Repurposing DPP-4 Inhibitors for Colorectal Cancer: A Retrospective and Single Center Study

Simple Summary

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common causes and the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Its poor prognosis highlights the urgent need for more effective treatments. Repurposing approved drugs is a promising strategy as preclinical screenings can be minimized. The aim of our retrospective study was to investigate the potential of Dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP4)-inhibitors, which are safe Food and Drug Association (FDA)-approved drugs for treating diabetes, in treating CRC patients. Our findings conclude that CRC patients with diabetes and treated with DPP4-inhibitors in our hospital during 2006–2015, their 5-year prognosis following curative resection was significantly better than those treated with metformin. We further showed that their prognosis was associated with immune cell population features that associated with better prognosis, and immune cell profile is a biomarker for predicting the prognosis of DPP4-inhibitors treated CRC patients.

Abstract

Background: There have been studies reporting the crucial roles of Dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP4) in colorectal cancer (CRC) initiation and progression, whereas DPP4-inhibitors are safe Food and Drug Association (FDA)-approved drugs for treating diabetes. This study aims to investigate the association between DPP4-inhibitor treatment and the prognosis of CRC patients. Methods: Clinical data of CRC patients with diabetes and the prescription of DPP4-inhibitors who had undergone curative surgery in our hospital between January 2006 and December 2015 were retrieved. Their survival data and immune cell population in circulatory blood were compared to those treated with metformin. Results: The DPP4-inhibitor patient group showed a significantly better 5-year disease-free survival (median DFS = 1733 days, 95% CI = 1596 to 1870 days) when compared to the metformin group (p = 0.030, median DFS = 1382 days, 95% CI = 1246 to 1518 days). 33 out of the 92 patients in the metformin group showed recurrence whereas only 3 of the 26 patients in the DPP4-inhibitor group showed recurrence (p = 0.033). Cox regression analysis demonstrated that DPP4-inhibitor application is a favorable factor associated with a lower risk of recurrence (Hazard ratio = 0.200, p = 0.035). Furthermore, our results suggested that the immune cell profile of CRC patients is a potential biomarker for response to DPP4-inhibitor treatment. Conclusion: This study demonstrated the association of DPP4-inhibitor treatment with a better prognosis of CRC patients.

Pioglitazone Is Associated with Lower Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Events than DPP4-Inhibitors in Diabetic Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Taiwan Nationwide Cohort Study, 2006-2016

While pioglitazone reduces insulin resistance and hepatic gluconeogenesis effectively in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), these benefits remained controversial in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). We compared major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and mortality (overall, infection-related, and MACCE-related) of pioglitazone to that of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4-inhibitors) in patients with T2DM and ESRD. From Taiwan’s national health insurance research database (NHIRD), 647 pioglitazone users and 6080 DPP4-inhibitors users between 1 April 2006 and 31 December 2016 were followed from the 91th date after the ESRD certification until the study outcomes, independently; withdraw from the NHI program, death, or 31 December 2017, whichever came first. After weighting, risks of MACCEs (10.48% vs. 12.62% per person-years, hazard ratio (HR): 0.85, 95% (CI): 0.729–0.985) and all-cause mortality (12.86% vs. 13.22% per person-years, (HR): 0.88, 95% (CI): 0.771–0.995) are significantly lower in pioglitazone group. Subgroup analysis found lower MACCEs risk in the pioglitazone users without insulin therapy (6.44% vs. 10.04% (HR): 0.59, 95% (CI): 0.42–0.82) and lower MACCEs related death (2.76% vs. 3.84% (HR): 0.61, 95% (CI): 0.40–0.95) in the pioglitazone group with dyslipidemia, when comparing with DPP4-inhibitors users. Pioglitazone is associated with lower all-cause mortality and MACCEs in diabetic patients with ESRD, compared to DPP4-inhibitors. These benefits were even more significant in the non-insulin users and patients with dyslipidemia.

Factors involved in decreasing the therapeutic effect of sitagliptin: a subanalysis of the JAMP study

Objective

As a subanalysis of the Januvia Multicenter Prospective Trial in Type 2 Diabetes (JAMP study), we examined factors that decreased blood glucose control effect of sitagliptin after 3 months and patients requiring an addition or increase of diabetes treatment.

