Real-world evaluation of glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with canagliflozin versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors

Objective To evaluate glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with canagliflozin (CANA) vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Methods Using integrated claims and lab data from a US health plan of commercial and Medicare Advantage enrollees, this matched-control cohort study assessed adult T2DM patients receiving treatment with CANA or DPP-4 inhibitors (1 April 2013–31 December 2013). Cohorts were chosen hierarchically; the first pharmacy claim for CANA was identified as the index date; then the first pharmacy claim for a DPP-4 inhibitor was identified and index date set. Eligible patients had 6 months of continuous health plan enrollment before the index date (baseline) and 9 months after (follow-up) and no evidence of index drug in baseline. Patients were matched 1:1 using propensity score matching. Changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and percentages of patients with HbA1c <8% and <7% during the follow-up were evaluated.

Results The matched CANA and DPP-4 inhibitor cohorts (53.2% treated with sitagliptin) included 2766 patients each (mean age: 55.7 years). Among patients with baseline and follow-up HbA1c results, mean baseline HbA1c values were similar, 8.62% and 8.57% (p?=?0.615) for the CANA (n?=?729) and DPP-4 inhibitor (n?=?710) cohorts, respectively. Change in HbA1c was greater among patients in the CANA cohort than for those in the DPP-4 inhibitor cohort (?0.92% vs. ?0.63%, p?<?0.001), and also among the subset of patients with baseline HbA1c ≥7% (-1.07% [n?=?624] vs. ?0.79% [n?=?603], p?=?0.004). During follow-up, greater percentages of the CANA cohort relative to the DPP-4 inhibitor cohort achieved HbA1c of <8% (66.0% vs. 58.6%, p?=?0.004) and <7% (35.4% vs. 29.9%, p?=?0.022).

Limitations This study was observational and residual confounding remains a possibility.

Conclusions In this real-world study of patients with T2DM, CANA use was associated with greater HbA1c reduction and higher percentages of patients attaining HbA1c goals than those treated with DPP-4 inhibitors.     

Efficacy of hypoglycemic treatment in type 2 diabetes stratified by age or diagnosed age: a meta-analysis

Aim: To compare the effects of blood glucose lowering regimens in groups of patients categorized by baseline age and diagnosed age.

Methods: Placebo-controlled randomized trials in type 2 diabetes patients with a study length ≥12 weeks were included.

Results: A total of 246 trials were included. HbA1c changes from baseline corrected by placebo were comparable in sulfonylurea treatment between older and younger patients’ groups (weighted mean difference (WMD), –1.28% vs –0.92%, p > 0.05). Treatment with metformin between groups resulted in a comparable change in HbA1c levels (WMD, –0.97% vs –1.23%, p > 0.05). Treatment with α–glucosidase inhibitor (WMD, –0.68% vs –0.67%, p > 0.05), treatment with thiazolidinedione (WMD, –0.74% vs –1.01%, p > 0.05), treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors (WMD, –0.67% vs –0.67%, p > 0.05), and treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors (WMD, –0.54% vs –0.67%, p > 0.05) between groups also resulted in comparable HbA1c changes. Treatment with GLP-1 analogs between groups in HbA1c changes were also comparable (p > 0.05). Regression analysis indicated that the baseline age or diagnosed age was not associated with the HbA1c changes from baseline.

Conclusion: In each hypoglycemic treatment, the baseline age or diagnosed age was not associated with the HbA1c changes from baseline.     

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes:real-world evidence from a Mediterranean area

Aims: To assess clinical characteristics and factors associated with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs).

Methods: Retrospective cohort study in patients with T2DM who initiated GLP-1RAs between 2007 and 2014 in primary health care centers in Catalonia (Spain). We evaluated changes in HbA1c and body weight at 6–12?months, and factors independently associated with achieving ≥1% HbA1c target reduction.

