METHODS: A prospective 12-week study using linagliptin 5mg once daily in 50 subjects (28 prediabetes and 22 T2D) who were stratified into high versus low fasting GLP-1 groups. A 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed at week 0 and 12. Primary outcomes were changes in HbA1c, fasting and post-OGTT glucose after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included changes in insulin resistance and beta cell function indices.
RESULTS: There was a greater HbA1c reduction in subjects with high GLP-1 compared to low GLP-1 levels in both the prediabetes and T2D populations [least-squares mean (LS-mean) change of -0.33% vs. -0.11% and -1.48% vs. -0.90% respectively)]. Linagliptin significantly reduced glucose excursion by 18% in high GLP-1 compared with 8% in low GLP-1 prediabetes groups. The reduction in glucose excursion was greater in high GLP-1 compared to low GLP-1 T2D by 30% and 21% respectively. There were significant LS-mean between-group differences in fasting glucose (-0.95 mmol/L), 2-hour glucose post-OGTT (-2.4 mmol/L) in the high GLP-1 T2D group. Improvement in insulin resistance indices were seen in the high GLP-1 T2D group while high GLP-1 prediabetes group demonstrated improvement in beta cell function indices. No incidence of hypoglycemia was reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin resulted in a greater HbA1c reduction in the high GLP-1 prediabetes and T2D compared to low GLP-1 groups. Endogenous GLP-1 level play an important role in determining the efficacy of DPP-IV inhibitors irrespective of the abnormal glucose tolerance states.
METHODS: A validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes. The efficacy parameters were identified and synthesized using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Baseline characteristics and cost parameters were obtained from published studies and hospital databases in Thailand. Costs were expressed in 2014 US Dollars. Outcomes were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate parameter uncertainty.
RESULTS: From a societal perspective, treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.024) at a higher cost (>66,000 Thai baht (THB) or >1,829.27 USD) per person than SFU, resulting in the ICER of >2.7 million THB/QALY (>74,833.70 USD/QALY). The cost-effectiveness results were mainly driven by differences in HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and drug acquisition cost of DPP-4 inhibitors. At the ceiling ratio of 160,000 THB/QALY (4,434.59 USD/QALY), the probability that DPP-4 inhibitors are cost-effective compared to SFU was less than 10%.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to SFU, DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment for people with T2DM and CKD in Thailand.
METHODS: All English-language medical literature published from inception till October 2014 which met the inclusion criteria were reviewed and analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of nine papers were included, reviewed and analyzed. The total sample size was 4276 patients. All studies used either of the two DPP4 inhibitors - Vildagliptin or Sitagliptin, vs sulphonylurea or meglitinides. Patients receiving DPP4 inhibitors were less likely to develop symptomatic hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70), confirmed hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.64) and severe hypoglycemia (risk ratio 0.22; 95% CI, 0.10-0.53) compared with patients on sulphonylureas. There was no statistically significant difference in HbA1C changes comparing Vildagliptin and sulphonylurea.
CONCLUSION: DPP4 inhibitor is a safer alternative to sulphonylurea in Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who fast during the month of Ramadan as it is associated with lower risk of symptomatic, confirmed and severe hypoglycemia, with efficacy comparable to sulphonylurea.
AREAS COVERED: We discussed various aspects of pharmacotherapeutic management in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: (i) susceptibility and severity of COVID-19 among individuals with diabetes, (ii) glycemic goals for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes, (iii) pharmacological treatment considerations for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and concurrent diabetes.
EXPERT OPINION: The glycemic goals in patients with COVID-19 and concurrent type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are to avoid disruption of stable metabolic state, maintain optimal glycemic control, and prevent adverse glycemic events. Patients with T1DM require insulin therapy at all times to prevent ketosis. The management strategies for patients with T2DM include temporary discontinuation of certain oral antidiabetic agents and consideration for insulin therapy. Patients with T2DM who are relatively stable and able to eat regularly may continue with oral antidiabetic agents if glycemic control is satisfactory. Hyperglycemia may develop in patients with systemic corticosteroid treatment and should be managed upon accordingly.
PATIENTS & METHODS: DPP4, WFS1 and KCNJ11 gene polymorphisms were genotyped in a cohort study of 662 T2DM patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors sitagliptin, vildagliptin or linagliptin. Genotyping was performed by Applied Biosystems TaqMan SNP genotyping assay.
RESULTS: Patients with triglyceride levels less than 1.7 mmol/l (odds ratio [OR]: 2.2.; 95% CI: 1.031-4.723), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than 90 mmHg (OR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.009-2.892) and KCNJ11 rs2285676 (genotype CC) (OR: 2.0; 95% CI: 1.025-3.767) were more likely to response to DPP-4 inhibitor treatment compared with other patients, as measured by HbA1c levels.
