Efficacy and safety of linagliptin to improve glucose control in older people with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy: A randomized trial

Individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and acute kidney injury in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

This network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to determine whether any individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increase the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online via PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcome was AKI. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to account for heterogeneity. Twenty-nine studies involving 56 117 participants were included. There were 918 cases of AKI (1.63%). The risk of bias was generally considered to be low. The only DPP-4 inhibitor that significantly increased the frequency of AKI when compared with placebo was sitagliptin (risk ratio 1.65, 95% confidence interval 1.22-2.23). However, because one study showed significant outliers in the funnel plot, in a highly heterogeneous population composed solely of patients undergoing surgery for coronary artery bypass graft, we conducted a post-hoc sensitivity analysis to exclude this study. The results showed no statistically significant difference in the risk of AKI between sitagliptin and placebo. Individual DPP-4 inhibitors do not appear to increase the risk of AKI. However, sitagliptin may be associated with AKI in patients with underlying severe cardiovascular disease.

Safety of Linagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Linagliptin is an oral dipeptidyl peptidase DPP-4 inhibitor, which is indicated for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as monotherapy or add-on to therapy with other hypoglycemic drugs.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the safety of linagliptin focusing on cardiovascular risks among subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search across the following databases: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to November 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of linagliptin compared to placebo in patients with Type 2 diabetes were included. The primary safety points were cardiovascular (CV) adverse events including non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), CV death, MI, stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina. While, secondary safety points included 17 reported adverse events such as infections, hypoglycemia and abdominal pain. Three reviewers independently screened and reviewed each study to extract relevant information. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. We conducted a meta-analysis using the random effects model. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) of targeted adverse events with linagliptin compared to placebo were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel test.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies with 19,981 adult patients were included. There was no difference in the incidence of all CV adverse events or individual CV adverse events between linagliptin and the placebo arms. The pooled estimate of the risk of upper respiratory tract infection was reported in twelve trials with a 38% risk reduction among patients treated with the linagliptin group compared to the placebo group (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.45-0.85, and I2 = 0%), while no difference was found in other infections. For gastrointestinal disorders, the risk of abdominal pain showed a 65% risk reduction among patients treated with the linagliptin group compared to the placebo group (RR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.77, and I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed an overall acceptable safety profile of linagliptin in patients with T2DM. Moreover, our study showed a risk reduction of upper respiratory tract infection and abdominal pain when using linagliptin compared to placebo.

Guideline for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus in the Elderly in China (2024 Edition)

With the deepening of aging in China, the prevalence of diabetes in older people has increased noticeably, and standardized diabetes management is critical for improving clinical outcomes of diabetes in older people. In 2021, the National Center of Gerontology, Chinese Society of Geriatrics, and Diabetes Professional Committee of Chinese Aging Well Association organized experts to write the first guideline for diabetes diagnosis and treatment in older people in China, the Guideline for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus in the Elderly in China (2021 Edition). The guideline emphasizes that older patients with diabetes are a highly heterogeneous group requiring comprehensive assessment and stratified and individualized management strategies. The guideline proposes simple treatments and de-intensified treatment strategies for older patients with diabetes. This edition of the guideline provides clinicians with practical and operable clinical guidance, thus greatly contributing to the comprehensive and full-cycle standardized management of older patients with diabetes in China and promoting the extensive development of clinical and basic research on diabetes in older people and related fields. In the past 3 years, evidence-based medicine for older patients with diabetes and related fields has further advanced, and new treatment concepts, drugs, and technologies have been developed. The guideline editorial committee promptly updated the first edition of the guideline and compiled the Guideline for the Management of Diabetes Mellitus in the Elderly in China (2024 Edition). More precise management paths for older patients with diabetes are proposed, for achieving continued standardization of the management of older Chinese patients with diabetes and improving their clinical outcomes.

