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. 相似文献
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. 相似文献
Objective: To compare the efficacy of mitiglinide and sitagliptin, alone or in combination, on postprandial excursion and glycemic variability assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in a single-day treatment setting.
Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of a randomized crossover study comparing the efficacy of sitagliptin, mitiglinide and the combination of these two drugs. Twenty-four hour CGM was performed before and after a single-day treatment with each drug alone or in combination.
Results: Mean glucose levels were decreased in all groups. The average of three postprandial glucose excursions AUC (average of all three 4-h postprandial periods throughout the day) (AUCpp-average) decreased in the mitiglinide and combination treatment groups, but not in the sitagliptin group. The lowering effect on AUCpp-average was greater in patients given mitiglinide (–47 mg/dl, p < 0.001) or combination treatment (–66 mg/dl, p < 0.001) compared with sitagliptin alone (–18 mg/dl). The reduction in mean amplitude of glycemic excursion was greater with mitiglinide (–29.3 mg/dl, p < 0.001) and combination treatment (–28.3 mg/dl, p < 0.01) than with sitagliptin alone (–8.9 mg/dl).
Conclusions: Mitiglinide or combination treatment resulted in lower glycemic variability and postprandial glucose excursion than sitagliptin alone; however, the results of this single-day pharmacodynamics study cannot be generalized to a clinical setting. 相似文献
Introduction: Dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitors (DPP-4-i) are highly selective inhibitors of the enzyme DPP-4. They act by increasing levels of incretin hormones, which have potent effects on insulin and glucagon release, gastric emptying, and satiety. Our goal is to review the safety issues related to DPP-4-i.
Areas covered: This review is based upon a PubMed search of the literature using keywords alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin and vildagliptin, DPP-4-i, glucagon-like polypeptide-1 agonists, as well as extensive personal clinical trial experience with each of these agents. The current DPP-4-i have very different chemical structures. Saxagliptin has significant cytochrome P450 metabolism and carries a risk of drug interactions. Linagliptin has primarily entero-hepatic excretion, a benefit in renally impaired patients. A concern arose related to congestive heart failure in the SAVOR TIMI trial of saxagliptin. Several major cardiac studies are underway, with two concluded. Despite lingering uncertainty related to pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, large randomized trials have not shown an increased risk with DPP-4-i treatment. Cutaneous adverse effects occur with a low frequency with some of these agents.
Expert opinion: DPP-4-i are an additional choice in the group of anti-hyperglycemics. Their principal advantage is a low incidence of hypoglycemia, making these agents desirable in patients such as the elderly and those with cardiac disease. Several large trials have hinted at less cardiac risk with DPP-4-i than with sulfonylureas. The CAROLINA Trial comparing linagliptin and glimepiride may provide a conclusive answer to this question. 相似文献
Aim: This study evaluated whether the risk of acute renal failure (ARF) increases with exenatide and sitagliptin use. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of a large medical and pharmacy claims database was performed. Data for 4 91 539 patients were analysed. Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the risk of ARF between diabetic and non‐diabetic subjects and between diabetic patients treated with exenatide, sitagliptin and control medications. Results: Adjusted Cox analyses showed diabetic subjects had a higher risk of ARF [HR 1.51, confidence interval (CI) 1.26–1.81, p < 0.001] than non‐diabetic controls. Compared with diabetic controls, neither exenatide (HR 0.77, CI 0.42–1.41, p = 0.40) nor sitagliptin (HR 1.17, CI 0.82–1.65, p = 0.39) increased the risk of ARF. Conclusion: Our study revealed an increased incidence of ARF in diabetic versus non‐diabetic patients but no association between use of exenatide or sitagliptin and ARF. Because of the limitations of this observational analysis, we cannot exclude the possibility of a very small increased risk. 相似文献