Open Access

Effects of vildagliptin as add-on treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: insights from long-term clinical studies in Japan

Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders201615:21

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40200-016-0240-z

Received: 3 March 2016

Accepted: 12 June 2016

Published: 4 July 2016

Abstract

Background

Vildagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, is wildly used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with mono- or combination-therapy. We review two previously published open-label studies to extract insights on the long-term efficacy and safety of vildagliptin.

Methods

Two studies were conducted in Japan to assess the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as an add-on to other oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) for 52 weeks. These studies were performed under the similar protocol in Japanese patients with T2DM who were inadequately controlled with OAD monotherapy [excluding other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors].

Results

Addition of vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) to other OAD monotherapy [sulfonylurea (SU), metformin, thiazolidinedione, alpha-glucosidase inhibitor and glinide] reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels by −0.64 %,−0.75 %,−0.92 %,−0.94 % and − 0.64 %, respectively, over 52 weeks of treatment. Overall, the incidence of hypoglycemia was low and was slightly higher in the add-on to SU treatment group compared with the other groups. The incidences of adverse events were comparable among the treatment groups, and vildagliptin was well-tolerated as add-on therapy to other OADs.

Conclusions

The evidence from the two studies indicates that vildagliptin as an add-on therapy to other OADs is a clinically reasonable option for Japanese patients with T2DM who respond inadequately to other OAD monotherapy.

Keywords

Combination therapy Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor Long-term administration Oral antidiabetes drugs Vildagliptin

Background

The Japanese guideline [1] and the international guidelines [2] for management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) recommend maintaining tight glycemic control to suppress aggravation and/or occurrence of vascular complications, providing that tight glycemic control can be achieved without hypoglycemia or other significant adverse effects. The Japanese Diabetes Society (JDS) recommends glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0 % [National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program (NGSP)] as a general glycemic goal for patients with T2DM. However, many patients in Japan do not achieve this goal [3, 4]. For people with diabetes who do not achieve glycemic control with lifestyle changes including diet and exercise, the JDS recommends treatment with oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) that should be selected based on the individual patients’ clinical profile. Furthermore, for patients inadequately controlled on monotherapy, the guideline recommends combination therapy with a second drug having a different mode of action [1].

Treatment with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor as monotherapy has been used in Japan since 2009, and recently patients are increasingly being treated with combination of DPP-4 inhibitors and other OADs [3, 5]. DPP-4 inhibitors maintain the concentrations of incretins, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, especially during the postprandial period. Thus, like GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors reduce fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels through the effect of incretins on increasing the α-and β-cell sensitivity to glucose levels [6, 7]. DPP-4 inhibitors are generally weight-neutral and have a low risk of hypoglycemia. They are not also associated with the adverse gastrointestinal effects reported with GLP-1 receptor agonists [8].

Vildagliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, was launched in Japan in 2010. In large global studies with a predominantly Caucasian population, vildagliptin has been demonstrated to be well tolerated and efficacious, as monotherapy and in combination with metformin (Met), sulfonylurea (SU), thiazolidinedione (TZD), or insulin [913]. Some reports suggested that Asian patients with T2DM have a more prominent insulin secretory defect than Caucasian patients [14]. Also, Japanese regulatory requirements [15] mandated that the indication for combination therapy with other OADs should be supported with data from the Japanese population; this is to ensure there are no marked differences in the safety and efficacy profiles of OADs drugs among different ethnicities. In a previously published Japanese study, vildagliptin demonstrated stable improvements in HbA1c levels, with relatively low hypoglycemic risk, either as monotherapy or as an add-on to SU for treatment duration of up to 52 weeks [16]. Interestingly, the blood-glucose lowering effect appeared to be numerically better in the Japanese population than in the general global population, which was largely derived from non-Asian populations.

The present study reviewed the results of two open-label studies [16, 17] to provide insights on the long-term efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in combination with other OADs in Japanese patients with T2DM with inadequate glycemic control on OAD monotherapy. These studies have been previously published in Japanese.