Results: Overall, 4242 patients (47.9% male; mean BMI 37.5?kg/m²) initiated a GLP-1RA. At 6–12?months, the mean HbA1c level decreased from the baseline 8.8% to 7.7% (?1.0%; SD?=?1.6). A 1% reduction in HbA1c was observed in 47.2% of patients. Patients lost a mean of 3.6?kg (SD?=?6.2). Sixty percent of patients reduced both HbA1c and body weight, and 17% achieved only one of these targets. Independent determinants of a 1% HbA1c reduction were baseline HbA1c, age, diabetes duration and being on insulin treatment. Reduction in weight or HbA1c and the proportion of patients achieving a HbA1c reduction of ≥1% was significantly larger among subjects prescribed liraglutide than exenatide and lixisenatide.

Conclusions: In this real-world, retrospective study, the magnitude of HbA1c and body weight reductions after addition of a GLP-1RA were similar to those observed in randomized controlled trials. Approximately 60% of patients attained reductions in both HbA1c and body weight, and there were significant differences among different drugs from this therapeutic group.     

Treatment preference for weekly versus daily DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: outcomes from the TRINITY trial

Abstract

Objective: To examine patient preference for treatment with the oral once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i), trelagliptin, and oral once-daily DPP-4i, alogliptin, administered for 8?weeks each in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus prescribed a daily DPP-4i.

Methods: In this randomized, open-label, two-way crossover study, patients received trelagliptin followed by alogliptin (T-A group) or alogliptin followed by trelagliptin (A-T group), for 8?weeks each (NCT03231709, JapicCTI-173662). Treatment preference was assessed using a standardized questionnaire in the overall population and by baseline characteristics. Other outcomes included patient satisfaction with diabetes treatment (assessed using the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire [DTSQ]), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels after 8?weeks of treatment with each agent, and safety.

Results: Sixty patients from two clinical sites were randomized 1:1 to T-A and A-T groups (each n?=?30); baseline characteristics were similar between groups. After 16?weeks of treatment, 51.7% of patients preferred treatment with alogliptin compared with 30.0% selecting trelagliptin (p?=?.014); preference for alogliptin was consistently greater than for trelagliptin in the secondary analyses by baseline characteristics. DTSQ score and HbA1c levels were similar between treatments after 8?weeks of therapy. Both treatments demonstrated favorable safety and tolerability profiles.

Conclusions: Patients expressed a significantly greater treatment preference for once-daily alogliptin than once-weekly trelagliptin, although patient satisfaction and HbA1c levels were similar across treatments. The decision to administer a once-weekly or once-daily DPP-4i is likely to depend on patient preference, patient-physician discussions, and treatment practices of the prescribing physician.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03231709.     

Using DPP-4 inhibitors to modulate beta cell function in type 1 diabetes and in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease

Introduction: DPP-4 inhibitors have pleomorphic effects that extend beyond the anti-hyperglycemic labeled use of the drug. DPP-4 inhibitors have demonstrated promising renal protective effects in T2DM and T1DM and protective effects against immune destruction of pancreatic beta-cells in T1DM.

Areas covered: The efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease and possible adjunct with insulin in the treatment of T1DM to preserve beta-cell function. Pertinent literature was identified through Medline, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov (1997-November 2018) using the search terms T1DM, sitagliptin, vildagliptin, linagliptin, beta-cell function, diabetic nephropathy. Only articles are written in the English language, and clinical trials evaluating human subjects were used.

Expert opinion: DPP-4 inhibitors can be used safely in patients with diabetic kidney disease and do not appear to exacerbate existing diabetic nephropathy. Linagliptin reduces albuminuria and protects renal endothelium from the deleterious effects of hyperglycemia. The effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on preserving beta-cell function in certain subtypes of T1DM [e.g. Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adult (LADA) and Slowly Progressive Type 1 Diabetes (SPIDDM)] are encouraging and show promise.     

Network meta-analysis of treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus following failure with metformin plus sulfonylurea

Aims The efficacy and safety of sodium–glucose linked transporters (SGLT2s) plus metformin and a sulfonylurea (MET?+?SU) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in patients who fail to achieve glycemic control with MET?+?SU, relative to other triple therapies licensed in the EU, were estimated.

