Incretin Hormones in Obesity and Related Cardiometabolic Disorders: The Clinical Perspective

The prevalence of obesity continues to grow rapidly worldwide, posing many public health challenges of the 21st century. Obese subjects are at major risk for serious diet-related noncommunicable diseases, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Understanding the mechanisms underlying obesity pathogenesis is needed for the development of effective treatment strategies. Dysregulation of incretin secretion and actions has been observed in obesity and related metabolic disorders; therefore, incretin-based therapies have been developed to provide new therapeutic options. Incretin mimetics present glucose-lowering properties, together with a reduction of appetite and food intake, resulting in weight loss. In this review, we describe the physiology of two known incretins—glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), and their role in obesity and related cardiometabolic disorders. We also focus on the available and incoming incretin-based medications that can be used in the treatment of the above-mentioned conditions.     

Sitagliptin: a review

Introduction: The ever-increasing burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and inadequate control in the majority of patients has led to a quest for newer therapeutic options. There have been recent exciting advances in the treatment of T2DM, targeting the enteroinsular axis with incretin-based therapies that include the dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors.

Areas covered: The background, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile of sitagliptin and important clinical trials with this drug are discussed in this paper. This review is intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the DPP-IV inhibitor sitagliptin, its clinical use and an expert opinion about its place in the treatment algorithm of diabetes management.

Expert opinion: Sitagliptin is a well-tolerated, moderately efficacious, weight-neutral oral antidiabetic agent, with a low incidence of hypoglycemia. It may have a particular role in the management of diabetic patients with kidney or liver dysfunction. Animal studies indicate a protective effect on the pancreatic beta cell, thus limiting the progression of the disease, but this remains to be proven in humans.     

Exenatide and Sitagliptin Decrease Interleukin 1β, Matrix Metalloproteinase 9, and Nitric Oxide Synthase 2 Gene Expression But Does Not Reduce Alveolar Bone Loss in Rats With Periodontitis

Background: New drugs for the treatment of diabetes, glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists and inhibitors of dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) have shown pleiotropic effects on bone metabolism and anti‐inflammatory properties. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of exenatide (GLP‐1 agonist) and sitagliptin (DPP‐4 inhibitor) during periodontitis induction by ligature insertion in rats. Methods: Forty rats were divided into four groups: 1) animals with induced periodontitis that received exenatide (EG); 2) animals with induced periodontitis that received sitagliptin (SG); 3) animals with induced periodontitis and without drug treatment (LG); and 4) animals without induced periodontitis and without drug treatment (controls). The drugs were administered for 28 days. On the day the animals were sacrificed, blood was collected for analysis of glucose and DPP‐4 levels. The gene expressions of prostaglandin‐endoperoxide synthase 2, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1, Dpp4, nitric oxide synthase 2 (Nos2), interleukin 1β (Il1b), and matrix metalloproteinase 9 (Mmp9) in the gingiva; support and alveolar bone loss; connective tissue attachment; and the quantity of gingival collagen were evaluated. Results: Exenatide and sitagliptin treatments have led to a lower percentage of weight gain but did not influence glycemia. Sitagliptin reduced the serum concentration of DPP‐4. Interestingly, although the gene expression profile has revealed a downregulation of Mmp9, Nos2, and Il1b in both EG and SG compared to LG, a significant protective effect was not observed on alveolar bone and collagen tissue in this model. Conclusion: Regardless of the reduction of the expression of Il1b, Nos2, and Mmp9, the drugs were not effective in the stabilization or reduction of alveolar bone loss and collagen degradation in rats.     

Palliative Treatment of the Constitutionally Inadequate Patient

Traumatic shock is hemorrhagic until proved otherwise; there is no completely reliable way to assess the severity of blood loss. Adequate ventilation has first priority in management of multiple-injury patients. Often these patients receive too many narcotics, spinal taps, and vasopressors and too little in the way of physical examination, diagnostic paracentesis and blood transfusions. Tourniquets and tracheostomies are last resorts; there are better ways. The best place for the multiple-injury patient is the operating room.     

Membrane-tethered ligands are effective probes for exploring class B1 G protein-coupled receptor function

Class B1 (secretin family) G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) modulate a wide range of physiological functions, including glucose homeostasis, feeding behavior, fat deposition, bone remodeling, and vascular contractility. Endogenous peptide ligands for these GPCRs are of intermediate length (27–44 aa) and include receptor affinity (C-terminal) as well as receptor activation (N-terminal) domains. We have developed a technology in which a peptide ligand tethered to the cell membrane selectively modulates corresponding class B1 GPCR-mediated signaling. The engineered cDNA constructs encode a single protein composed of (i) a transmembrane domain (TMD) with an intracellular C terminus, (ii) a poly(asparagine-glycine) linker extending from the TMD into the extracellular space, and (iii) a class B1 receptor ligand positioned at the N terminus. We demonstrate that membrane-tethered peptides, like corresponding soluble ligands, trigger dose-dependent receptor activation. The broad applicability of this approach is illustrated by experiments using tethered versions of 7 mammalian endogenous class B1 GPCR agonists. In parallel, we carried out mutational studies focused primarily on incretin ligands of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor. These experiments suggest that tethered ligand activity is conferred in large part by the N-terminal domain of the peptide hormone. Follow-up studies revealed that interconversion of tethered agonists and antagonists can be achieved with the introduction of selected point mutations. Such complementary receptor modulators provide important new tools for probing receptor structure–function relationships as well as for future studies aimed at dissecting the tissue-specific biological role of a GPCR in vivo (e.g., in the brain vs. in the periphery).     