Methods

Two multicenter, open-label studies were included to evaluate the long-term tolerability and safety of vildagliptin as an add-on to other OAD. Study A, in which vildagliptin was added to SU, was completed in 2007 [16], and Study B, in which vildagliptin was added to other OAD [Met, TZD, glinide, or α-glucosidase inhibitor (α-GI)] was completed in 2012 [17]. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were similar in both the studies; patients aged ≥20 years, inadequately controlled [HbA1c (NGSP) ≥6.9 % and ≤10.5 % and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <270 mg/dL] with OAD monotherapy in addition to diet/exercise therapy were enrolled. The common exclusion criteria of the studies were as follows; pregnant or lactating women, patients with a history of type 1DM or secondary DM, acute metabolic complications within past 24 weeks, acute infection within past 4 weeks, abnormal value in clinical testing (aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase activities > 2-2.5 times the upper limit of normal, high level of serum creatinine > 2 mg/dL, or fasting triglyceride > 500–700 mg/dL. After the patient provided written informed consent, vildagliptin [50 mg twice daily (bid)] was administered in addition to OAD for 52 weeks.

For each OAD therapy, changes in HbA1c levels from baseline to 52 weeks or study endpoint were examined. Changes from baseline to endpoint in FPG, fasting insulin, fasting lipids, homeostasis model assessments for β-cell function (HOMA-β) and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and body weight were also evaluated. In addition, the proportion of responders, defined as achieving HbA1c <6.9 % at endpoint or a ≥1.0 % and ≥0.5 % reduction in HbA1c from baseline to endpoint were calculated. When parameters were not measured at endpoint, missing values were imputed using the last observation carried forward method. No hypothesis testing was performed and the data were summarized descriptively by treatment. Safety analysis included recording of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs). Both studies were approved by the institutional review board at each institute which participated in the studies and all the subjects enrolled gave written informed consent prior to start of administration of the study drug. Also, the studies were conducted in accordance with the Helsinki declaration and good clinical practices.

Results

Patient characteristics

Baseline characteristics of patients by OAD therapy group are presented in Table 1. Overall, 299 patients were enrolled: 54 were on SU, 58 were on Met, 62 were on TZD, 62 were on α-GI, and 63 were on glinide. The mean age was ~60 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was ~25 kg/m2. For patients treated with SU (Study A), the mean baseline HbA1c levels and the mean duration of T2DM were numerically higher and longer, respectively, compared with patients in the other OAD groups. As one patient enrolled in the add-on to SU group did not receive vildagliptin, 53 patients were analyzed for safety and efficacy assessments.
Table 1

Patient demographics and baseline characteristics

 

Study A

Study B

Parameters

SU

Met

TZD

α-GI

Glinide

 

n = 54

n = 58

n = 62

n = 62

n = 63

Gender, n (%)

 Men

39 (72.2)

35 (60.3)

50 (80.6)

42 (67.7)

45 (71.4)

 Women

15 (27.8)

23 (39.7)

12 (19.4)

20 (32.3)

18 (28.6)

Age (years)

60.6 ± 10.24

58.0 ± 11.06

59.0 ± 11.24

60.9 ± 10.41

59.9 ± 12.10

BMI (kg/m2)

24.7 ± 3.10

26.0 ± 3.47

26.5 ± 3.77

24.8 ± 3.73

25.0 ± 3.55

Duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (years)

9.1 ± 6.61

6.8 ± 5.91

6.6 ± 4.90

6.9 ± 5.25

5.7 ± 4.76

HbA1ca (%)

8.0 ± 0.71

7.80 ± 0.87

7.80 ± 0.91

7.66 ± 0.76

7.97 ± 0.89

Fasting plasma glucose (mg/dL)

153.6 ± 28.26

156.1 ± 32.97

155.5 ± 32.16

155.2 ± 28.18

177.7 ± 51.10

GFR (MDRD) category, n (%)

 >80 mL/min/1.73 m2

48 (88.9)

52 (89.7)

58 (93.5)