Incident and recurrent hypoglycaemia with linagliptin and glimepiride over a median of 6 years in the CAROLINA cardiovascular outcome trial

AIM

The CAROLINA trial established non-inferiority of linagliptin versus glimepiride for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk. In pre-specified and post-hoc analyses, we investigated treatment effects on total hypoglycaemic burden in CAROLINA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized and treated with 5 mg linagliptin (n = 3014) or 1-4 mg glimepiride (n = 3000) once daily added to standard care. Hypoglycaemia captured from investigator-reported adverse events was analysed with Poisson and negative binomial regressions for the first and total (first plus recurrent) events, respectively. The influence of insulin initiation and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change on the treatment effect for hypoglycaemia was also explored.

RESULTS

Over 6.3 years median follow-up, average HbA1c over time did not differ between linagliptin versus glimepiride (weighted mean difference [95% confidence interval]: 0.00%, [-0.05, 0.05]), nor did insulin initiation (18.6% vs. 19.2% of patients, respectively), whereas body weight was lower with linagliptin (-1.54 kg, [-1.80, -1.28]). Hypoglycaemia frequency was lower with linagliptin across all hypoglycaemia categories, including severe episodes. Rate ratios (95% confidence interval) for first and total events for investigator-reported hypoglycaemia were 0.21 (0.19-0.24) and 0.12 (0.10-0.14), respectively, with 8.7 first and 60.8 total estimated events prevented/100 patient-years with linagliptin versus glimepiride. These differences occurred during night-time and daytime, and in subgroup analyses of total events. Treatment differences in hypoglycaemia were neither impacted by HbA1c changes nor insulin initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Across the severity spectrum, linagliptin substantially reduced the hypoglycaemic burden versus glimepiride in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021271647.

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Registration:

PROSPERO: CRD42020210645

Introduction:

We aimed to assess the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in older patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control.

Methods:

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in older (⩾65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes. The intervention group was randomized to treatment with any DPP-4 inhibitors. A systematic search in MEDLINE and Embase was performed in December 2020. For assessing the risk of bias, RoB 2 tool was applied. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We pooled outcomes using random effects meta-analyses.

Results:

We identified 16 RCTs that included 19,317 patients with a mean age of greater than 70 years. The mean HbA1c level ranged between 7.1 and 10.0 g/dl. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care alone may increase mortality slightly [risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89–1.21]. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care increases the risk for hypoglycaemia (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01–1.16), but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. DPP-4 inhibitors added to standard care may reduce mortality compared with sulfonylureas (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75–1.04). DPP-4 inhibitors probably reduce the risk for hypoglycaemia compared with sulfonylureas (magnitude of effect not quantifiable because of heterogeneity) but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. There is insufficient evidence on hospitalizations, falls, fractures, renal impairment and pancreatitis.

Conclusion:

There is no evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors in addition to standard care decrease mortality but DPP-4 inhibitors increase hypoglycaemia risk. Second-line therapy in older patients should be considered cautiously even in drugs with a good safety profile such as DPP-4 inhibitors. In case second-line treatment is necessary, DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be preferable to sulfonylureas.

Plain language summary

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes Introduction: We performed the review to assess the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in older type 2 diabetes patients with blood sugar outside the normal level. Methods: To answer the question, we searched various electronic databases. We included studies in older (⩾65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes that assessed the safety of DPP-4 inhibitors. The data from the different studies were quantitatively summarized using statistical methods. We assessed the quality of the data to judge the certainty of the findings. Results: We identified 16 studies that included 19,317 patients with a mean age greater than 70 years. The average blood sugar level of patients in the included studies was slightly or moderately increased. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care alone may increase mortality slightly. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care increases the risk for hypoglycaemia, but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. DPP-4 inhibitors added to standard care may reduce mortality compared with sulfonylureas. DPP-4s probably reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia compared with sulfonylureas (magnitude of effect not quantifiable because of heterogeneity) but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. There is insufficient evidence on hospitalizations, falls, fractures, renal impairment and pancreatitis. Conclusion: There is no evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors in addition to standard care decrease mortality but DPP-4 inhibitors increase the risk that blood sugar falls below normal. Adding DPP-4 inhibitorss to standard care in older patients should be considered cautiously even in drugs with a good safety profile such as DPP-4 inhibitors. In case additional treatment is necessary, DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be preferable to sulfonylureas.

Pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes in elderly patients with heart failure: randomized trials and beyond

Heart failure (HF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) represent two important public health problems, and despite improvements in the management of both diseases, they are responsible for high rates of hospitalizations and mortality. T2DM accelerates physiological cardiac aging through hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. Thus, HF and T2DM are chronic diseases widely represented in elderly people who often are affected by numerous comorbidities with important functional limitations making it difficult to apply the current guidelines. Several antidiabetic drugs should be used with caution in elderly individuals with T2DM. For instance, sulfonylureas should be avoided due to the risk of hypoglycemia associated with its use. Insulin should be used with caution because it is associated with higher risk of hypoglycemia, and may determine fluid retention which can lead to worsening of HF. Thiazolindinediones should be avoided due to the increased risk of fluid retention and HF. Biguanides may lead to a slightly increased risk of lactic acidosis in particular in elderly individuals with impaired renal function. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are safe having few side effects, minimal risk of hypoglycemia, and a neutral effect on cardiovascular (CV) outcome, even if it has been reported that saxagliptin treatment is associated with increased risk of hospitalizations for HF (hHF). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have shown a CV protection without a significant reduction in hHF. On the other hand, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have shown a significant improvement in CV outcome, with a strong reduction of hHF and a positive impact on renal damage progression. However, it is necessary to consider the possible some side effects related to their use in elderly individuals including hypotension, bone fractures, and ketoacidosis.It is important to remark that elderly patients, in particular the very elderly, are not sufficiently represented in the trials; thus, the management and treatment of elderly diabetic patients with HF should be mainly based on the integration of scientific evidence with clinical judgment and patients' condition, with respect to the dignity and quality of life.

Efficacy / safety balance of DPP-4 inhibitors versus SGLT2 inhibitors in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) offer new options for the oral management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with the advantage in the elderly population to be devoid of a high risk of hypoglycaemia. SGLT2is have also shown benefits regarding cardiovascular (heart failure) and renal protection, including in patients with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years while DPP-4is have only proved cardiovascular and renal safety without superiority compared with placebo. The glucose-lowering efficacy of the two pharmacological classes is almost similar including in older patients with T2DM. However, the tolerance and safety profile may be highly different and overall more favourable with DPP-4is than with SGLT2is. Some adverse events have been reported with SGLT2is which may be more prevalent or severe in older patients than in younger patients. The present comprehensive review focuses on the benefit/risk balance in the elderly population with T2DM by comparing the profile of DPP-4is and SGLT2is regarding the following potential issues: metabolic disorders (hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis); cardiac and vascular issues (atheromatous cardiovascular disease, heart failure, volume reduction hypotension, and lower limb amputations); renal endpoints including acute renal injury; risk of infections; digestive disorders; bone and skin adverse events; and cancer risk. Both DPP-4is and SGLT2is have their own advantages and disadvantages. Personalised treatment is recommended based upon the efficacy/safety profile of each drug class and individual patient characteristics that may be markedly different among the heterogeneous population of older individuals with T2DM.

Inhibition of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 to slow the progression of chronic kidney disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public health problem, increasing the risk of cardiovascular events and death and potentially leading to kidney failure. Novel drugs that slow the progression of this non-communicable disease are therefore urgently needed. Initially developed as glucose-lowering drugs, inhibitors of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) drastically reduce the overall mortality and cardiovascular events and slow the progression of CKD. Kidney protection conferred by SGLT2 inhibitors is independent from the presence of diabetes, observed on top of renin-angiotensin system inhibition and consistent across a wide range of categories of glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria. The mechanisms through which SGLT2 inhibitors improve kidney outcomes are likely multifactorial. Inhibition of SGLT2 in the kidney proximal tubule results in natriuresis and glucosuria, with beneficial effects on metabolic control, blood pressure and body weight. In addition, SGLT2 inhibitors also improve intraglomerular hemodynamics, podocyte integrity, cell metabolism, and erythropoiesis and reduce hypoxia, oxidative stress, sympathetic nervous activity, inflammation and fibrosis. The major impact of SGLT2 inhibitors on kidney outcomes, along with the excellent safety profile of this new class of drugs, open novel avenues for the treatment of CKD in patients with and without diabetes.

