-
Daru : Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy,... Oct 2017Diabetes is one of the most common chronic and costly diseases worldwide and type 2 diabetes is the most common type which accounts for about 90% of cases with diabetes.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Diabetes is one of the most common chronic and costly diseases worldwide and type 2 diabetes is the most common type which accounts for about 90% of cases with diabetes. New medication-therapy regimens such as those containing linagliptin alone or in combination with other medications (within the category of DDP-4 inhibitors) must be evaluated in terms of efficacy and compared with other currently used drugs and then enter the medication list of the country. Hence, this study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of the two drugs, i.e. linagliptin and sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted to identify all clinical trials published by 2015 which compared the two drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes. Using keywords such as "linagliptin", "type 2 diabetes mellitus", "sitagliptin" and related combinations, we searched databases including Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. The quality of the selected studies was evaluated using the Jadad score. Considering primary and secondary outcomes extracted from the reviewed studies, a network meta-analysis was used to conduct a systematic comparison between the two studied drugs.
RESULTS
This network meta-analysis included 32 studies (Linagliptin vs PLB: n = 8, Sitagliptin vs PLB: n = 13, Linagliptin + MET vs PLB + MET: n = 4, and Sitagliptin + MET vs PLB + MET: n = 7) and a total of 13,747 patients. The results showed no significant difference between linagliptin and sitagliptin in terms of key efficacy and safety outcomes such as HbA1c changes from baseline, body weight change from baseline, percentage of patients achieving HbA1c <7, and percentage of patients experiencing hypoglycemic events (p > 0.05). The results showed that the efficacy of the two drug regimens was the same.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results, there was no significant difference between the two drugs, i.e. linagliptin and sitagliptin, in terms of efficacy; in other words, the efficacy of the two drugs was the same. Therefore, the use of these two drugs depends on their availability and cost. Graphical abstract of the network meta-analysis performed to evaluate the alternatives under the study.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Body Weight; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Linagliptin; Male; Middle Aged; Network Meta-Analysis; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29070077
DOI: 10.1186/s40199-017-0189-6 -
Medicine Sep 2017The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of liraglutide versus sitagliptin both in combination with metformin in patients with type 2... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of liraglutide versus sitagliptin both in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes and provide reference basis for rational use of clinical drugs.
METHODS
Several databases were searched, including Web of science, PubMed, Cochrane library, CNKI, and Wanfang database. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of liraglutide versus sitagliptin both in combination with metformin up to 31 August 2016 were included. Data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers, and a fixed or random effects model were used to analyze outcomes that were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for different situations.
RESULTS
Five RCTs involving 1440 participants were included. Compared with sitagliptin combination with metformin group, participants' treatment with 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg liraglutide with metformin could significantly lower the level of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (P < .00001, MD = -0.35, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.20). Moreover, patients with 1.8 mg liraglutide group had significant body weight loss (P < .00001, MD = -1.12, 95% CI -1.54 to -0.70). However, there were no obvious differences in cutting down the systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure between liraglutide-metformin and sitagliptin-metformin groups. The incidence of gastrointestinal problems was significantly higher than sitagliptin with metformin groups.
CONCLUSION
The results of this meta-analysis indicated that Liraglutide added on to metformin therapy could significantly lower the level of HbA1c and increase body weight loss. Meanwhile, the adverse reactions such as gastrointestinal problems were common in the liraglutide treatment group. Thus, this will provide an important reference for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Drug Monitoring; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Liraglutide; Metformin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28953663
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008161 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Kidney transplantation is the preferred form of kidney replacement therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and is often complicated by worsening or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Kidney transplantation is the preferred form of kidney replacement therapy for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and is often complicated by worsening or new-onset diabetes. Management of hyperglycaemia is important to reduce post-transplant and diabetes-related complications. The safety and efficacy of glucose-lowering agents after kidney transplantation is largely unknown.