52 (83.9)

53 (84.1)

 ≤80 mL/min/1.73 m2

6 (11.1)

6 (10.3)

4 (6.5)

10 (16.1)

10 (15.9)

Values are expressed as n (%) or mean ± standard deviation

One of 54 patients enrolled in SU add-on therapy did not receive the study drug (vildagliptin); therefore, 53 patients were analyzed for safety and efficacy

aHbA1c calculated from JDS value to NGSP value: HbA1c (NGSP) (%) = 1.02 × HbA1c (JDS) (%) + 0.25 %

α-GI alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, BMI body mass index, GFR glomerular filtration rate, Met metformin

MDRD modification of diet in renal disease, SU sulfonylurea, TZD thiazolidinedione

HbA1c

As shown in Fig. 1, HbA1c decreased rapidly within the initial three months after addition of vildagliptin in all groups, and the time course of change in HbA1c thereafter was similar in all groups. The decrease in HbA1c after 12 weeks of vildagliptin treatment in each group ranged between 0.82 % – 1.09 %. At endpoint, HbA1c reductions in the add-on to SU, Met, TZD, α-GI, and glinide, groups were 0.64 %, 0.75 %, 0.92 %, 0.94 %, and 0.64 %, respectively.
Fig. 1

Time-course change in mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) over 52 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with vildagliptin as add-on to other oral antidiabetes drugs. a: Vildagliptin (Vilda) with sulfonylurea (SU), b: Vilda with metformin (Met), c: Vilda with thiazolidinedione (TZD), d: Vilda with α-glucosidase inhibitor (α-GI), e: Vilda with glinide, f: ΔHbA1c, change in HbA1c at endpoint; E endpoint. Data are presented as mean ± standard error

Responders

The percentage of responders after add-on treatment with vildagliptin is shown in Table 2. The proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <6.9 % (≤6.9 % for add-on to SU) was relatively low in the add-on to SU group (34.6 %) and the add-on to glinide group (37.9 %), but was >50 % in the other OAD groups. The proportion of patients achieving an HbA1c reduction of ≥1.0 % was also low in the add-on to SU group (26.4 %); whereas the proportion in other groups, including the add-on to glinide group was ~40 %.
Table 2

Proportion of responders at endpoint

 

Study A

Study B

SU

Met

TZD

α-GI

Glinide

n a = 53

n a = 58

n a = 62

n a = 62

n a = 63

% (n)

% (n)

% (n)

% (n)

% (n)

HbA1c <6.9 % or ≤6.9%b

34.6

53.8

59.3

69.6

37.9

(18/52)

(28/52)

(32/54)

(39/56)

(22/58)

≥1.0 % reduction in HbA1c

26.4

46.6

41.9

43.5

38.1

(14/53)

(27/58)

(26/62)

(27/62)

(24/63)

≥0.5 % reduction in HbA1c

60.4

69.0

74.2

80.6

61.9

(32/53)

(40/58)

(46/62)

(50/62)

(39/63)

aNumber of patients with both baseline and endpoint HbA1c measurements in the specified population, which was used as denominator, unless specified otherwise

bDenominator consists of patients with baseline HbA1c ≥6.9 % and endpoint HbA1c measurement. In SU group, HbA1c ≤6.9 % was employed as criteria of responder

α-GI alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, Met metformin, SU sulfonylurea, TZD thiazolidinedione

Body weight

The mean body weight at endpoint was increased slightly in all the groups, however an increase of more than 2 kg was observed only in the add-on to TZD group (Table 3).
Table 3

Change in body weight

 

Study A

Study B

SU

Met

TZD

α-GI

Glinide

n = 53

n = 58

n = 62

n = 62

n = 63

Baseline (kg)

66.01 ± 1.65

68.76 ± 1.285

72.29 ± 1.749

65.60 ± 1.634

66.81 ± 1.728

Change at endpoint (kg)

