Hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes from India and Malaysia treated with sitagliptin or a sulfonylurea during Ramadan: a randomized, pragmatic study

Abstract Objective: To compare the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia between sitagliptin and sulfonylurea in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes who fasted during Ramadan. Methods: In a multicenter, pragmatic, randomized study, patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from clinical centers in India (n?=?765) and Malaysia (n?=?105). Eligible patients (age?≥?18 yrs) expressed their intention to daytime fast during Ramadan, were treated with a stable dose of sulfonylurea with or without metformin for ≥3 months prior to screening visit, and had an HbA(1c)?≤?10%. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either switch to sitagliptin 100?mg q.d. or remain on their pre-study sulfonylurea. Daily diary cards were completed to document information on hypoglycemic symptoms and complications. The primary endpoint was the overall incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia during Ramadan. Results: Of the 870 patients randomized, 848 (n?=?421 for sitagliptin and 427 for sulfonylurea) returned ≥1 completed diary card and were included in the analysis. The proportion of patients who recorded ≥1 symptomatic hypoglycemic event during Ramadan was lower with sitagliptin (3.8%) compared to sulfonylurea (7.3%). The risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia was significantly lower with sitagliptin (risk ratio [95% CI]?=?0.52 [0.29, 0.94]; p?=?0.028). By country, the proportions of patients who recorded ≥1 symptomatic hypoglycemic event during Ramadan were 4.1% vs. 7.7% in India and 1.9% vs. 3.8% in Malaysia for sitagliptin and sulfonylurea, respectively. No patient discontinued treatment due to a hypoglycemic event. One patient on sitagliptin and seven on sulfonylurea had an event that required non-medical assistance. No events required medical assistance. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Limitations: Symptomatic hypoglycemic events did not require a confirmatory blood glucose measurement, which may have overestimated hypoglycemic events. Measures of glycemic control and body weight were not assessed. Conclusion: Switching antihyperglycemic treatment to sitagliptin from a sulfonylurea reduced the risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia by approximately 50% for Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes who fasted during Ramadan. Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01340768.     

Hypoglycaemia in sulphonylurea-treated subjects with type 2 diabetes undergoing Ramadan fasting: a five-country observational study

Abstract

Objectives:

To determine the incidence of hypoglycaemia during Ramadan in Muslim subjects with type 2 diabetes treated with a sulphonylurea.     

The effect of vildagliptin relative to sulfonylurea as dual therapy with metformin (or as monotherapy) in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan in the Middle East: the VIRTUE study

Objective: To assess the effect of vildagliptin relative to sulfonylurea (SU) on hypoglycemic events, in Muslim patients from the Middle East with type 2 diabetes who fast during Ramadan. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with at least one hypoglycemic event (HE) during the fasting period. Secondary endpoints included change in weight, HbA1c levels, treatment adherence and overall safety.

Design and methods: This multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study enrolled Muslim adult T2DM patients from Middle Eastern countries who received treatment with vildagliptin or SU as add on to metformin or monotherapy. During a ～16 week observation period, data was collected up to 6 weeks before and 6 weeks after Ramadan fasting.

Results: A total of 584 patients from the Middle East enrolled in the study; 308 patients received vildagliptin and 265 received SU. Significantly fewer vildagliptin patients reported at least one HE (3.7% vildagliptin vs. 25.5% SU; p?p?=?.128). Mean change in HbA1c at the end of study showed ?0.18% between treatment difference in favor of vildagliptin, p?=?.001. Mean body weight change at the end of study showed ?0.68?kg between treatment difference in favor of vildagliptin, p?Limitations: Being observational and not mandating HE confirmation with blood glucose measurement (though it was done in a large number of patients) were key limitations.

Conclusion: Anti-hyperglycemic treatment with vildagliptin led to significantly fewer hypoglycemia events compared to sulfonylurea treatment among Muslim diabetic patients who fast during Ramadan. Good glycemic control, weight control and safety results supported this outcome.     

Efficacy and tolerability of sitagliptin monotherapy in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled trial

Abstract

Objective:

Type 2 diabetes in the elderly is an important and insufficiently studied public health problem. This study evaluated sitagliptin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥65 years.     