CONCLUSION: Triglycerides, DBP and KCNJ11 rs2285676 are predictors of the DPP-4 inhibitor treatment response in T2DM patients.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the antidiabetic and antioxidant effects of M. latifolia bark extracts, fractions, and isolated constituents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Melicope latifolia extracts (hexane, chloroform, and methanol), fractions, and isolated constituents with varying concentrations (0.078-10 mg/mL) were subjected to in vitro α-amylase and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitory assay. Molecular docking was performed to study the binding mechanism of active compounds towards α-amylase and DPP-4 enzymes. The antioxidant activity of M. latifolia fractions and compounds were determined by 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging and β-carotene bleaching assays.
RESULTS: Melicope latifolia chloroform extract showed the highest antidiabetic activity (α-amylase IC50: 1464.32 μg/mL; DPP-4 IC50: 221.58 μg/mL). Fractionation of chloroform extract yielded four major fractions (CF1-CF4) whereby CF3 showed the highest antidiabetic activity (α-amylase IC50: 397.68 μg/mL; DPP-4 IC50: 37.16 μg/mL) and resulted in β-sitosterol (1), halfordin (2), methyl p-coumarate (3), and protocatechuic acid (4). Isolation of compounds 2-4 from the species and their DPP-4 inhibitory were reported for the first time. Compound 2 showed the highest α-amylase (IC50: 197.53 μM) and β-carotene (88.48%) inhibition, and formed the highest number of molecular interactions with critical amino acid residues of α-amylase. The highest DPP-4 inhibition was exhibited by compound 3 (IC50: 911.44 μM).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The in vitro and in silico analyses indicated the potential of M. latifolia as an alternative source of α-amylase and DPP-4 inhibitors. Further pharmacological studies on the compounds are recommended.
Methods: This is a retrospective cross sectional study conducted in 2016, where stratified sampling method was used. Patients with T2DM treated with available DPP-4i; namely Linagliptin, Saxagliptin, Sitagliptin and Vildagliptin, for at least 3 months were identified from the pharmacy record. Medical records from Physician Clinic in Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL) were reviewed. Data on demographic, anthropometric, antidiabetic treatment modalities, laboratory and documented outcomes were collected. Outcomes endpoints which include changes in HbA1c, fasting blood glucose (FBG), and body weight were recorded and analysed. Adverse drug reactions (ADR) documented were also reported.
Results and discussion: A total of one hundred and five patients were recruited. The patients were 49.5% men (n = 52), with a mean age of 57 years, mean HbA1c of 8.5% (69 mmol/mol) and mean BMI of 29.5 kg/m2. At least 50% of the patients had T2DM for more than 10 years and more than two third of these patients had both T2DM and hypertension. Thirty nine patients were on Vildagliptin, 32 on Sitagliptin, 26 on Saxagliptin and the remaining on Linagliptin. The most commonly prescribed DPP-4i were Vildagliptin and Sitagliptin. Majority of the patients (90.4%) were prescribed with Metformin, with 62.8% of patients on fixed-dose combination, and the remaining on add-on Metformin therapy. Use of DPP-4i as an adjunct was associated with a mean reduction of 0.9% (9 mmol/mol) in HbA1c (p
METHODS: Two reviewers searched MEDLINE for studies of ≥12 weeks duration in adults with type 2 diabetes. The key search word was "gliclazide", filtered with "randomized controlled trial", "human" and "19+ years". Differences were explored in mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline (primary outcome) and risk of hypoglycemia (secondary outcome) between gliclazide and other oral insulinotropic agents; and other sulfonylureas.
RESULTS: Nine out of 181 references reported primary outcomes, of which 7 reported secondary outcomes. Gliclazide lowered HbA1c more than other oral insulinotropic agents, with a weighted mean difference of -0.11% (95%, CI -0.19 to -0.03%, P=0.008, I(2)=60%), though not more than other sulfonylureas (-0.12%; 95%, CI -0.25 to 0.01%, P=0.07, I(2)=77%). Risk of hypoglycemia with gliclazide was not different to other insulinotropic agents (RR 0.85; 95%, CI 0.66 to 1.09, P=0.20, I(2)=61%) but significantly lower than other sulfonylureas (RR 0.47; 95%, CI 0.27 to 0.79, P=0.004, I(2)=0%).
CONCLUSION: Compared with other oral insulinotropic agents, gliclazide significantly reduced HbA1c with no difference regarding hypoglycemia risk. Compared with other sulfonylureas, HbA1c reduction with gliclazide was not significantly different, but hypoglycemia risk was significantly lower.