1.49 ± 0.26

0.51 ± 0.330

2.11 ± 0.318

0.45 ± 0.323

1.17 ± 0.281

Values are expressed mean ± standard error

α-GI alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, Met metformin, SU sulfonylurea, TZD thiazolidinedione

FPG, Fasting Insulin, HOMA-β, HOMA-IR and Fasting Lipids

After vildagliptin co-administration, mean FPG decreased in all the add-on groups. The baseline FPG level was higher in the add-on to glinide group than in the other OAD groups, and the change from baseline to endpoint was relatively small in the add-on to SU group (Table 4). Fasting insulin levels increased in the add-on to SU group and slightly increased or decreased in other OAD groups. HOMA-β increased in all the OAD groups, and the change was greatest in the add-on to SU group. The value change in HOMA-IR increased only in the add-on to SU group and decreased in all the other OAD groups.
Table 4

Change in fasting plasma glucose, fasting insulin, HOMA-β and HOMA − IR

 

Study A

Study B

SU

Met

TZD

α-GI

Glinide

n = 53

n = 58

n = 62

n = 62

n = 63

Fasting plasma glucose (mg/dL)

Baseline

153.0 ± 3.88

156.1 ± 4.33

155.5 ± 4.08

155.2 ± 3.58

177.7 ± 6.44

Δ change

−6.6 ± 3.76

−14.0 ± 3.78

−19.6 ± 2.94

−17.0 ± 3.49

−18.8 ± 4.60

Fasting insulin (μU/L)

Baseline

7.90 ± 0.56

8.33 ± 0.616

6.43 ± 0.536

7.58 ± 0.691

7.13 ± 0.638

Δ change

1.92 ± 0.93

−0.23 ± 0.478

−0.56 ± 0.298

0.02 ± 0.383

−0.04 ± 0.459

HOMA-β

Baseline

33.10 ± 2.41

35.09 ± 3.28

28.13 ± 2.67

32.83 ± 4.08

25.66 ± 2.39

Δ change

11.30 ± 2.89

6.76 ± 3.34

5.79 ± 1.94

4.64 ± 2.06

4.50 ± 1.61

HOMA-IR

Baseline

3.07 ± 0.26

3.31 ± 0.29

2.42 ± 0.20

2.89 ± 0.25

3.26 ± 0.39

Δ change

0.76 ± 0.56

−0.36 ± 0.19

−0.53 ± 0.12

−0.23 ± 0.17

−0.43 ± 0.26

Values are expressed as mean ± standard error

Δ change from baseline to endpoint, α-GI alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, HOMA homeostasis model assessment, Met metformin, SU sulfonylurea, TZD thiazolidinedione

As shown in Table 5, triglyceride, and total cholesterol levels decreased from baseline to endpoint in all OAD groups. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels increased in the add-on to SU group and decreased in the other OAD groups. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels slightly increased in the add-on to α-GI group and decreased in the other OAD groups.
Table 5

Change in fasting lipids

 

Study A

Study B

SU

Met

TZD

α-GI

Glinide

n = 53

n = 58

n = 62

n = 61a

n = 61a

Triglyceride (mg/dL)

Baseline

137.9 ± 13.09

158.0 ± 12.48

131.6 ± 11.69

150.5 ± 17.80

155.8 ± 13.68

Δ change

−6.6 ± 9.28

−19.4 ± 11.42

−7.8 ± 7.93

−12.3 ± 12.90

−8.7 ± 10.21

Total cholesterol (mg/dL)

Baseline

197.8 ± 3.95

195.0 ± 4.19

199.0 ± 4.45

200.0 ± 4.47

206.9 ± 4.98

Δ change

−3.3 ± 3.22

−7.1 ± 2.40

−7.2 ± 3.74

−5.3 ± 3.53

−7.6 ± 3.37

Low-density lipoprotein (mg/dL)

Baseline

123.8 ± 3.81

115.8 ± 3.51

115.3 ± 3.60

122.7 ± 4.22

126.1 ± 4.21

Δ change

1.3 ± 2.77

−0.9 ± 2.44

−1.5 ± 3.19

−1.2 ± 3.31

−2.3 ± 3.10

High-density lipoprotein (mg/dL)