Comparison of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin and the sulphonylurea gliclazide in combination with metformin,in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus fasting during Ramadan: results of the VECTOR study

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the incidence of hypoglycaemic events (HEs) in a real-world setting in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus fasting during Ramadan.     

Treatment adherence with vildagliptin compared to sulphonylurea as add-on to metformin in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus fasting during Ramadan

Abstract

Objective:

To assess treatment adherence to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin compared with sulphonylureas (SU) in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were fasting during Ramadan in the UK.     

A randomized clinical trial of the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by acarbose alone

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin when added to the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on acarbose monotherapy.

Research design and methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Patients (N?=?381) with T2DM and inadequate glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≥?7.0% and ≤10.0%) on acarbose monotherapy (at least 50?mg three times daily) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive the addition of sitagliptin 100?mg or matching placebo once daily for 24 weeks.

Main outcome measures: Changes from baseline in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at Week 24.

Results: The mean baseline HbA1c in randomized patients was 8.1%. At Week 24, the placebo-controlled, least squares mean changes from baseline (95% confidence interval) in HbA1c and FPG in the sitagliptin group were ?0.62% and ?0.8?mmol/L (p?p?Conclusions: Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated and provided statistically superior and clinically meaningful improvements in glycemic control after 24 weeks of treatment compared to placebo when added to treatment of patients with inadequate glycemic control on acarbose monotherapy.

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01177384.     

Glimepiride versus pioglitazone combination therapy in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy: results of a randomized clinical trial

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the effect of add-on glimepiride or pioglitazone in subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

Research design and methods: Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, forced-titration study involving 203 adults with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes (A1C 7.5–10%) on metformin monotherapy. Subjects were randomized to receive glimepiride or pioglitazone, titrated to the maximum dose for 26 weeks. Subjects were evaluated for A1C changes, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin, C‐peptide, and lipid levels. Safety outcomes and diabetes-related healthcare resource utilization were also evaluated.

Results: Both treatment groups achieved similar and significant mean decreases from baseline to endpoint (week 26) in A1C (?p = 0.0001) and FPG (?p < 0.05). Glimepiride therapy, however, resulted in a more rapid decline in A1C levels at weeks 6, 12, and 20 vs. pioglitazone (?p < 0.05). A mean A1C ≤ 7% was reached faster in the glimepiride group (median, 80–90 days vs. 140–150 days [p = 0.024]). Total and LDL cholesterol were significantly higher with pioglitazone treatment than with glimepiride at endpoint (?p < 0.05). Glimepiride treatment was associated with an increased risk of hypoglycemia and pioglitazone with higher rate of peripheral edema. Healthcare resource utilization was similar between groups, but total healthcare costs were significantly lower for glimepiride versus pioglitazone over the course of the study, driven largely by drug costs. The use of fasting C‐peptide concentration ≥ 0.27?nmol/L in the inclusion criteria was a potential limitation as it may have included those patients with an improved probability for glimepiride or pioglitazone response. In addition, a larger patient population would have provided a greater degree of data applicability.

Conclusions: In patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy, add-on glimepiride or pioglitazone results in similar overall improvements in glycemic control. Compared with pioglitazone, glimepiride is associated with faster glycemic control, lower total and LDL cholesterol levels and reduced short-term healthcare costs.     

Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

As a new oral hypoglycemic agent, saxagliptin belongs to the class of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. However, it remains inconclusive whether saxagliptin is associated with increased risk of adverse events (AE) and efficacy as add-on treatment. Therefore, we performed an up-to-date meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin with placebo and other oral hypoglycemic agents in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T₂DM). Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing saxagliptin with comparators were retrieved by selecting articles from Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to Oct. 2013. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to analyze the effect of hypoglycemic agents on HbA1c, weight and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). While the patients who achieved HbA1c<7.0% and had AE were analyzed as relative risks (RR).A total of 18 articles from 16 RCTs and one clinic trial from the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform met the included criterion. Clinically significant decrease from baseline HbA1c compared with placebo was certified for 2.5 mg/day saxagliptin (WMD = –0.45%, 95%CI, –0.48% to –0.42%) and 5 mg/d saxagliptin (WMD = –0.52%, 95%CI, –0.60% to –0.44%). Saxagliptin as add-on therapy was superior to thiazolidinediones, up-titrated glyburide, up-titrated metformin or metformin monotherapy in achieving HbA1c<7.0%. Treatment with saxagliptin had negligible effect on weight, and it was considered weight neutral. Saxagliptin treatment did not increase the risk of hypoglycemia (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.27, P = 0.40) and serious adverse experiences (RR = 1.25, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.66, P = 0.13). No statistically significant differences were observed between saxagliptin and comparators in terms of the risk of infections.The present study showed that saxagliptinwas effective in improving glycaemic control in T₂DM with a low risk of hypoglycaemia and incidence of infections in either monotherapy or add-on treatment. This founding should be further certified by large-sample size and good-designed RCT.     

Efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 54-week study

ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess the 54-week efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (HbA_1c 7.5–11%) on diet and exercise.

Methods and materials: This was multinational study conducted at 140 clinical sites in 18 countries. Following an initial 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period, patients entered a double-blind continuation period for an additional 30 weeks. Following the week 24 evaluation, patients remained on their previously assigned active, oral treatments: sitagliptin 50?mg b.i.d.?+?metformin 1000?mg b.i.d. (S100?+?M2000), sitagliptin 50?mg b.i.d.?+?metformin 500?mg b.i.d. (S100?+?M1000), metformin 1000?mg b.i.d. (M2000), metformin 500?mg b.i.d. (M1000), and sitagliptin 100?mg q.d. (S100). Patients initially randomized to placebo were switched to M2000 (designated PBO/M2000) at week 24. This report summarizes the overall safety and tolerability data for the 54-week study and presents efficacy results for patients randomized to continuous treatments who entered the 30-week continuation period.

Results: Of the 1091 randomized patients, 906 completed the 24-week placebo-controlled phase and 885 patients continued into the 30-week continuation period (S100?+?M2000 n?=?161, S100+M1000 n?=?160, M2000 n?=?153, M1000 n?=?147, S100 n?=?141, PBO/M2000 n?=?123). At baseline, patients included in the efficacy analysis had mean age of 54 years, mean BMI of 32?kg/m², mean HbA_1c of 8.7% (8.5–8.8% across groups), and mean duration of type 2 diabetes of 4 years. At week 54, in the all-patients-treated analysis of continuing patients, least-squares (LS) mean changes in HbA_1c from baseline were ?1.8% (S100?+?M2000), ?1.4% (S100?+?M1000), ?1.3% (M2000), ?1.0% (M1000), and ?0.8% (S100). The proportions of continuing patients with an HbA_1c?<?7% at week 54 were 67% (S100?+?M2000), 48% (S100?+?M1000), 44% (M2000), 25% (M1000), and 23% (S100). For the patients completing treatment through week 54, LS mean changes in HbA_1c from baseline were ?1.9% (S100?+?M2000), ?1.7% (S100?+?M1000), ?1.6% (M2000), ?1.2% (M1000), and ?1.4% (S100). Glycemic response was generally durable over time across treatments. All treatments improved measures of β-cell function (e.g., HOMA-β, proinsulin/insulin ratio). Mean body weight decreased from baseline in the combination and metformin monotherapy groups and was unchanged from baseline in the sitagliptin monotherapy group. The incidence of hypoglycemia was low (1–3%) across treatment groups. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse experiences with the co-administration of sitagliptin and metformin was similar to that observed with metformin alone.

Limitations: The patient population evaluated in the 54-week efficacy analysis was a population of patients who entered the continuation period without receiving glycemic rescue therapy in the 24-week placebo-controlled period. Because the baseline HbA_1c inclusion criteria ranged from 7.5 to 11% and the glycemic rescue criterion was an HbA_1c?>?8% after week 24, there was a greater likelihood of glycemic rescue in the monotherapy groups; this led to more missing data in the continuation all-patients-treated population(CAPT) analysis and fewer patients contributing to the completers analysis in the monotherapy groups.

Conclusions: In this study, initial treatment with sitagliptin, metformin, or the combination therapy of sitagliptin and metformin provided substantial and durable glycemic control, improved markers of β-cell function, and was generally well-tolerated over 54 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Effect of saxagliptin as add-on therapy in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes on insulin alone or insulin combined with metformin

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate efficacy and safety of saxagliptin as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with inadequate glycemic control on insulin alone or combined with metformin.     