Careful use to minimize adverse events of oral antidiabetic medications in the elderly

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of older patients has type 2 diabetes treated with different oral antidiabetic agents whose safety may raise concern considering some particularities of a heterogeneous elderly population.

AREAS COVERED

This article discusses some characteristics of older patients that could increase the risk of adverse events, with a focus on hypoglycemia. It describes the most frequent and/or severe complications reported in the elderly in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies with metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (gliptins) and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (gliflozins).

EXPERT OPINION

Old patients may present comorbidities (renal impairment, vascular disease, heart failure, risk of dehydration, osteoporosis, cognitive dysfunction) that could increase the risk of severe adverse events. Sulfonylureas (and meglitinides) induce hypoglycemia, which may be associated with falls/fractures and cardiovascular events. Medications lacking hypoglycemia should be preferred. Gliptins appear to have the best tolerance/safety profile whereas gliflozins exert a cardiorenal protection. However, data are lacking in very old or frailty old patients so that caution and appropriate supervision of such patients are required. Taking advantage of a large choice of pharmacotherapies, personalized treatment is recommended based upon both drug safety profiles and old patient individual characteristics.

Benefit of Early Add-on of Linagliptin to Insulin in Japanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Randomized-Controlled Open-Label Trial (TRUST2)

INTRODUCTION

This trial was conducted to assess the long-term safety, efficacy, and benefit of early add-on of linagliptin to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This trial enrolled 246 subjects. The subjects were randomized to the linagliptin group or the control group and were observed for 156 weeks. After week 16, subjects in the control group were also allowed to add linagliptin to evaluate the benefit of early add-on of linagliptin to insulin. The primary end point was a change in HbA1c from baseline to week 16. Secondary end points included fasting plasma glucose, daily insulin dose, and frequency of adverse events.

RESULTS

HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels significantly decreased from baseline to week 16 in the linagliptin group compared with the control group. The significant improvement in HbA1c continued until week 52. The daily insulin dose significantly decreased in the linagliptin group compared with the control group. The frequency of hypoglycemia and adverse events was comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Add-on of linagliptin to insulin was tolerated, improved glycemic control, and reduced the daily insulin dose. This study demonstrates the long-term safety, efficacy and benefit of early add-on of linagliptin to insulin in Japanese T2DM patients.

Efficacy and safety of DPP-IV inhibitors combined with basal insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors when added to insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the efficacy or safety of DPP-IV inhibitors in T2DM patients. The quality of the included RCTs was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. For outcomes, odds ratios or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs were calculated using both random- and fixed-effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis with 5418 participants. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was significantly decreased in the DPP-IV inhibitors with insulin (DPP-IVi/INS) group compared with the insulin-alone (with or without placebo) group (WMD = -0.62%; 95% CI: -0.74, -0.49; P < .05). Consistent with this finding, the fasting blood glucose (FBG)-lowering effect (WMD = -0.61 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.77, -0.45; P < .05) and 2-hour postprandial glucose (2hPPG)-lowering efficacy (WMD = -2.39 mmol/L; 95% CI: -2.81, -1.97; P < .05) in the DPP-IVi/INS group were also significantly better than in the insulin-alone group. Regarding safety indicators, compared with the insulin-alone group, DPP-IVi/INS treatments had no association with the risk of adverse effects, including hypoglycemia, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with insulin treatment alone, treatment with DPP-IVi/INS improved HbA1c, FBG, and 2hPPG without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia, AEs, or SAEs.