Baseline

51.5 ± 1.45

55.4 ± 1.85

62.5 ± 2.54

54.1 ± 1.58

57.2 ± 1.76

Δ change

−1.8 ± 0.74

−1.4 ± 1.03

−2.0 ± 1.22

0.4 ± 0.82

−1.1 ± 1.21

Values are expressed as mean ± standard error

aMeasurements for one patient in the α-GI group and two patients in the glinide group were missing

Δ change from baseline to endpoint, α-GI alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, Met metformin, SU sulfonylurea, TZD thiazolidinedione

Adverse events

The incidence of AEs was comparable among the OAD groups: 90.6 % in the add-on to SU group, 94.8 % in the add-on to Met group, 83.9 % in the add-on to TZD group, 85.5 % in the add-on to α-GI group, and 82.5 % in the add-on to glinide group (Table 6). The most frequent AE was nasopharyngitis in all the OAD groups. The majority of AEs were mild or moderate in severity and no death was reported during the studies. The incidence of adverse drug reactions was 47.2 % in the add-on to SU group, 29.3 % in the add-on to Met group, 24.2 % in the add-on to TZD group, 12.9 % in the add-on to α-GI group and 15.9 % in the add-on to glinide group. At least one episode of hypoglycemic symptoms was reported in 2 patients (3.8 %) in the add-on to SU group and 1 patient (1.7 %) in the add-on to Met group. The hypoglycemic events were moderate in severity and categorized as grade 1. None of the patients in the TZD, α-GI, or glinide groups reported hypoglycemic events. Discontinuation of treatment due to AEs was overall low, occurred in 4 patients (7.5 %) in the add-on to SU group, 3 patients (5.2 %) in the add-on to Met group, 4 patients (6.5 %) in the add-on to TZD group, 4 patients (6.5 %) in the add-on to α-GI group, and 6 patients (9.5 %) in the add-on to glinide group.
Table 6

Adverse events

 

Study A

Study B

n (%)

SU

Met

TZD

α − GI

Glinide

 

n = 53

n = 58

n = 62

n = 62

n = 63

Adverse events (AEs)

48 (90.6)

55 (94.8)

52 (83.9)

53 (85.5)

52 (82.5)

Adverse drug reactions

25 (47.2)

17 (29.3)

15 (24.2)

8 (12.9)

10 (15.9)

Serious AEs

3 (5.7)

4 (6.9)

5 (8.1)

4 (6.5)

2 (3.2)

Discontinuation due to AEs

4 (7.5)

3 (5.2)

4 (6.5)

4 (6.5)

6 (9.5)

Patients with at least one episode of hypoglycemic symptoms

2 (3.8)

1 (1.7)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

AEs by preferred term >5 %

Nasopharyngitis

25 (47.2)

17 (29.3)

13 (21.0)

25 (40.3)

20 (31.7)

Constipation

4 (7.5)

9 (15.5)

3 (4.8)

4 (6.5)

5 (7.9)

Back pain

8 (15.1)

3 (5.2)

4 (6.5)

5 (8.1)

3 (4.8)

Gastritis

6 (11.3)

5 (8.6)

4 (6.5)

2 (3.2)

1 (1.6)

Upper respiratory tract infection

1 (1.9)

3 (5.2)

4 (6.5)

1 (1.6)

4 (6.3)

Dizziness

5 (9.4)

2 (3.4)

2 (3.2)

2 (3.2)

5 (7.9)

Contusion

1 (1.9)

3 (5.2)

1 (1.6)

1 (1.6)

5 (7.9)

Bronchitis

1 (1.9)

5 (8.6)

0 (0.0)

3 (4.8)

1 (1.6)

Edema peripheral

0 (0.0)

1 (1.7)

4 (6.5)

2 (3.2)

1 (1.6)

Blood amylase increased

3 (5.7)

3 (5.2)

3 (4.8)

2 (3.2)

0 (0.0)