Methods A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving anti-diabetes treatments added to MET?+?SU were conducted.

Results: Of 2236 abstracts identified through a systematic literature review, 30 RCTs published between 2003 and 2013 were included. RCTs ranged from 12 to 52 weeks in duration, included 28 to 1274 patients, were of parallel design, and most were open-label. Comparators included placebo (reference treatment), SGLT2 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs), meglitinides, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues, and basal, bolus, and biphasic insulin, all added on to MET?+?SU, as well as basal and biphasic insulin added to MET and monotherapy. The mean change (%) in HbA1c levels compared to placebo was -0.86 for SGLT2 inhibitors, ?0.68 for DPP-4 inhibitors, ?0.93 for TZDs, and ?1.07 for GLP-1 analogues, respectively. Only SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues led to a weight loss (?1.71 kg and ?1.14 kg, respectively) and decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP; ?3.73 mmHg and ?2.90 mmHg, respectively), while all other treatments showed either an increase or no changes in weight or SBP.

Conclusion SGLT2 inhibitors are at least as effective as other classes of antidiabetic agents at controlling HbA1c levels, while providing the additional benefits of weight loss and reducing SBP. Additionally, since the risk of hypoglycemia is similar or reduced with SGLT2 inhibitors, patients do not have to trade off efficacy for tolerability. Similar findings were observed for GLP-1 analogues.     

Comparison of acarbose and metformin therapy in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients with overweight and/or obesity

Objective: To compare the efficacy of acarbose and metformin in overweight and/or obese patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods: A total of 108 drug-naïve patients with newly diagnosed T2DM, whose hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was between 7% and 10% and body mass index was greater than 24?kg/m², were enrolled in the First People’s Hospital and Municipal Central Hospital of Xiangtan City, Xiangtan, China, from 1 February 2010 to 1 August 2011. Patients were randomly assigned to acarbose (100?mg three times a day) and metformin (1.5?g/day) groups for a predictive follow-up period of 24 weeks. Plasma glucose, insulin, and glucagons at 0, 0.5, and 2?hours after a standardized meal, and HbA1c were measured at baseline and 24 weeks.

Results: Baseline characteristics of the acarbose and metformin groups were similar. Glucose control improved significantly in both groups at 24 weeks. The percentage of patients achieving HbA1C <6.5% was comparable for acarbose and metformin therapy at 24 weeks. Body weight reduction from baseline to 24 weeks was 3.3?kg in the acarbose group and 2.7?kg in the metformin group, whereas the change in HbA1c and body weight was similar in both groups. The early-phase insulin secretion index improved only in the acarbose group at 24 weeks. After 24 weeks of therapy, fasting glucagon and 0.5?hour postprandial glucagon levels decreased markedly in the acarbose group compared to the metformin group.

Conclusions: Twenty-four weeks of therapy with acarbose and metformin induced similar reductions in HbA1c and body weight, but acarbose showed superior efficacy in improving islet α-cell function compared with metformin in overweight/obese patients with newly diagnosed T2DM. However, more large-sample, multicenter, randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, and glycemic variability of the two drugs.     

Cardiovascular effects of anti-diabetes drugs

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Cardiovascular disease remains the major contributor to morbidity and mortality in diabetes. From the need to reduce cardiovascular risk in diabetes and to ensure that such risk is not exacerbated by drug treatments, governmental regulators and drug manufacturers have focused on clinical trials evaluating cardiovascular outcomes.

Areas covered: Findings from mechanistic and clinical trials of biguanides, sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors will be reviewed. These drug classes will be compared within the context of available cardiovascular outcomes data. Clinical implications of new study regulations will be examined.