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.     

Empagliflozin and linagliptin combination therapy for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Introduction: Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) fail to achieve the desired A1c goal because the antidiabetic medications used do not correct the underlying pathophysiologic abnormalities and monotherapy is not sufficiently potent to reduce the A1c to the 6.5 – 7.0% range. Insulin resistance and islet (beta and alpha) cell dysfunction are major pathophysiologic abnormalities in T2DM. We examine combination therapy with linagliptin plus empagliflozin as a therapeutic approach for the treatment of inadequately controlled T2DM patients.

Areas covered: A literature search of all human diabetes, metabolism and general medicine journals from year 2000 to the present was conducted. Glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) deficiency/resistance contributes to islet cell dysfunction by impairing insulin secretion and increasing glucagon secretion. DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) improve pancreatic islet function by augmenting glucose-dependent insulin secretion and decreasing elevated plasma glucagon levels. Linagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, reduces HbA1c, is weight neutral, has an excellent safety profile and a low risk of hypoglycemia. The expression of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) in the proximal renal tubule is upregulated in T2DM, causing excess reabsorption of filtered glucose. The SGLT2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), empagliflozin, improves HbA_1c by causing glucosuria and ameliorating glucotoxicity. It also decreases weight and blood pressure, and has a low risk of hypoglycemia.

Expert opinion: The once daily oral combination of linagliptin plus empagliflozin does not increase the risk of hypoglycemia and tolerability and discontinuation rates are similar to those with each as monotherapy. At HbA1c values below 8.5% linagliptin/empagliflozin treatment produces an additive effect, whereas above 8.5%, there is a less than additive reduction with combination therapy compared with the effect of each agent alone. Linagliptin/empagliflozin addition is a logical combination in patients with T2DM, especially those with an HbA1c < 8.5%.     

Tolerability and pharmacokinetics of metformin and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin when co-administered in patients with type 2 diabetes

ABSTRACT

Objective: As part of the clinical development of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions with other antihyperglycemic agents used in managing patients with type 2 diabetes are being carefully evaluated. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the tolerability of co-administered sitagliptin and metformin and effects of sitagliptin on metformin pharmacokinetics as well as metformin on sitagliptin pharmacokinetics under steady-state conditions.

Methods: This placebo-controlled, multiple-dose, crossover study in patients with type 2 diabetes assessed the tolerability of co-administered sitagliptin (50?mg b.i.d.) with metformin (1000?mg b.i.d.). Patients received, in a randomized crossover manner, three treatments (each of 7 days duration): 50?mg sitagliptin twice daily and placebo to metformin twice daily; 1000?mg of metformin twice daily and placebo to sitagliptin twice daily; concomitant administration of 50?mg of sitagliptin twice daily and 1000?mg of metformin twice daily. Following dosing on Day 7 of each treatment period, these pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for plasma sitagliptin and metformin: area under the plasma concentrations–time curve over the dosing interval (AUC_{0–12 h}), maximum observed plasma concentrations (C_max), and time of occurrence of maximum observed plasma concentrations (T_max). Renal clearance was also determined for sitagliptin.

Results: In this study, no adverse experiences were reported by 11 of 13 patients. Two patients had adverse experiences, which were not related to study drugs as determined by the investigators. The mean metformin plasma concentration–time profiles were nearly identical with or without sitagliptin co-administration [metformin AUC_{0–12 h} geometric mean ratio (GMR; [metformin + sitagliptin]/metformin)] was 1.02 (90% CI 0.95, 1.09). Similarly metformin administration did not alter the plasma sitagliptin pharmacokinetics [sitagliptin AUC_{0–12 h} GMR ([sitagliptin + metformin]/sitagliptin)] was 1.02 (90% CI 0.97, 1.08) or renal clearance of sitagliptin. No efficacy measurements (glycosylated hemoglobin or fasting plasma glucose) were obtained during this study. Urinary pharmacokinetics for metformin were not determined due to the lack of effect of sitagliptin on plasma metformin pharmacokinetics.

Conclusions: In this study, co-administration of sitagliptin and metformin was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes and did not meaningfully alter the steady-state pharmacokinetics of either agent.     

