM.

METHODS

This 3-year follow-up RUBY surveillance registered patients with T2DM who started treatment with teneligliptin between May 2013 and February 2015 in Japan. Collected data included demographics, treatments, adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and laboratory variables. Data were analysed for patients in three age subgroups (< 65, ≥ 65 to < 75, or ≥ 75 years old). Safety was assessed as the incidence of ADRs and efficacy was assessed in terms of glycaemic control, for up to 3 years.

RESULTS

The ADRs and serious ADRs occurred in 3.35% and 0.65% of 4596 patients aged < 65 years, in 4.42% and 1.22% of 3371 patients aged ≥ 65 to < 75 years, and in 3.99% and 1.69% of 2729 patients aged ≥ 75 years. The most common ADRs in patients aged ≥ 65 to < 75 years and ≥ 75 years were gastrointestinal disorders, but the incidence of these ADRs did not show an age-dependent increase. Hypoglycaemia occurred in 0.24%, 0.56%, and 0.29% of patients in each age subgroup, respectively. The least-squares mean changes in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) adjusted for baseline were - 0.66 ± 0.02% (n = 2177), - 0.72 ± 0.02% (n = 1689), and - 0.77 ± 0.03% (n = 1161) at 3 years.

CONCLUSION

There was no clear difference in the number of ADRs among the three age subgroups, although the incidence of serious ADRs was higher in elderly patients than in patients aged < 65 years. We found no additional safety or efficacy concerns among elderly patients beyond those already described in the package insert. The present results support the use of teneligliptin in elderly patients with T2DM in real-world clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japic Clinical Trials Information identifier, Japic CTI-153047.

Long-Term, Real-World Safety and Efficacy of Teneligliptin: A Post-Marketing Surveillance of More Than 10,000 Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Teneligliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor that was approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan in 2012. We performed a long-term post-marketing surveillance (RUBY) to obtain real-world evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of teneligliptin in Japan.

METHODS

This 3-year follow-up RUBY surveillance registered patients with T2DM who started treatment with teneligliptin between May 2013 and February 2015 in Japan. Collected data included demographics, treatments, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and laboratory variables. Data were evaluated in all patients and in patients divided according to baseline renal function across categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (G1-G5) and dialysis. Safety was assessed as the incidence of ADRs and efficacy was assessed in terms of glycaemic control, for up to 3 years.

RESULTS

Of 11,677 patients registered, 10,696 and 10,249 were evaluable for safety and efficacy analyses, respectively. The median duration of exposure was 1096 days. ADRs occurred in 412 patients (3.85%) and were serious in 117 patients (1.09%). The most frequent ADR class was gastrointestinal disorders (0.68%), which included constipation. There were no new ADRs warranting attention beyond those already described in teneligliptin's package insert. ADRs and serious ADRs in renal function subgroups occurred in 3.24-7.14% and 0.65-5.36% in G1-G5, and 4.49% and 1.92% in patients on dialysis, respectively. Reduction in HbA1c was sustained for 3 years after starting teneligliptin (- 0.70% ± 1.36%, p < 0.001 at 3 years). The least-squares mean changes in HbA1c adjusted for baseline were - 0.76% to - 0.66% in G1-G5 at 3 years. Glycated albumin levels decreased in patients on dialysis (- 2.92% ± 4.78% at 3 years).

CONCLUSION

There were no new safety or efficacy concerns about teneligliptin used in long-term, real-world, clinical settings in patients with T2DM with any stages of renal impairment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center clinical trials database identifier: Japic CTI-153047. Plain language summary available for this article.

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.

Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Teneligliptin at a Higher Dose in Indian Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Retrospective Analysis

Background and aim

While diabetes mellitus (DM) is occupying the topmost global epidemic position, India is harboring a challenging number of type 2 DM patients in the world. This devastating picture of the health sector in India requires the availability of more cost-effective, context-specific, and safer drugs for DM management. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of teneligliptin in Indian patients with type 2 DM inadequately controlled with diet, exercise, and a maximal dose of metformin treatment.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective, observational, and single-center study conducted at a diabetic clinic in India in type 2 DM patients who have been treated with teneligliptin 40 mg once daily as add-on therapy with diet, exercise, and the maximal tolerable dose of metformin for three months. The study was observational, where the data collection was through self-reporting and an observational study conducted over one year (September 2018 to August 2019). A total of 100 patients were enrolled in the study (male 69% and female 31%). Patients with available data for fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (2h PPG), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), renal function parameters, such as urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR), and electrocardiogram (ECG) at baseline and three months after treatment were enrolled in the study.

