-
1.
Efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors and SGLT2 inhibitors compared to sulphonylureas in adult patients with diabetes with low c-peptide levels with or without anti-GAD65 antibody positivity.
Sudan, A, Kalra, A, Mirza, AA, Kant, R
Diabetes & metabolic syndrome. 2021;(4):102197
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Latent Autoimmune Diabetes of Adulthood (LADA) is different from type 2 diabetes. Present treatment protocols do not reflect that. DPP-4 and SGLT2 inhibitors have changed therapy. DPP-4 inhibitor use has shown delayed decline in beta-cell reserve in LADA. We studied patients with low c-peptide to assess relationship between c-peptide and anti-GAD65 antibody levels and compare DPP-4 inhibitors with SGLT2 inhibitors and sulphonylureas. METHODS The study was an open-label trial conducted in 156 participants with low c-peptide (<0.8 ng/mL), age > 25 years, recently diagnosed diabetes with HBA1c ≥ 6.5%. Participants were enrolled into three arms: Group A received sulphonylureas + metformin, Group B received DPP-4 inhibitors + metformin, and Group C received SGLT-2 inhibitors + metformin. Serum anti-GAD-65 antibodies were assessed using sandwich ELISA. Participants were assessed on enrolment and after three months of dual pharmacotherapy. RESULTS The three arms were comparable on enrolment. 52% of participants with low c-peptide had high anti-GAD65 antibody titers. Significant differences were observed after three months - DPP-4 inhibitors reduced HbA1c by 1.1 ± 0.3%, compared to SGLT2 inhibitors (0.8 ± 0.13%) and sulphonylureas (0.7 ± 0.3%) CONCLUSION DPP-4 inhibitors appear to provide better glycemic control than alternate therapeutic options in patients with low serum c-peptide.
-
2.
Efficacy and Safety of Pioglitazone versus Glimepiride after Metformin and Alogliptin Combination Therapy: A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Parallel-Controlled Study.
Kim, JM, Kim, SS, Kim, JH, Kim, MK, Kim, TN, Lee, SH, Lee, CW, Park, JY, Kim, ES, Lee, KJ, et al
Diabetes & metabolism journal. 2020;(1):67-77
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is limited information regarding the optimal third-line therapy for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) that is inadequately controlled using dual combination therapy. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of pioglitazone or glimepiride when added to metformin plus alogliptin treatment for T2DM. METHODS This multicenter, randomized, active-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02426294) recruited 135 Korean patients with T2DM that was inadequately controlled using metformin plus alogliptin. The patients were then randomized to also receive pioglitazone (15 mg/day) or glimepiride (2 mg/day) for a 26-week period, with dose titration was permitted based on the investigator's judgement. RESULTS Glycosylated hemoglobin levels exhibited similar significant decreases in both groups during the treatment period (pioglitazone: -0.81%, P<0.001; glimepiride: -1.05%, P<0.001). However, the pioglitazone-treated group exhibited significantly higher high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (P<0.001) and significantly lower homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance values (P<0.001). Relative to pioglitazone, adding glimepiride to metformin plus alogliptin markedly increased the risk of hypoglycemia (pioglitazone: 1/69 cases [1.45%], glimepiride: 14/66 cases [21.21%]; P<0.001). CONCLUSION Among patients with T2DM inadequately controlled using metformin plus alogliptin, the addition of pioglitazone provided comparable glycemic control and various benefits (improvements in lipid profiles, insulin resistance, and hypoglycemia risk) relative to the addition of glimepiride.
-
3.
Effects of canagliflozin versus glimepiride on adipokines and inflammatory biomarkers in type 2 diabetes.