Expert opinion: Recent cardiovascular studies provide a more comprehensive evaluation of specific anti-diabetes therapy in individuals with high cardiovascular risk. Long-term effects of anti-hyperglycemic agents in patients with lower cardiovascular risk are still speculative. Historical data supports continued use of metformin as a first-line agent. DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have neutral effects on cardiovascular outcomes. The significantly decreased cardiovascular risk associated with empagliflozin SGLT-2 inhibitor therapy is impressive and may change how practitioners prescribe add-on therapy to metformin.     

二肽基肽酶4抑制剂在控制2型糖尿病透析患者代谢指标中的作用

目的：研究3种不同二肽基肽酶4（DPP-4）抑制剂对终末期肾病合并2型糖尿病患者代谢参数的影响。方法：对200例应用DPP-4抑制剂（西格列汀、维格列汀或利格列汀）治疗2型糖尿病的终末期肾病患者进行前瞻性队列研究。DPP-4抑制剂治疗12周前后评估糖化血红蛋白（HbA1c）、空腹血糖和代谢指标的变化。结果：西格列汀、维格列汀、利格列汀治疗组HbA1c水平下降无显著性差异（分别为-0.74±1.57、-0.39±1.45和-0.08±1.40，P=0.076），空腹血糖及血脂变化亦无显著差异。在血液透析患者（n=115）中，3组间HbA1c水平变化无差异。相比之下，腹膜透析患者（n=85）用西格列汀治疗12周后，HbA1c比用维格列汀和利格列汀治疗12周降低得更多（分别为-1.58±0.95，-0.46±0.98，-0.04±1.22，P=0.001）。结论：在终末期肾病患者中使用不同DPP-4抑制剂的降糖作用差异无显著性。在腹膜透析患者中，西格列汀比其他DPP-4抑制剂可使HbA1c水平降低更多。     

Cardiovascular safety of therapies for type 2 diabetes

Introduction: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogs and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are relatively new therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Given the high prevalence of cardiovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent concerns questioning CV safety of newer antidiabetic medications, cardiovascular safety of these medications requires evaluation.

Areas covered: Cardiovascular effects of these drug classes from preclinical and clinical data as well as non-cardiovascular safety issues are delineated from literature searches covering the last decade and up to June 2016. Major clinical trials assessing the cardiovascular safety of GLP-1 agonists (ELIXA and LEADER), DPP-4 inhibitors (SAVOR-TIMI 53, EXAMINE, and TECOS) and SGLT2 inhibitors (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) are reviewed and interpreted.

Expert opinion: Based on review of the present evidence, these 3 classes of antihyperglycemic therapies have acceptably safe CV safety profiles for patients with type 2 diabetes. The latest evidence from LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials indicate that liraglutide and empagliflozin have cardiovascular benefits that may prove to be of clinical importance in the management of type 2 DM.     

Safety evaluation of trelagliptin in the treatment of Japanese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients

Introduction: Trelagliptin is a novel, long-acting dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in japan. The safety and efficacy of trelagliptin has been evaluated in three published clinical trials to date: one phase II and two phase III studies. As trelagliptin only requires dosing once per week, this new agent has the potential to improve compliance and subsequently, glycaemic control, in patients with T2DM.

Areas covered: This article reviews the available safety data for trelagliptin from published clinical trials, and evaluates the published safety profile relative to competitor once-daily and once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitors.

Expert opinion: Clinical trial data to date suggest that trelagliptin is a safe and efficacious medication with a similar safety profile to once-daily DPP-4 inhibitors, and to the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor, omarigliptin. Trelagliptin is well tolerated when given alone, and in combination with other anti-diabetic medications. An advantage of trelagliptin over existing once-daily DPP-4 inhibitors is the decrease of dosing frequency, rather than once-daily. No specific, serious adverse events have been reported for trelagliptin in published clinical trials, making it an attractive alternative to other DPP-4 inhibitors.     