Results

There was a significant reduction in fasting blood sugar (P=<0.001), postprandial blood sugar (P=<0.001), and HbA1c (P=<0.001) at the end of the three months treatment in comparison to the baseline level and in the primary outcomes of this study as compared to baseline. The teneligliptin treatment did not cause any significant reduction in body mass index (BMI) before and after treatment. When we compared the secondary outcomes, the indicator of renal function as expressed through the albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR; P=0.052), there was a borderline change in ACR from baseline to three months. The mean corrected QT interval at screening baseline was 429.7 ± 8.89 milliseconds while after three months, it was 429.1 ± 8.68 milliseconds, which was statistically insignificant.

Conclusion

The current results demonstrated a high level of efficacy as an add-on therapy of teneligliptin at a high dose with inadequately controlled type 2 DM subjects in India. The study results also indicate the good tolerance of this drug with no critical adverse event in this study design.

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.

The Unique Pharmacological and Pharmacokinetic Profile of Teneligliptin: Implications for Clinical Practice

Teneligliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor that was approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan and Korea and is being researched in several countries. Teneligliptin is a potent, selective, and long-lasting DPP-4 inhibitor with a t_½ of approximately 24 h and unique pharmacokinetic properties: it is metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and flavin-containing monooxygenase 3 (FMO3), or excreted from the kidney in an unchanged form. Because of its multiple elimination pathways, dose adjustment is not needed in patients with hepatic or renal impairment, and it is considered to have a low potential for drug–drug interactions. Clinical studies and postmarketing surveillance show that teneligliptin, administered as monotherapy and/or in combination with antihyperglycemic agents, is effective and well tolerated in T2DM patients, including in elderly patients and those with renal impairment. Furthermore, teneligliptin has antioxidative properties, which induce the antioxidant cascade, as well as ·OH scavenging properties. In addition, it has shown endothelial protective effects in several non-clinical and clinical studies. From its unique profile and clinical data, teneligliptin represents a potential therapeutic option in a wide variety of patients, including elderly diabetic patients and those with renal impairment. The fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet of teneligliptin and canagliflozin has been approved in Japan; this is the first FDC tablet of a DPP-4 inhibitor and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor in Japan, and the third globally. The FDC tablet may also provide additional prescribing and adherence benefits.

Efficacy and Safety of Switching to Teneligliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled with Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors: A 12-Week Interim Report

INTRODUCTION

Teneligliptin, an antidiabetic agent classified as a class III dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, has a unique structural feature that provides strong binding to DPP-4 enzymes. We investigated the efficacy and safety of switching patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycemic control on a stable dose of other DPP-4 inhibitors to teneligliptin.

METHODS

Patients with T2DM whose glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were ≥ 7% despite taking DPP-4 inhibitors other than teneligliptin, with or without other hypoglycemic agents, for at least 3 months were enrolled. The DPP-4 inhibitors taken before participating in the study were switched to 20 mg qd teneligliptin, and this was to be maintained for 52 weeks. The primary end point was the change in HbA1c levels after 12 weeks. Metabolic parameters including fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and blood lipids were assessed also. To assess safety, adverse and hypoglycemic events were monitored. The data from baseline to week 12 were used for analysis in this interim report.

RESULTS

The mean change in HbA1c levels from baseline to week 12 was - 0.44%. At week 12, the percentage of patients achieving HbA1c < 7.0% was 31.6% and that of achieving HbA1c < 6.5% was 11.4%, respectively. In 41.2% of patients, the HbA1c levels decreased by at least 0.5% at 12 weeks. The mean change in FPG levels from baseline to week 12 was - 11.5 mg/dl. No severe hypoglycemia was reported.

CONCLUSION

After switching to teneligliptin, HbA1c levels decreased significantly in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with other DPP-4 inhibitors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03793023.

FUNDING

Handok Inc.

Teneligliptin versus sitagliptin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride: A randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of add-on therapy with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor teneligliptin compared with sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin and glimepiride.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of adult Korean subjects with T2DM (n = 201), with HbA1c ranging from 7.0% to 11.0%, on stable doses of metformin plus glimepiride. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive either oral teneligliptin 20 mg or sitagliptin 100 mg for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean age was 60.56 ± 9.41 years, body mass index was 25.23 ± 2.85 kg/m² and HbA1c was 8.11% ± 0.79%. At 24 weeks, both groups achieved significant reductions from baseline in HbA1c (teneligliptin, -1.03% ± 0.10% [P < 0.0001]; sitagliptin, -1.02% ± 0.10% [P < 0.0001]). The inter-group difference was -0.01% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.28, 0.26; P = 0.9497); the upper limit of the 95% CI was within the preset limit for non-inferiority (0.4%). There were no significant differences between groups in the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets, or changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, body weight or lipid levels at 24 weeks. Rates of adverse events (teneligliptin, n = 63 [61.76%]; sitagliptin, n = 61 [62.24%]; P = 0.9442) and hypoglycaemia (teneligliptin, n = 32 [31.37%]; sitagliptin, n = 28 [28.57%]; P = 0.6656) were similar.