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for lowering glucose levels in patients who have undergone kidney transplantation and have diabetes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 15 April 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies examining head-to-head comparisons of active regimens of glucose-lowering therapy or active regimen compared with placebo/standard care in patients who have received a kidney transplant and have diabetes were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and quality and performed data extraction. Continuous outcomes were expressed as post-treatment mean differences (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD). Adverse events were expressed as post-treatment absolute risk differences (RD). Dichotomous clinical outcomes were presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven studies that involved a total of 399 kidney transplant recipients. All included studies had observed heterogeneity in the patient population, interventions and measured outcomes or missing data (which was unavailable despite correspondence with authors). Many studies had incompletely reported methodology preventing meta-analysis and leading to low confidence in treatment estimates.Three studies with 241 kidney transplant recipients examined the use of more intensive compared to less intensive insulin therapy in kidney transplant recipients with pre-existing type 1 or 2 diabetes. Evidence for the effects of more intensive compared to less intensive insulin therapy on transplant graft survival, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, all cause mortality and adverse effects including hypoglycaemia was of very low quality. More intensive versus less intensive insulin therapy resulted in no difference in transplant or graft survival over three to five years in one study while another study showed that more intensive versus less intensive insulin therapy resulted in more rejection events over the three year follow-up (11 events in total; 9 in the more intensive group, P = 0.01). One study showed that more intensive insulin therapy resulted in a lower mean HbA1c (10 ± 0.8% versus 13 ± 0.9%) and lower fasting blood glucose (7.22 ± 0.5 mmol/L versus 13.44 ± 1.22 mmol/L) at 13 months compared with standard insulin therapy. Another study showed no difference between more intensive compared to less intensive insulin therapy on all-cause mortality over a five year follow-up period. All studies showed either an increased frequency of hypoglycaemia or severe hypoglycaemia episodes.Three studies with a total of 115 transplant recipients examined the use of DPP4 inhibitors for new-onset diabetes after transplantation. Evidence for the treatment effect of DPP4 inhibitors on transplant or graft survival, HbA1c and fasting blood glucose levels, all cause mortality, and adverse events including hypoglycaemia was of low quality. One study comparing vildagliptin to placebo and another comparing sitagliptin to placebo showed no difference in transplant or graft survival over two to four months of follow-up. One study comparing vildagliptin to placebo showed no significant change in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline (1.9 ± 10.3 mL/min/1.73 m, P = 0.48 and 2.1 ± 6.1 mL/min/1.73 m, P = 0.22) and no deaths, in either treatment group over three months of follow-up. One study comparing vildagliptin to placebo showed a lower HbA1c level (mean ± SD) (6.3 ± 0.5% versus versus 6.7 ± 0.6%, P = 0.03) and trend towards a greater lowering of fasting blood glucose (-0.91 ± -0.92 mmol/L versus vs -0.19 ± 1.16 mmol/L, P = 0.08) with vildagliptin. One study comparing sitagliptin to insulin glargine showed an equivalent lowering of HbA1c (-0.6 ± 0.5% versus -0.6 ± 0.6%, P = NS) and fasting blood glucose (4.92 ± 1.42 versus 4.76 ± 1.09 mmol/L, P = NS) with sitagliptin. For the outcome of hypoglycaemia, one study comparing vildagliptin to placebo reported no episodes of hypoglycaemia, one study comparing sitagliptin to insulin glargine reported fewer episodes of hypoglycaemia with sitagliptin (3/28 patients; 10.7% versus 5/28; 17.9%) and one cross-over study of sitagliptin and placebo reported two episodes of asymptomatic moderate hypoglycaemia (2 to 3.9 mmol/L) when sitagliptin was administered with glipizide. All three studies reported no drug interactions between DPP4 inhibitors and the immunosuppressive agents taken.Evidence for the treatment effect of pioglitazone for treating pre-existing diabetes was of low quality. One study with 62 transplant recipients compared the use of pioglitazone with insulin to insulin alone for treating pre-existing diabetes. Pioglitazone resulted in a lower HbA1c level (mean ± SD) (-1.21 ± 1.2 versus 0.39 ± 1%, P < 0.001) but had no effects on fasting blood glucose (6.58 ± 2.71 versus 7.28 ± 2.78 mmol/L, P = 0.14 ), and change in creatinine (3.54 ± 15.03 versus 10.61 ± 18.56 mmol/L, P = 0.53) and minimal adverse effects (no episodes of hypoglycaemia, three dropped out due to mild to moderate lower extremity oedema, cyclosporin levels were not affected).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering agents for treating pre-existing and new-onset diabetes in kidney transplant recipients is limited. Existing studies examine more intensive versus less intensive insulin therapy, and the use of DPP4 inhibitors and pioglitazone. The safety and efficacy of more intensive compared to less intensive insulin therapy is very uncertain and the safety and efficacy of DPP4 inhibitors and pioglitazone is uncertain, due to data being limited and of poor quality. Additional RCTs are required to clarify the safety and efficacy of current glucose-lowering agents for kidney transplant recipients with diabetes.
Topics: Adamantane; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Fasting; Glycated Hemoglobin; Graft Survival; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Insulin; Kidney Transplantation; Nitriles; Pioglitazone; Pyrrolidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Thiazolidinediones; Vildagliptin
PubMed: 28238223
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009966.pub2 -
Advances in Therapy Jan 2017Regulatory requirements mandate that new drugs for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Regulatory requirements mandate that new drugs for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, are evaluated to show that they do not increase cardiovascular (CV) risk.