Fixed-ratio combination therapy with GLP-1 receptor agonist liraglutide and insulin degludec in people with type 2 diabetes

Introduction: A fixed combination of basal insulin degludec and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide (IDegLira; 50 units degludec/1.8 mg liraglutide) has been developed as a once daily injection for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). In the phase 3a trial programme ‘Dual action of liraglutide and insulin degludec in type 2 diabetes’ (DUAL?), five trials of 26 weeks duration and one trial of 32 weeks duration have evaluated the efficacy and safety of IDegLira compared with administration of insulin degludec, insulin glargine, liraglutide alone or placebo.

Areas covered: Combination therapy with IDegLira reduces HbA1c more than monotherapy with a GLP-1RA (liraglutide) or insulin (degludec or glargine). Combination therapy leads also to weight loss, or a stable body weight, with no increase in hypoglycaemia. Rates of adverse events did not differ between treatment groups; however, gastrointestinal side effects were fewer with IDegLira compared with liraglutide treatment alone. A limitation of the DUAL? development programme is that patients receiving basal insulin doses in excess of 50 units were excluded from the studies.

Expert commentary: In conclusion, IDegLira combines the clinical advantages of basal insulin and GLP-1RA treatment, and is a treatment strategy that could improve the management of patients with T2D.     

Initial combination therapy with vildagliptin plus metformin in drug-naïve patients with T2DM: a 24-week real-life study from Asia

Aims: To assess the effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin/metformin initial combination therapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

Methods: INITIAL was a 24-week prospective, observational study in T2DM patients with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)?≥?7.5%, and prescribed vildagliptin/metformin as initial combination therapy. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. Key secondary endpoints were HbA1c change from baseline to week 12, proportion of patients achieving HbA1c ≤7.0%, change in body weight at 12 and 24 weeks, change in HbA1c by sub-groups (baseline HbA1c, age, body mass index [BMI], dosage strength, co-morbidities) from baseline to week 24, and safety.

Results: A total of 532 patients were enrolled. The mean age, HbA1c, and BMI were 49.6?±?11.27 years, 9.3?±?1.57%, and 26.7?±?4.50?kg/m², respectively. Cardiovascular risk factors present at baseline were dyslipidemia (30.1%), hypertension (29.7%), and obesity (20.9%). The mean reductions in HbA1c from baseline to week 12 (?1.6?±?1.59%) and 24 (?1.9?±?1.70%) were statistically significant (p?Conclusions: Overall, in a relatively young drug-naïve T2DM Asian study population with high baseline HbA1c and often associated with cardiovascular risk factors, vildagliptin/metformin combination therapy was associated with significant and clinically relevant HbA1c reduction from baseline. This effect was seen at week 12, was maintained over 24 weeks, and was accompanied by good tolerability.     

A randomized,double-blind,non-inferiority trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin,a once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor,or glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin or the sulfonylurea glimepiride to the treatment regimen of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy.

Methods: Patients with T2DM and HbA1c ≥6.5% to ≤9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥1500?mg/day) were randomized to omarigliptin 25?mg once-weekly (n?=?376) or glimepiride up to 6?mg once daily (n?=?375) for 54 weeks. The primary hypothesis was that omarigliptin is non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA1c at week 54.

Results: The mean baseline HbA1c was 7.5% in the omarigliptin group and 7.4% in the glimepiride group. After 54 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c was –0.30% in the omarigliptin group and –0.48% in the glimepiride group, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.18% (0.06, 0.30), which met the pre-specified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 5.3% in the omarigliptin group and 26.7% in the glimepiride group. With the exception of hypoglycemia, the incidences of adverse events and discontinuations were similar between treatment groups. Relative to baseline, omarigliptin was associated with a mean weight loss (?0.4?kg) and glimepiride a mean weight gain (+1.5?kg).

Conclusions: After 54 weeks, as add-on therapy to metformin, once-weekly omarigliptin was generally well tolerated and non-inferior to glimepiride in improving glycemic control, with a lower incidence of hypoglycemia and with weight loss vs weight gain.     