Garvey, WT, Van Gaal, L, Leiter, LA, Vijapurkar, U, List, J, Cuddihy, R, Ren, J, Davies, MJ
Metabolism: clinical and experimental. 2018;:32-37
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Type 2 diabetes and obesity are pro-inflammatory states associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Canagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, demonstrated superiority in lowering HbA1c versus glimepiride with less hypoglycemia and greater weight reduction via loss of fat mass in a 52-week trial of type 2 diabetes patients. This post hoc, exploratory analysis assessed the effects of canagliflozin versus glimepiride on select adipokines, inflammatory biomarkers, and chemokines. METHODS Changes from baseline to Week 52 in serum leptin, adiponectin, IL-6, TNFα, CRP, PAI-1, VCAM-1, and MCP-1 were measured in a randomly selected subset of type 2 diabetes patients on metformin receiving canagliflozin 300 mg (n = 100) or glimepiride (n = 100) in the overall study. Correlations between change in biomarkers and change in select metabolic and anthropometric variables were assessed. RESULTS At Week 52, canagliflozin decreased median serum leptin by 25% (95% CI: -34%, -15%) and increased median serum adiponectin by 17% (95% CI: 11%, 23%) compared with glimepiride. There was a 22% reduction in median serum IL-6 (95% CI: -34%, -10%) and a 7% increase in median serum TNFα (95% CI: 1%, 12%) with canagliflozin versus glimepiride. No between-group differences were observed with the other biomarkers. The decrease in serum leptin with canagliflozin was correlated with change in weight (r ≥ 0.3) only; the increase in adiponectin and decrease in IL-6 with canagliflozin occurred independently of changes in HbA1c, weight, or lipids. CONCLUSIONS These results indicate that canagliflozin may improve adipose tissue function and induce changes in serum leptin, adiponectin, and IL-6 that favorably impact insulin sensitivity and cardiovascular disease risk.
-
4.
Efficacy and tolerability of saxagliptin compared with glimepiride in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled study (GENERATION).
Schernthaner, G, Durán-Garcia, S, Hanefeld, M, Langslet, G, Niskanen, L, Östgren, CJ, Malvolti, E, Hardy, E
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2015;(7):630-8
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of adjunctive saxagliptin vs glimepiride in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and inadequate glycaemic control. METHODS In this multinational, randomized, double-blind, phase IIIb/IV study (GENERATION; NCT01006603), patients aged ≥65 years were randomized (1 : 1) to receive saxagliptin 5 mg/day or glimepiride ≤6 mg/day, added to metformin, during a 52-week treatment period. The primary endpoint was achievement of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0% at week 52 without confirmed/severe hypoglycaemia. The key secondary endpoint was incidence of confirmed/severe hypoglycaemia. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS Of 720 patients randomized (360 in each treatment group; mean age 72.6 years; mean T2D duration 7.6 years), 574 (79.8%) completed the study (saxagliptin 80.3%; glimepiride 79.2%). Similar proportions of patients achieved the primary endpoint with saxagliptin and glimepiride (37.9 vs 38.2%; odds ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.73, 1.34; p = 0.9415); however, a significant treatment-by-age interaction effect was detected (p = 0.0389): saxagliptin was numerically (but not significantly) superior to glimepiride for patients aged <75 years (39.2 vs 33.3%) and numerically inferior for patients aged ≥75 years (35.9 vs 45.5%). The incidence of confirmed/severe hypoglycaemia was lower with saxagliptin vs glimepiride (1.1 vs 15.3%; nominal p < 0.0001). Saxagliptin was generally well tolerated, with similar incidences of adverse events compared with glimepiride. CONCLUSION As avoiding hypoglycaemia is a key clinical objective in elderly patients, saxagliptin is a suitable alternative to glimepiride in patients with T2D aged ≥65 years.
-
5.
Durability and tolerability of dapagliflozin over 52 weeks as add-on to metformin and sulphonylurea in type 2 diabetes.