METHODS
A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the association between DPP-4 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist use and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The National Institutes of Health Medline database was searched for pooled analyses, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists that included CV endpoints.
RESULTS
Thirty-six articles met the inclusion criteria encompassing 11 pooled analyses, 17 meta-analyses, and eight RCTs (including secondary analyses). Over the short term (up to 4 years), patients with T2DM exposed to a DPP-4 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist were not at increased risk for MACE (or its component endpoints) compared with those who received comparator agents. Two meta-analyses showed a significant reduction in the incidence of MACE associated with DPP-4 inhibitor therapy as a drug class, but this beneficial effect was not observed in other meta-analyses that included large RCT CV outcome studies. In four RCTs that evaluated alogliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, or lixisenatide, there was no overall increased risk for MACE relative to placebo in T2DM patients at high risk for CV events or with established CV disease, although there was an increased rate of hospitalization for heart failure associated with saxagliptin. A fifth RCT showed that liraglutide reduced MACE risk by 13% versus placebo.
CONCLUSION
Overall, incretin therapy does not appear to increase risk for MACE in the short term.
Topics: Adamantane; Cardiovascular Diseases; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptides; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Incretins; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Peptides; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Uracil
PubMed: 27844335
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-016-0432-4 -
Scientific Reports Jan 2016A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of dulaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Medline, Embase, Cochrane... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of dulaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and www. clinicaltrials. gov (up to February 15(th), 2015) were searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing dulaglutide to other drugs for T2DM were collected. Twelve RCTs were included, and the overall bias was low. As the monotherapy, compared with control (placebo, metformin and liraglutide), dulaglutide resulted in a significant reduction in HbA1c (WMD, -0.68%; 95% CI, -0.95 to -0.40), FPG (WMD, -0.90 mmol/L; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.52), a similar risk of hypoglycemia (7.8% vs. 10.6%), less body weight loss (WMD, 0.51 kg; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.75). As an add-on intervention with oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM) and insulin, compared with control (placebo, sitagliptin, exenatide, liraglutide and glargine), dulaglutide lowered HbA1c (WMD, -0.51%; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.35) and body weight significantly (WMD, -1.30 kg, 95% CI, -1.85 to -1.02) notably, and elicited a similar reduction in FPG (WMD, -0.19 mmol/L; 95% CI, -1.20 to 0.82), an similar incidence of hypoglycemia (24.5% vs. 24.5%). This meta-analysis revealed the use of dulaglutide as a monotherapy or an add-on to OAM and lispro appeared to be effective and safe for adults with T2DM.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Body Weight; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Exenatide; Glucagon-Like Peptides; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Hypoglycemic Agents; Immunoglobulin Fc Fragments; Insulin; Insulin Glargine; Liraglutide; Metformin; Patient Safety; Peptides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Treatment Outcome; Venoms
PubMed: 26742577
DOI: 10.1038/srep18904 -
PloS One 2014Incretin-based therapies which include glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are recommended by several... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Incretin-based therapies which include glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are recommended by several practice guidelines as second-line agents for add-on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who do not achieve glycemic control with metformin plus lifestyle interventions alone. The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of existing head to head studies to compare the efficacy and safety of GLP-1 analogues with DPP-4 inhibitors.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head studies to compare GLP-1 analogues with DPP-4 inhibitors in the management of type 2 diabetes. A random effects model was selected to perform the meta-analyses, results were expressed as weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risks for dichotomous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals, and with I2 values and P values as markers of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Four head-to-head randomized controlled studies with 1755 patients were included. Compared to sitagliptin, GLP-1 analogues are more effective in reducing HbA1C (weight mean difference -0.41%, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.31) and body weight (weight mean difference -1.55 kg, 95% CI -1.98 to -1.12). Conversely, GLP-1 analogues are associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events compared to sitagliptin: nausea (relative risk 3.14, 95% CI 2.15 to 4.59), vomiting (relative risk 2.60, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.56), diarrhea (relative risk 1.82, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.69), and constipation (relative risk 2.50, 95% CI 1.33 to 4.70).
CONCLUSIONS
The result of this meta-analysis demonstrates that compared to sitagliptin, GLP-1 analogues are more effective for glycemic control and weight loss, but have similar efficacy in reducing blood pressure and lipid parameters, however, GLP-1 analogues are associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and a similar incidence of hypoglycemia compared to sitagliptin.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Blood Pressure; Body Weight; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Fasting; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Lipids; Pyrazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sitagliptin Phosphate; Treatment Outcome; Triazoles
PubMed: 25089625
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103798