CONCLUSION

Teneligliptin was non-inferior to sitagliptin in the context of triple therapy for T2DM and is an important option in this setting.

Efficacy and Safety of Teneligliptin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Teneligliptin is a 3rd-generation dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. There is a limited evidence regarding the effect of teneligliptin. Therefore, this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with inadequately glycemic controlled.

Methods: A search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library during 2000.01–2018.03 was performed for randomized controlled trials of teneligliptin compared to placebo in patients with T2DM with monotherapy or add-on treatment.

Results: Ten trials with 2119 patients were analyzed. Teneligliptin produced absolute reductions in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−0.91 to −0.72], p < 0.00001) compared with placebo. However, after 36–42 weeks of follow-up (open-label), HbA1c level rise higher than duration (double-blind) in teneligliptin group. Teneligliptin led to greater decrease of fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level (vs. placebo, WMD −18.32%, 95% CI [−21.05 to −15.60], p < 0.00001). Teneligliptin also significantly decreased the 2 h post-prandial plasma glucose (2 h PPG) (WMD −46.94%, 95% CI [−51.58 to −42.30], p < 0.00001) and area under the glucose plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 2 h (AUC_0−2h) for PPG (WMD −71.50%, 95% CI [−78.09 to −64.91], p < 0.00001) compared with placebo. Patients treated with teneligliptin achieved increased homeostasis model assessment of β cell function (HOMA-β) with 9.31 (WMD, 95% CI [7.78–10.85], p < 0.00001). However, there was no significant difference between teneligliptin and placebo in overall adverse effects (0.96 risk ratio (RR), 95% CI [0.87, 1.06], p = 0.06). The risks of hypoglycemia were not significantly different between teneligliptin and placebo (1.16 RR, 95% CI [0.59, 2.26], p = 0.66).

Conclusions: Teneligliptin improved blood glucose levels and β-cells function with low risk of hypoglycemia in patients with T2DM. Common adverse effects of teneligliptin including hypoglycemia were identified and reviewed. Risks of cardiovascular events are less certain, and more data for long-term effects are needed.

Evaluation of treatment satisfaction, efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in geriatric patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectionalcomparative study

Introduction

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors are attractive agents to be used in the elderly patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) because of their beneficial effects.

Methods

In this cross-sectional, observational study, we evaluated and compared the treatment satisfaction using Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ) in two groups (i.e., regimens containing DPP4 inhibitors vs. other regimens). Efficacy was evaluated by assessing and comparing the glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values and the percentage of patients who achieved the glycemic control (HbA1c <7%). The adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were also recorded and compared among two groups.

Results

A total of 115 patients participated in the study (42 in Group 1 and 73 in Group 2). Significantly better DTSQ scores were observed among Group 1 patients in terms of DTSQ score total (P = 0.01) and DTSQ score for perception of hyperglycemia (P = 0.008) as compared to Group 2 patients. Significant difference was observed in HbA1c values among two groups (P = 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06-1.14). Also, significantly higher proportion of patients had achieved glycemic control, i.e., HbA1c <7% in Group 1 as compared to Group 2 (P = 0.002, 95% CI, 11.8%-48.1%). Significantly higher number of ADRs were observed among Group 1 patients as compared to Group 2 (P = 0.003).

Conclusion

DPP4 inhibitors seem to offer better treatment satisfaction and efficacy in geriatric T2DM patients but at the expense of increased frequency of ADRs; however, further research is warranted.

Combination therapy of oral hypoglycemic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) recently updated the Clinical Practice Guidelines on antihyperglycemic agent therapy for adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In combination therapy of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), general recommendations were not changed from those of the 2015 KDA guidelines. The Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines of the KDA has extensively reviewed and discussed the results of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of effectiveness and safety of OHAs and many clinical trials on Korean patients with T2DM for the update of guidelines. All OHAs were effective when added to metformin or metformin and sulfonylurea, although the effects of each agent on body weight and hypoglycemia were different. Therefore, selection of a second agent as a metformin add-on therapy or third agent as a metformin and sulfonylurea add-on therapy should be based on the patient's clinical characteristics and the efficacy, side effects, mechanism of action, risk of hypoglycemia, effect on body weight, patient preference, and combined comorbidity. In this review, we address the results of meta-analyses and systematic reviews, comparing the effectiveness and safety among OHAs. It will help to choose the appropriate drug for an individual patient with T2DM.