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: comparison,efficacy and safety

Introduction: Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors belong to one class of drugs that have been approved for treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) based on the glucose-lowering actions of the gastrointestinal hormone glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1. Several different compounds are now available, and although their mechanism of action (inhibition of the catalytic activity of DPP-4) is the same, there are fundamental differences between them.

Areas covered: The authors discuss the differences between different DPP-4 inhibitors and review their therapeutic efficacy and key safety data. The literature covered includes original studies and meta-analyses identified in PubMed, recent abstracts presented at major diabetes scientific conferences, and clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov.

Expert opinion: Although there are some differences in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the different DPP-4 inhibitors, all are small orally active compounds with broadly similar HbA1c-lowering efficacy. They improve glycaemic control in T2D, without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia or causing weight gain. They can be used as monotherapy or in combination with other anti-diabetic therapies, including insulin, regardless of renal or hepatic function, and are efficacious across the spectrum of patients with T2D, including those with long-standing disease duration. DPP-4 inhibitors may also have beneficial effects beyond glycaemic control, although this remains to be demonstrated in purpose-designed clinical trials.     

Safety and effectiveness of empagliflozin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: interim analysis from a post-marketing surveillance study

ABSTRACT

Background: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are effective treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We present the interim findings of an ongoing post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study in Japanese patients with T2DM receiving empagliflozin.

Research design and methods: This 3-year, prospective, observational, multicenter PMS evaluated the safety and effectiveness of empagliflozin in Japanese clinical practice. Patients with T2DM who had not been treated with empagliflozin before enrollment were eligible. Assessments, including the primary endpoint of incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), were based on electronic case report forms (eCRF).

Results: Of 8,180 registered patients from 1,103 sites, 7,618 patients had an eCRF including a follow-up visit and were treated (mean age, 58.8 years; 10.5% aged ≥75 years; 63.2% male; mean HbA1c, 8.01%; 41.8% with HbA1c ≥8.0%; 24.8% and 61.8% with at least mild hepatic and renal impairment, respectively). Mean treatment duration was 98.4 weeks; 644 (8.5%) patients had ≥1 ADR, including 8.5% of patients aged ≥75 years. Hypoglycemia, urinary tract infection, genital infections, volume depletion, diabetic ketoacidosis, and lower limb amputation occurred in 0.28%, 0.62%, 0.53%, 0.33%, 0%, and 0.03% of patients, respectively.

Conclusions: The reported ADRs were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02489942.     

Effects of vildagliptin versus saxagliptin on daily acute glucose fluctuations in Chinese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with a combination of metformin and sulfonylurea

Objective The present study aimed to compare the effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors vildagliptin and saxagliptin on 24?hour acute glucose fluctuations in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with a combination of metformin and sulfonylurea.

Research design and methods This was a 24 week, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-controlled study. Patients (N?=?73) with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c 7.0%–10.0%) with a stable dosage of metformin plus gliclazide for more than 3 months were randomized to receive either vildagliptin 50?mg twice daily (BID, n?=?37) or saxagliptin 5?mg once daily (QD, n?=?36). Change in mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) was assessed at the end of 24 weeks.

Results At baseline, the mean (±SD) age was 62.9?±?6.55 years, disease duration was 7.0?±?2.33 years, and HbA1c was 8.4?±?0.68%. After 24 weeks of treatment, the MAGE decreased from 5.81?±?1.16?mmol/L to 4.06?±?0.86?mmol/L (p<0.001) in the vildagliptin group and from 5.66?±?1.14?mmol/L to 4.79?±?1.25?mmol/L (p?=?0.003) in the saxagliptin group. The mean change in MAGE in the vildagliptin group was significantly greater than that in the saxagliptin group (1.74?±?0.48?mmol/L vs. 0.87?±?0.40?mmol/L, p<0.001). The mean change in HbA1c, from baseline to the study endpoint, in the vildagliptin and saxagliptin groups, was 1.22?±?0.40% and 1.07?±?0.36%, respectively, with no significant difference between the groups (p?=?0.091). The overall safety and tolerability of vildagliptin and saxagliptin were similar. The limitations of the study were a small number of patients and open-label administration of the study drug.