Comprehensive care for patients with diabetes in Ramadan: A module for pharmacy students and pharmacists

IntroductionPrior studies show that many patients with diabetes whose health maybe impacted by fasting, choose to fast during Ramadan. This study describes the implementation and evaluation of an online module targeting bachelor of pharmacy (BPharm) and doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) students that aims to improve participants' knowledge, communication, and self-efficacy concerning proper care for patients with diabetes in Ramadan.MethodsAn online module consisting of two phases targeting both BPharm and PharmD students was implemented over two semesters in fall 2020 and spring 2021. Participants were directed to fill pre-module and post-module assessments to evaluate the change in their knowledge and self-efficacy using two scales. Pre- and post-survey data for participants’ knowledge and self-efficacy were analyzed for significance using paired sample t-tests. Qualitative data analysis was performed to assess participants’ responses to the open-ended question concerning what they liked and disliked about the module.ResultsAll BPharm and PharmD students taking the lesson responded to both the baseline survey and the follow-up one resulting in 92 responses (participation rate of 100%). The average score for participants in the pre-module self-efficacy section was 1.5 (SD = 1) and increased post-module to 3.5 (SD = 0.7), t (91) = 20.2, p < 0.001. Further, the average score for participants in the pre-module knowledge section was 14 (SD = 3), which similarly increased to 22 (SD = 3) post-module t (91) = 19.7, p < 0.001. Qualitative analysis provided insights on how participants perceived the module design, content, and its impact on practice. Participants described the module as an informative one that addresses a much-needed issue they haven’t been exposed to before. They emphasized how the module addresses the cultural needs of patients in their communities. They particularly appreciated seeing instructor videos depicting real-life scenarios and the focus on their communication skills, but some preferred learning about this topic through live sessions.ConclusionAn online module positively impacted both self-efficacy and knowledge in relation to caring for patients with diabetes considering fasting in Ramadan. Future studies should explore how different versions of this module can be integrated into educational activities for pharmacy students, pharmacists in different settings, and for other health care professionals.     

Combination therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus: adding linagliptin to a stable regimen of metformin and a sulfonylurea

Linagliptin, the most recently approved drug of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class, is an oral agent used to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). By inhibiting the DPP-4 enzyme, these drugs slow the inactivation of the endogenous incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), in turn reducing blood glucose levels in a glucose-dependent manner. As well as significantly reducing glycosylated hemoglobin, the class has a good safety profile, with a low incidence of hypoglycemia, and is not associated with weight gain. From a practical point of view, they also have simple regimens, generally with once-daily oral administration, and can be used as monotherapy or in combination with other anti-diabetic drugs. Owens and colleagues have reported a 6-month study of linagliptin add-on therapy in patients who were receiving a stable regimen of metformin and a sulfonylurea, but needed additional glycemic control. Linagliptin was associated with significant improvement in glycemic control and was well-tolerated by patients, indicating that it provides a valuable option for a large number of patients with T2DM, especially for those who would prefer to add an oral therapy to a current regimen.     

Once-weekly dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin and trelagliptin, novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors administered once-weekly (DPP-4i QW).

Methods: We systematically searched for placebo- and active-controlled randomized trials in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Results: Fifteen primary studies with 5709 participants were included. DPP-4i QW were more effective than placebo in reducing hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) ?0.63%; 95% CI ?0.80, ?0.46; I² = 84%) and had a similar glucose-lowering effect with daily DPP-4i (WMD 0.01%; ?0.08, 0.11%; I² = 34%). Omarigliptin was less effective compared with oral antidiabetic agents, other than daily DPP-4i, (WMD 0.24%; 0.10, 0.38; I² = 12%). Omarigliptin did not affect body weight (WMD versus placebo 0.60 kg; 0.25, 0.96; I² = 0%). Risk for any hypoglycemia was similar between DPP-4i QW and placebo (Odds Ratio 1.32; 0.78, 2.22; I² = 0%). Incidence of other adverse events did not differ between DPP-4i QW and control.

Conclusions: DPP-4i QW were superior to placebo and similar to daily DPP-4i in terms of glycemic control, and were not associated with any specific adverse events. There is limited comparative effectiveness evidence against other agents, while their effect on hard clinical safety outcomes is unknown.