Efficacy and safety of monotherapy of sitagliptin compared with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with sitagliptin and metformin in treatment‐naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: In a double‐blind study, 1050 treatment‐naïve patients (i.e. not taking an antihyperglycaemic agent for ≥16 weeks prior to study entry) with type 2 diabetes and an HbA_1c 6.5–9% were randomized (1:1) to treatment with once‐daily sitagliptin 100 mg (N = 528) or twice‐daily metformin 1000 mg (N = 522) for 24 weeks. Metformin was up‐titrated from 500 to 2000 mg per day (or maximum tolerated daily dose ≥1000 mg) over a period of 5 weeks. The primary analysis used a per‐protocol (PP) approach to assess whether sitagliptin was non‐inferior to metformin based on HbA_1c change from baseline at week 24. Non‐inferiority was to be declared if the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the between‐group difference in this endpoint was <0.40%. Results: From a mean baseline HbA_1c of 7.2% in the PP population, HbA_1c change from baseline was ?0.43% with sitagliptin (n = 455) and ?0.57% with metformin (n = 439). The between‐group difference (95% CI) was 0.14% (0.06, 0.21), thus confirming non‐inferiority. Baseline HbA_1c influenced treatment response, with larger reductions in HbA_1c observed in patients with baseline HbA_1c≥8% in the sitagliptin (–1.13%; n = 74) and metformin (–1.24%; n = 73) groups. The proportions of patients at week 24 with HbA_1c values at the goals of <7 or <6.5% were 69 and 34% with sitagliptin and 76 and 39% with metformin, respectively. Fasting plasma glucose changes from baseline were ?11.5 mg/dL (–0.6 mmol/l) and ?19.4 mg/dl (–1.1 mmol/l) with sitagliptin and metformin, respectively (difference in LS mean change from baseline [95% CI] = 8.0 mg /dl [4.5,11.4]). Both treatments led to similar improvements from baseline in measures of homeostasis model assessment‐β cell function (HOMA‐β) and insulin resistance (HOMA‐IR). The incidence of hypoglycaemia was 1.7% with sitagliptin and 3.3% with metformin (p = 0.116). The incidence of gastrointestinal‐related adverse experiences was substantially lower with sitagliptin (11.6%) compared with metformin (20.7%) (difference in incidence [95% CI] = ?9.1% [?13.6,?4.7]), primarily because of significantly decreased incidences of diarrhoea (3.6 vs. 10.9%; p < 0.001) and nausea (1.1 vs. 3.1%; p = 0.032). Body weight was reduced from baseline with both sitagliptin (LS mean change [95% CI] = ?0.6 kg [?0.9,?0.4]) and metformin (–1.9 kg [–2.2, ?1.7]) (p < 0.001 for sitagliptin vs. metformin). Conclusions: In this 24‐week monotherapy study, sitagliptin was non‐inferior to metformin in improving HbA_1c in treatment‐naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Although both treatments were generally well tolerated, a lower incidence of gastrointestinal‐related adverse experiences was observed with sitagliptin.     

Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on glimepiride alone or on glimepiride and metformin

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of a 24-week treatment with sitagliptin, a highly selective once-daily oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycaemic control [glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) >or=7.5% and or=4 mg/day) monotherapy and 229 were on glimepiride (>or=4 mg/day) plus metformin (>or=1,500 mg/day) combination therapy. Patients exceeding pre-specified glycaemic thresholds during the double-blind treatment period were provided open-label rescue therapy (pioglitazone) until study end. The primary efficacy analysis evaluated the change in HbA(1c) from baseline to Week 24. Secondary efficacy endpoints included fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h post-meal glucose and lipid measurements. RESULTS: Mean baseline HbA(1c) was 8.34% in the sitagliptin and placebo groups. After 24 weeks, sitagliptin reduced HbA(1c) by 0.74% (p < 0.001) relative to placebo. In the subset of patients on glimepiride plus metformin, sitagliptin reduced HbA(1c) by 0.89% relative to placebo, compared with a reduction of 0.57% in the subset of patients on glimepiride alone. The addition of sitagliptin reduced FPG by 20.1 mg/dl (p < 0.001) and increased homeostasis model assessment-beta, a marker of beta-cell function, by 12% (p < 0.05) relative to placebo. In patients who underwent a meal tolerance test (n = 134), sitagliptin decreased 2-h post-prandial glucose (PPG) by 36.1 mg/dl (p < 0.001) relative to placebo. The addition of sitagliptin was generally well tolerated, although there was a higher incidence of overall (60 vs. 47%) and drug-related adverse experiences (AEs) (15 vs. 7%) in the sitagliptin group than in the placebo group. This was largely because of a higher incidence of hypoglycaemia AEs (12 vs. 2%, respectively) in the sitagliptin group compared with the placebo group. Body weight modestly increased with sitagliptin relative to placebo (+0.8 vs. -0.4 kg; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sitagliptin 100 mg once daily significantly improved glycaemic control and beta-cell function in patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycaemic control with glimepiride or glimepiride plus metformin therapy. The addition of sitagliptin was generally well tolerated, with a modest increase in hypoglycaemia and body weight, consistent with glimepiride therapy and the observed degree of glycaemic improvement.