Conclusion Vildagliptin produced a significantly greater reduction in acute glucose fluctuations compared with saxagliptin when added to a dual combination of metformin and sulfonylurea in Chinese patients with T2DM.

Chinese clinical trial registration number ChiCTR-TRC-13003858.     

Liraglutide 3.0 mg for weight management: weight-loss dependent and independent effects

Objective: As an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity, treatment with liraglutide 3.0?mg for weight management provides a statistically significant and clinically meaningful weight loss of 5.7%–8.0% compared to 1.6%–2.6% with placebo. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to quantify the relative contribution of weight loss to the treatment effects of liraglutide 3.0?mg on key efficacy endpoints.

Methods: The analysis utilized data from 4725 participants across three randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of liraglutide 3.0?mg versus placebo, as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01272219, NCT01272232 and NCT01557166). The duration of two of the trials was 56 weeks; one trial was of 32 weeks’ duration. A mediation analysis was performed, which ranked the relative contribution of weight loss to the treatment effects of liraglutide 3.0?mg on key cardiometabolic efficacy endpoints, Apnea–Hypopnea Index (AHI) and health-related quality of life (QoL). A limitation of this type of analysis is that it cannot conclusively prove a causal relationship.

Results: In individuals without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), endpoints predominantly driven by liraglutide-induced weight loss included waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, triglycerides, high density lipoprotein cholesterol, AHI, and Impact of Weight on Quality of Life–Lite total and physical function scores. Endpoints predominantly independent of weight loss included the glycemic endpoints hemoglobin A1c and fasting plasma glucose in individuals with and without T2DM. Regardless of the degree of dependence on weight loss according to the mediation analysis, greater weight loss was associated with greater improvement in all endpoints.

Conclusion: Treatment with liraglutide 3.0?mg contributes to improved cardiometabolic parameters, AHI and health-related QoL through both weight-loss dependent and weight-loss independent mechanisms.     

Pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes: what’s new in 2017?

Introduction: Novelties in the management of type 2 diabetes are dominated by the commercialisation of new glucose-lowering agents, which offer alternatives to older antidiabetic medications, and by the publication of several prospective placebo-controlled outcome trials, which demonstrated not only cardiovascular safety but also cardiovascular and renal protection with some new medications.

Areas covered: Updates regarding the use of glucose-lowering agents are discussed from a clinical point of view. Some new viewpoints concern older antidiabetic agents such as metformin, sulfonylureas and glitazones whose benefit-risk balance has been revisited, especially in high risk patients. The recent data regarding DPP-4 inhibitors (gliptins) focused on the safety profile of this pharmacological class, including in patients with impaired renal function. The highlight concerns the cardiovascular (and renal) protection by some GLP-1 receptor agonists (liraglutide, semaglutide) and SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin) in patients with high cardiovascular risk. Finally, efficacy and safety of new combinations and advances in insulin therapy will be briefly discussed.

Expert commentary: The recent data from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and observational real-life studies should trigger a revision of the algorithm for the treatment of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, especially in patients with high cardiovascular and/or renal risk.     

Vildagliptin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Introduction: Inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-4) augments glucose-dependent insulin release and is a new approach to the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Vildagliptin is a new DPP-4 inhibitor approved in many countries for the treatment of T2DM. This review provides an overview of vildagliptin with emphasis on its pharmacology and clinical effectiveness.

Areas covered: Results of preclinical and several Phase II and III studies from 2004 – 2010 are discussed.

Expert opinion: Vildagliptin acts to inhibit the breakdown of glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, which in turn enhances the beta-cell response to glucose and inhibits glucagon secretion. It is an effective agent alone or in combination in patients with T2DM, resulting in modest improvements in HbA1c usually in the 0.5 – 1% range. Advantages include weight neutrality and a lesser incidence of hypoglycemia. Concerns remain regarding its use in renal disease and potential complications seen in animal models.