Matthaei, S, Bowering, K, Rohwedder, K, Sugg, J, Parikh, S, Johnsson, E, ,
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2015;(11):1075-84
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin as add-on therapy to metformin plus sulphonylurea over 52 weeks. METHODS Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using sulphonylurea and metformin received dapagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo added to therapy for 52 weeks (24-week randomized, double-blind period plus 28-week double-blind extension). RESULTS A total of 219 patients were randomized 1 : 1 to dapagliflozin or placebo. Over 52 weeks, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose levels showed greater improvement from baseline with dapagliflozin (-0.8% and -1.5 mmol/l) than with placebo (-0.1% and 0.6 mmol/l). More patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with dapagliflozin (27.3%) than with placebo (11.3%) at 52 weeks. Dapagliflozin was associated with greater reductions in body weight and systolic blood pressure (-2.9 kg and -1.0 mmHg) compared with placebo (-1.0 kg and 1.1 mmHg). Greater increases in total, LDL and HDL cholesterol and decreases in triglycerides were observed with dapagliflozin (3.4, 4.8, 6.9 and -8.0%, respectively) versus placebo (1.4, 0.9, 0.6 and 2.9%, respectively). Fewer patients were rescued for failing to reach glycaemic targets with dapagliflozin (9.3%) than with placebo (44.4%). Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between groups (dapagliflozin: 69.7 and 6.4%; placebo: 73.4 and 7.3%). More hypoglycaemic events were observed with dapagliflozin (15.6%) than with placebo (8.3%). Genital infections were reported in more patients in the dapagliflozin (10.1%) than in the placebo group (0.9%) and urinary tract infection frequency was similar in the two groups (10.1 and 11.0%). CONCLUSION Dapagliflozin as add-on to metformin plus a sulphonylurea was well tolerated and improvement in glycaemic control was maintained over 52 weeks.
-
6.
Efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide in combination with sulphonylurea and/or biguanide compared with once-daily insulin glargine in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, open-label, phase III, non-inferiority study.
Araki, E, Inagaki, N, Tanizawa, Y, Oura, T, Takeuchi, M, Imaoka, T
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2015;(10):994-1002
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate 0.75 mg of dulaglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, compared with once-daily insulin glargine for glycaemic control in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS In this phase III, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, 26-week study, 361 patients with inadequately controlled T2D receiving sulphonylureas and/or biguanides, aged ≥20 years, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels 7.0-10.0% (53-86 mmol/mol), inclusive, were randomized (1 : 1) to receive dulaglutide or glargine. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary measure was change from baseline in HbA1c at 26 weeks, analysed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measures, with a predefined non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. RESULTS At week 26, least-squares (LS) mean (standard error) reductions in HbA1c were -1.44 (0.05)% [-15.74 (0.55) mmol/mol] in the dulaglutide group and -0.90 (0.05)% [-9.84 (0.55) mmol/mol] in the glargine group. The mean between-group treatment difference in HbA1c was -0.54% (95% CI -0.67, -0.41) [-5.90 mmol/mol (95% CI -7.32, -4.48)]; p < 0.001. Dulaglutide significantly reduced body weight compared with glargine at week 26 (LS mean difference -1.42 kg, 95% CI -1.89, -0.94; p < 0.001). The most frequent adverse events with dulaglutide treatment were nasopharyngitis and gastrointestinal symptoms. The incidence of hypoglycaemia was significantly lower with dulaglutide [47/181 (26%)] compared with glargine [86/180 (48%)], p < 0.001. CONCLUSION In Japanese patients with T2D uncontrolled on sulphonylureas and/or biguanides, once-weekly dulaglutide was superior to once-daily glargine for reduction in HbA1c at 26 weeks. Although dulaglutide increased gastrointestinal symptoms, it was well tolerated, with an acceptable safety profile.
-
7.
Efficacy, safety and tolerability of aleglitazar in patients with type 2 diabetes: pooled findings from three randomized phase III trials.