Combination Therapy of Oral Hypoglycemic Agents in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) recently updated the Clinical Practice Guidelines on antihyperglycemic agent therapy for adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In combination therapy of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), general recommendations were not changed from those of the 2015 KDA guidelines. The Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines of the KDA has extensively reviewed and discussed the results of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of effectiveness and safety of OHAs and many clinical trials on Korean patients with T2DM for the update of guidelines. All OHAs were effective when added to metformin or metformin and sulfonylurea, although the effects of each agent on body weight and hypoglycemia were different. Therefore, selection of a second agent as a metformin add-on therapy or third agent as a metformin and sulfonylurea add-on therapy should be based on the patient's clinical characteristics and the efficacy, side effects, mechanism of action, risk of hypoglycemia, effect on body weight, patient preference, and combined comorbidity. In this review, we address the results of meta-analyses and systematic reviews, comparing the effectiveness and safety among OHAs. It will help to choose the appropriate drug for an individual patient with T2DM.

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.

Teneligliptin in management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Teneligliptin is a recently developed oral dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor indicated for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in adults along with diet and exercise. Teneligliptin has been recently available in Japan (Teneria(®)), Argentina (Teneglucon(®)), and India (Tenepure; Teneza) at relatively affordable price. This is a positive step toward the management of T2DM in developing countries, where the cost of medicine is out-of-pocket expenditure and is a limiting factor for health care. This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in the management of T2DM. Teneligliptin has been systematically evaluated in T2DM as monotherapy with diet and exercise and in combination with metformin, glimepiride, pioglitazone, and insulin in short-term (12 weeks) and long-term (52 weeks) studies. These studies have reported a reduction in HbA1c of 0.8%-0.9% within 12 weeks of therapy. Two 52-week studies reported sustained improvement in glycemic control with teneligliptin. Teneligliptin has been found to be well tolerated, and the safety profile is similar to other dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors. Hypoglycemia and constipation are the main adverse events. Teneligliptin can be administered safely to patients with mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease without dose adjustment. Similarly, it can be used in patients with mild-to-moderate hepatic impairment. Teneligliptin is effective and well tolerated and may have an important role in the management of T2DM.

Teneligliptin: a review in type 2 diabetes

Oral teneligliptin [Teneglucon® (Argentina)], a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, is indicated for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). This article reviews the pharmacology, therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of teneligliptin in the treatment of adults with T2DM. In 12- or 16-week, placebo-controlled phase 2 and 3 trials, oral teneligliptin 20 or 40 mg once daily, as monotherapy or in combination with metformin, glimepiride or pioglitazone improved glycaemic control, including in patients with end-stage renal disease, and was generally well tolerated. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were of mild intensity and relatively few patients discontinued treatment because of these events. Improvements in glycaemic control observed in short-term trials were maintained at 52 weeks in extension phases of these trials and in 52-week interventional studies, with no new safety concerns identified during this period. In the absence of direct head-to-head clinical trials, the position of teneligliptin relative to other antidiabetic agents in the management of T2DM remains to be determined. In the meantime, teneligliptin is a useful treatment option for adults with T2DM who have not responded adequately to diet and exercise regimens, or the addition of antidiabetic drugs.

The efficacy and safety of teneligliptin added to ongoing metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized study with open label extension

OBJECTIVE

The study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of teneligliptin co-administered to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who were inadequately controlled by stable metformin monotherapy ≥ 1000 mg/day.

METHODS

A total of 447 patients from 55 European centers who completed a 14-day screening and 14-day run-in phase, received randomized double-blind treatment with 5, 10, 20 or 40 mg teneligliptin or placebo once daily, for 24 weeks. 364 patients continued treatment in a 28-week open label extension during which they received teneligliptin 20 mg once daily.

RESULTS

Co-administration of teneligliptin (5 to 40 mg) with metformin demonstrated dose-related and statistically significant reductions in HbA1c after 24 weeks (-0.30 to -0.63% placebo adjusted) of double-blind treatment. The greatest reduction in HbA1c was seen with teneligliptin at 40 mg (-0.63%) at Week 24. There was also a dose-dependent increase in proportion of responders achieving HbA1c < 7.0% at this endpoint. Responses were maintained throughout 28 weeks open label treatment with 20 mg teneligliptin. Treatment was well tolerated to Week 52 and the overall incidence of hypoglycemia during 52 weeks was 2.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Teneligliptin co-administered with metformin produced significant reductions in HbA1c in patients with T2DM without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia.