Challenges and Strategies for Managing Diabetes in the Elderly in Long-Term Care Settings

Diabetes affects a large number of patients in the long-term care (LTC) setting, and their care is often complicated because of multimorbidity, diabetes-related complications, disability, dependency on caregivers, and geriatric syndromes, including frailty and cognitive impairment. This population includes patients receiving short-term rehabilitation in skilled nursing facilities, those who are residents in LTC facilities, and those receiving palliative or end-of-life care. An individualized approach to care based on clinical complexity, diabetes trajectory, and patients' preferences and goals is required. Such patients may experience one or more transitions of care and decline in condition. They are also prone to adverse drug events, cardiovascular events, and hypoglycemia. Facility-related challenges include varying staff competencies and practitioner preferences, inconsistent interdisciplinary communication, overly complex medication regimens, and poorly implemented care transitions.

Management of Inpatient Hyperglycemia and Diabetes in Older Adults

Diabetes is one of the world's fastest growing health challenges. Insulin therapy remains a useful regimen for many elderly patients, such as those with moderate to severe hyperglycemia, type 1 diabetes, hyperglycemic emergencies, and those who fail to maintain glucose control on non-insulin agents alone. Recent clinical trials have shown that several non-insulin agents as monotherapy, or in combination with low doses of basal insulin, have comparable efficacy and potential safety advantages to complex insulin therapy regimens. Determining the most appropriate diabetes management plan for older hospitalized patients requires consideration of many factors to prevent poor outcomes related to dysglycemia.

Challenges and Strategies for Inpatient Diabetes Management in Older Adults

Adults older than 65 years of age are the fastest growing segment of the U.S. population. Aging is also one of the most important risk factors for diabetes, and about one-third of all individuals with diabetes are in this age-group. Older people with diabetes are more likely to have comorbidities such as hypertension, ischemic heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and cognitive impairment, which lead to higher rates of hospital admissions compared with individuals without diabetes. Professional organizations have recommended patient-centric individualized glycemic reduction approaches, with an emphasis on potential harms of intensive glycemic control and overtreatment in older adults. Insulin therapy remains a mainstay of diabetes management in the inpatient setting regardless of patients' age; however, there is uncertainty about optimal glycemic targets during the hospital stay. Increasing evidence supports selective use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, alone or in combination with low-dose basal insulin, in older noncritically ill patients with mild to moderate hyperglycemia. This article reviews the prevalence, diagnosis, and monitoring of, and the available treatment strategies for, diabetes among elderly patients in the inpatient setting.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Linagliptin in a Japanese Population with Type 2 Diabetes Aged ≥ 60 Years Treated with Basal Insulin: A Randomised Trial

INTRODUCTION

An estimated 4.3 million people aged ≥ 65 years with diabetes live in Japan. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of linagliptin in older Japanese patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

In this phase 4, randomised, placebo-controlled national study (part of a global study) conducted in Japan over a period of 52 weeks, 102 patients on stable treatment with basal insulin ± metformin/alpha-glucosidase inhibitors were randomised (1:1) to receive linagliptin 5 mg qd or placebo. The primary end point was the change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) after 24 weeks of treatment, with additional analyses at 52 weeks.

RESULTS

Mean age and HbA1c of the study population were 71 years and 8.1%, respectively. Approximately two-thirds of participants were aged ≥ 70 years, two-thirds had macrovascular complications, approximately half had a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/min/1.73 m², and two-thirds had a time since diagnosis of diabetes > 10 years. Significant HbA1c reductions with linagliptin vs. placebo were observed at 24 weeks, - 0.71% (95% CI - 0.96, - 0.45, p < 0.0001), and maintained at 52 weeks, - 0.58% (95% CI - 0.82, - 0.34, p < 0.0001). Linagliptin improved the chances of achieving a categorical HbA1c target (< 8.0% and < 7.0%) at 24 and 52 weeks in patients who were not at their respective target at the beginning of the study. Addition of linagliptin to insulin was associated with a numerical increase in the risk of any hypoglycaemia, but not in the risk of clinically significant hypoglycaemia, severe hypoglycaemia or recurring hypoglycaemia.

CONCLUSION

Linagliptin was effective in improving glucose control in Japanese patients aged ≥ 60 years with T2DM on stable glucose-lowering therapy with basal insulin. Linagliptin was well tolerated and no new safety concerns were raised. The results presented here are highly consistent with the results from the global study, which was conducted over a 24-week period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02240680.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company Diabetes Alliance.