Henry, RR, Buse, JB, Wu, H, Durrwell, L, Mingrino, R, Jaekel, K, El Azzouzi, B, Andjelkovic, M, Herz, M
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2015;(6):560-565
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the potential efficacy, safety and tolerability of aleglitazar as monotherapy or add-on therapy to metformin or to a sulphonylurea (either alone or in combination with metformin). METHODS We conducted a pooled analysis of data from three randomized phase III clinical trials of aleglitazar in patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 591). The three studies focused on: (i) aleglitazar alone; (ii) aleglitazar and metformin; and (iii) aleglitazar and sulphonylurea with or without metformin. Patients were randomized to 26 weeks' treatment with aleglitazar 150 µg/day or placebo. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration from baseline to week 26. Secondary endpoints included changes in lipids, fasting plasma glucose and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) at week 26. RESULTS Reductions in HbA1c concentration from baseline to week 26 were statistically significantly greater with aleglitazar than with placebo. Aleglitazar treatment was associated with more beneficial changes in lipid profiles and HOMA-IR values than was placebo. Aleglitazar was generally well tolerated, with no reports of congestive heart failure. The incidence of peripheral oedema was similar in both groups. Change in body weight was +1.37 kg with aleglitazar and -0.53 kg with placebo. Hypoglycaemia was more frequently reported with aleglitazar (7.8%) than with placebo (1.7%), a result probably driven by the type of background medication. CONCLUSIONS Development of aleglitazar was halted because of a lack of cardiovascular efficacy and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-related side effects in patients with type 2 diabetes post-acute coronary syndrome; however, in the present studies, aleglitazar was well tolerated and effective in improving HbA1c, insulin resistance and lipid variables.
-
8.
Gender-specific Effects of Treatment with Lifestyle, Metformin or Sulfonylurea on Glycemic Control and Body Weight: A German Multicenter Analysis on 9 108 Patients.
Schütt, M, Zimmermann, A, Hood, R, Hummel, M, Seufert, J, Siegel, E, Tytko, A, Holl, RW, , , ,
Experimental and clinical endocrinology & diabetes : official journal, German Society of Endocrinology [and] German Diabetes Association. 2015;(10):622-6
Abstract
Effects of diabetes treatment are strongly connected to individual factors, but the relevant role of gender has not been addressed so far. This observational study evaluates whether monotherapy with lifestyle, metformin or sulfonylurea has gender-specific effects on glycemic control and/or body weight. Data of 9 108 patients with type 2 diabetes from 129 German diabetes centers were assessed by a standardized, prospective, computer-based diabetes care and outcome documentation system (DPV-Wiss-database; age 63.1±12.8 years, diabetes duration 5.7±7.4 years, HbA1c 55±17.7 mmol/mol [7.2±1.6%], BMI 30.6±6.1 kg/m(2), 49.3% female patients). Antidiabetic concepts included lifestyle intervention (n=5,787), metformin (n=2,180), sulfonylurea (n=943) or other antidiabetic drugs (n=198), respectively. HbA1c and body weight were compared before and after a stable monotherapeutical period of 0.8±0.4 years. Women had a significantly higher reduction of body weight after treatment with lifestyle (women-0.8±0.1 vs. men-0.2±0.1 kg; p<0.05), metformin (women-1.8±0.2 vs. men-1.2±0.2 kg; p<0.05) or sulfonylurea drugs (women-0.9±0.2 vs. men - 0.1±0.2 kg; p<0.05), whereas men displayed significantly higher HbA1c-reductions after treatment with lifestyle (women-6.9±0.2 mmol/mol [- 0.6±0.02%] vs. men-7.5±0.2 mmol/mol [0.7±0.02%]; p<0.05) and metformin only (women-6.3±0.3 mmol/mol [- 0.6±0.03%] vs. men - 7.4±0.3 mmol/mol [- 0.7±0.03%]; p<0.05). No differences were seen for sulfonylurea monotherapy concerning the HbA1c-reduction (women - 5.6±0.5 mmol/mol [- 0.5±0.05%] vs. men-6.4±0.4 mmol/mol [- 0.6±0.04%]; p=0.196). In summary, antidiabetic treatment concepts might result in gender-specific effects on body weight and HbA1c. Gender might therefore represent another important factor in the context of an individualized treatment management of type 2 diabetes.