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

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

Teneligliptin real-world efficacy assessment of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in India (TREAT-INDIA study)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Teneligliptin was introduced in India in May 2015. It has gained popularity and is already widely prescribed in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This "real life" data collection was conducted to assess the efficacy of teneligliptin in Indian T2DM patients.

METHODS

Predesigned structured proforma was used to collect information from the prescribing physicians regarding the efficacy of teneligliptin when prescribed as monotherapy as well as combination therapy with other antidiabetic drugs in T2DM patients. Information on the glycemic parameters at baseline prior to starting teneligliptin and at the end of 3 months therapy was collected. The efficacy was assessed by analyzing the mean change in 3-month values of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG).

RESULTS

Data of 4305 patients was available for analysis. There was statistically significant improvement in mean HbA1c, FPG, and PPG with teneligliptin therapy. Means changes in HbA1c, FPG, and PPG were -1.37%±1.15%, 51.29±35.41 mg/dL, and 80.89±54.27 mg/dL, respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed that HbA1c (%) reduction with teneligliptin when used as monotherapy, add-on to metformin or add-on to metformin plus sulfonylureas combination, add-on to metformin plus alpha glucosidase inhibitor combination or add-on to insulin was 0.98±0.53, 1.07±0.83, 1.46±1.33, 1.43±0.80, and 1.55±1.05, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Real-world data suggests that teneligliptin significantly improves glycemic control in Indian patients with T2DM when prescribed either as monotherapy or as an add-on to one or more other commonly prescribed antidiabetic drugs.

Investigation of Potential Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Teneligliptin and Metformin in Steady-state Conditions in Healthy Adults

PURPOSE

We assessed the effects of coadministration of metformin and teneligliptin on their pharmacokinetics in steady-state conditions relative to the administration of either drug alone.

METHODS

This was a Phase I, single-center, open-label, 2-way parallel-group study in healthy male and female subjects. Subjects in group 1 (n = 20) were administered 40 mg of teneligliptin once daily for 5 days, and 850 mg of metformin BID was added to ongoing teneligliptin for an additional 3 days. The subjects in group 2 (n = 20) were administered 850 mg of metformin BID for 3 days, and 40 mg of teneligliptin once daily was added to ongoing metformin for an additional 5 days. Pharmacokinetic outcomes were the AUC0-τ and Cmax of metformin and teneligliptin when administered alone or in combination.

FINDINGS

Ten male and 10 female subjects participated in each group (mean ± SD age 39.2 ± 11.6 years [range, 19-63 years] in group 1, 47.6 ± 11.9 years [27-64] in group 2; mean ± SD BMI 23.36 ± 2.45 in group 1, 24.56 ± 2.54 in group 2). One female subject in each group was withdrawn because of an adverse event (AE) (vomiting). All 20 subjects in each group were included in the safety analyses, and 19 subjects in each group were included in the pharmacokinetic analyses. The geometric least square means ratio (teneligliptin plus metformin/teneligliptin alone) for Cmax and the AUC0-τ for teneligliptin were 0.907 (90% CI, 0.853-0.965) and 1.042 (90% CI, 0.997-1.089), respectively. The geometric least square means ratio (metformin plus teneligliptin/metformin alone) for the Cmax and AUC0-τ for metformin were 1.057 (90% CI, 0.974-1.148) and 1.209 (90% CI, 1.143-1.278). The 90% CIs were within the prespecified threshold for equivalence (0.80-1.25), except for the AUC0-τ for metformin, which was increased by teneligliptin by 20% relative to metformin alone. In group 1, nine subjects experienced 25 AEs during treatment with teneligliptin alone and 10 subjects experienced 15 AEs during treatment with teneligliptin plus metformin. In group 2, eight subjects experienced 11 AEs during treatment with metformin alone and 11 subjects experienced 18 AEs during treatment with metformin plus teneligliptin. Two AEs in each treatment group were rated as severe. Results of in vitro experiments suggest that teneligliptin-mediated inhibition of organic cation transporter-2 does not increase metformin exposure.

IMPLICATIONS

Coadministration of teneligliptin and metformin was well tolerated by these healthy subjects during the 8-day treatment period. Coadministration with metformin did not affect the pharmacokinetics of teneligliptin. Although coadministration with teneligliptin increased exposure to metformin, this change is unlikely to be clinically relevant. European Clinical Trials Database identifier: 2007-001511-29.