Methods

We selected patients in whom glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels decreased by month 3 after initiation of sitagliptin treatment and conducted two analyses: (1) in patients who did not change drugs until month 12, we compared changes in HbA1c levels between concomitant drugs and examined factors that decreased blood glucose control effect of sitagliptin; (2) compared changes in HbA1c levels and backgrounds between patients who did and did not require an addition to or increased dose of the antidiabetic agent.

Results

Four hundred and ninety-eight patients were chosen. In 369 patients without drug change until month 12, changes in HbA1c levels during months 3-12 were not significantly different among concomitant drugs; factors causing rebound HbA1c were smoking and weight gain. Patient characteristics were compared between those who did and did not require an additional drug or a dose increase (n = 114) (n = 384). Drug changes were associated with longer disease duration, younger age, higher rate of smoking, and higher degree of insulin resistance but not with concomitantly administered drugs.

Conclusion

Smoking and weight gain were factors that decreased the effect of sitagliptin on reducing blood glucose levels. Differences in concomitant drugs did not affect sitagliptin's effects on glycemic control. A dose increase or the addition of the antidiabetic drug was not associated with concomitant drugs.

Safety and Tolerability of Linagliptin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Comprehensive Pooled Analysis of 22 Placebo-controlled Studies

PURPOSE

Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors are an increasingly used antihyperglycemic therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Linagliptin, an orally administered DPP-4 inhibitor, has demonstrated favorable efficacy/safety in clinical trials. The aim of this post hoc pooled analysis was to expand current knowledge of the safety of linagliptin.

METHODS

Safety data for once-daily linagliptin 5 mg (1 study of linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily) were analyzed from 22 randomized, double-blind, Phase I-III, placebo-controlled clinical trials of ≤102 weeks' duration. Assessments of pooled data included incidence of patient-reported adverse events (AEs).

FINDINGS

Data from 7400 patients (linagliptin, 4810; placebo, 2590) were pooled. Most patients (58.4%) had T2DM diagnosis for >5 years; approximately 75% were receiving ≥1 type of background therapy in addition to linagliptin/placebo. Overall exposure to the study drug was 2412.8 years for linagliptin and 1481.4 years for placebo (mean [SD], 183 [120] days and 209 [150] days, respectively). Overall frequencies of AEs were similar for linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients (57.3% and 61.8%, respectively). The incidence of neoplastic AEs was low (0.6% and 0.9%, respectively); there were no reports of pancreatic neoplasia. Pancreatitis was observed in 2 linagliptin-treated patients (<0.1%) and 1 placebo-treated patient (<0.1%). The occurrence of cardiac disorder AEs was similar in linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients (3.2% [n = 153] and 3.3% [n = 83], respectively); the incidence of heart failure AEs for linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients was 0.2% (n = 11) and 0.3% (n = 7), respectively. Overall, linagliptin was weight neutral. Occurrence of investigator-defined hypoglycemic AEs was low for both linagliptin and placebo (11.5% vs 14.0%). In patients receiving concomitant sulfonylurea therapy, investigator-defined hypoglycemic AEs were more frequent with linagliptin versus placebo (22.1% [238/1079] vs 14.5% [61/421], respectively). Subgroup analyses showed similar frequencies of AEs for linagliptin- and placebo-treated patients across different age groups and renal function levels.

IMPLICATIONS

This updated and expanded pooled, post hoc analysis of 22 placebo-controlled trials of linagliptin 5 mg daily supports previous findings of the acceptable overall safety/tolerability profile of linagliptin when administered to a broad range of patients with T2DM. Linagliptin-treated patients demonstrated a low overall risk of hypoglycemia (risk increased by concomitant sulfonylurea therapy). As with all pooled analyses, this study is limited by the use of data from different studies, and the relatively short duration of some included studies, although use of individual patient data from consistently designed trials should minimize methodological differences between trials. Results from ongoing clinical trials will provide additional insight into the long-term safety/tolerability of linagliptin.