-
9.
Efficacy and safety of teneligliptin added to glimepiride in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with an open-label, long-term extension.
Kadowaki, T, Kondo, K
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2014;(5):418-25
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the efficacy and safety of teneligliptin in combination with glimepiride in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with glimepiride monotherapy. METHODS In the initial 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group period, 194 patients [haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c): 8.4 ± 0.8%; fasting plasma glucose (FPG): 164.2 ± 28.1 mg/dl] were randomized to either teneligliptin 20 mg or placebo once daily while continuing stable glimepiride therapy. This randomized period was then followed by a 40-week, open-label period, where all patients received teneligliptin once daily. The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 12. RESULTS Teneligliptin reduced HbA1c significantly compared with placebo at week 12. The placebo-subtracted change in HbA1c was -1.0 ± 0.1% [least-squares (LS) mean ± s.e., p < 0.001]. Teneligliptin also significantly reduced FPG and 2-h postprandial glucose (PPG) as compared with placebo at week 12; the placebo-subtracted changes were -27.1 ± 3.2 and -49.1 ± 6.2 mg/dl (LS mean ± s.e., both p < 0.001), respectively. The blood glucose-lowering effects were sustained throughout the 40-week open-label period. The incidence rates of adverse events and adverse drug reactions, including hypoglycaemia, during the double-blind randomized period were similar in both groups. Therefore, teneligliptin was generally well tolerated when used in combination with glimepiride. CONCLUSIONS The addition of teneligliptin was effective and generally well tolerated in Japanese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with glimepiride monotherapy. The improvements in glycaemic control were maintained for up to 52 weeks.
-
10.
Comparison of empagliflozin and glimepiride as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 104-week randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.
Ridderstråle, M, Andersen, KR, Zeller, C, Kim, G, Woerle, HJ, Broedl, UC, ,
The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology. 2014;(9):691-700
Abstract
BACKGROUND Metformin is the recommended first-line pharmacotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. There is no consensus on the optimum second-line pharmacotherapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin and the sulfonylurea glimepiride as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS In this double-blind phase 3 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c concentrations of 7-10%, despite metformin treatment and diet and exercise counselling, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio with a computer-generated random sequence, stratified by HbA1c, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and region, to empagliflozin (25 mg once daily, orally) or glimepiride (1-4 mg once daily, orally) as add-on to metformin for 104 weeks. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c levels at weeks 52 and 104. Differences in the primary endpoint were first tested for non-inferiority (based on a margin of 0·3%). If non-inferiority was shown, differences in the primary endpoint at week 104 were then tested for superiority. Analysis was done on the full-analysis set-ie, patients who were treated with at least one dose of study drug and had a baseline HbA1c value. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01167881. A 104-week extension is ongoing. FINDINGS Between August, 2010, and June, 2011, 1549 patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin (n=769) or glimepiride (n=780); four patients in the empagliflozin group did not receive the assigned treatment. Empagliflozin was non-inferior to glimepiride at both timepoints. At week 104, adjusted mean difference in change from baseline in HbA1c with empagliflozin versus glimepiride was -0·11% (95% CI -0·19 to -0·02; p=0·0153 for superiority). Adverse events were reported in 661 (86%) patients treated with empagliflozin and 673 (86%) patients treated with glimepiride. Severe adverse events were reported in 72 (9%) patients in the empagliflozin group and 68 (9%) in the glimepiride group. Serious adverse events were reported in 119 (16%) patients in the empagliflozin group and 89 (11%) in the glimepiride group. Confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events (plasma glucose ≤3·9 mmol/L or requiring assistance) at week 104 were reported in 19 (2%) patients treated with empagliflozin and 189 (24%) patients treated with glimepiride. INTERPRETATION Empagliflozin might be an effective and a well tolerated second-line treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes who have not achieved good glycaemic control on metformin. FUNDING Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.