Osteoarthritis

1 (1.9)

3 (5.2)

3 (4.8)

0 (0.0)

2 (3.2)

Headache

1 (1.9)

3 (5.2)

1 (1.6)

1 (1.6)

3 (4.8)

Diarrhea

0 (0.0)

5 (8.6)

1 (1.6)

1 (1.6)

0 (0.0)

Hunger

7 (13.2)

3 (5.2)

1 (1.6)

1 (1.6)

2 (3.2)

Hypoesthesia

1 (1.9)

0 (0.0)

3 (4.8)

0 (0.0)

4 (6.3)

Conjunctivitis allergic

0 (0.0)

4 (6.9)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

2 (3.2)

Periodontitis

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

1 (1.6)

4 (6.5)

1 (1.6)

Dry eye

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

4 (6.5)

0 (0.0)

1 (1.6)

C-reactive protein increased

2 (3.8)

4 (6.9)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

1 (1.6)

Arthralgia

3 (5.7)

3 (5.2)

1 (1.6)

0 (0.0)

1 (1.6)

Pharyngitis

1 (1.9)

10 (17.2)

3 (4.8)

1 (1.6)

1 (1.6)

Blood creatine phosphokinase increased

7 (13.2)

2 (3.4)

2 (3.2)

1 (1.6)

1 (1.6)

Tremor

7 (13.2)

1 (1.7)

1 (1.6)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

Asthenia

6 (11.3)

2 (3.4)

0 (0.0)

2 (3.2)

2 (3.2)

Blood creatine phosphokinase MB increased

5 (9.4)

2 (3.4)

1 (1.6)

1 (1.6)

0 (0.0)

Hyperhidrosis

4 (7.5)

2 (3.4)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

2 (3.2)

Hypertension

3 (5.7)

2 (3.4)

2 (3.2)

2 (3.2)

2 (3.2)

Eczema

3 (5.7)

2 (3.4)

2 (3.2)

2 (3.2)

2 (3.2)

Myalgia

3 (5.7)

1 (1.7)

1 (1.6)

0 (0.0)

1 (1.6)

Palpitations

3 (5.7)

1 (1.7)

1 (1.6)

3 (4.8)

1 (1.6)

Anemia

3 (5.7)

1 (1.7)

0 (0.0)

2 (3.2)

0 (0.0)

α-GI alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, Met metformin, SU sulfonylurea, TZD thiazolidinedione

Discussion

The efficacy and safety analysis from two long-term 52-week studies showed that vildagliptin 50 mg bid, in combination with other OADs in Japanese patients with T2DM, exerts robust blood glucose-lowering effects and is well tolerated. There was no remarkable difference in the incidence of AEs among the OADs used as baseline therapy. The risk of hypoglycemia was overall low, with a slight increase in the add-on to SU group. The events were mild in severity and were manageable by the patients.

DPP-4 inhibitors are relatively new drugs among OADs, however, their use in T2DM patients is markedly increasing in the clinical setting. The blood-glucose lowering effect of DPP-4 inhibitor has been well recognized, but only few studies to investigate the differences among DPP-4 inhibitors are available [18]. An indirect comparison adjusted for the background characteristics in Japanese patients with T2DM revealed that the effect of vildagliptin (50 mg bid) in reducing HbA1c levels was significantly stronger compared to sitagliptin (50 or 100 mg qd) [19]. Concerning the mode of enzyme inhibition by DPP-4 inhibitors, the inhibition kinetics of vildagliptin was slower than that of sitagliptin [20, 21]. This difference in the kinetics of DPP-4 inhibition may be related with the significant suppression of blood glucose fluctuations during 24 h with vildagliptin compared to sitagliptin [22]. However, HbA1c prior to treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors is strongly associated with the variance of HbA1c reduction in response to DPP-4 inhibitors [23]. The efficacy and safety of vildagliptin in long-term observation has remained to be elucidated thoroughly.

Addition of vildagliptin 50 mg bid resulted in a rapid decrease in HbA1c in all the OAD groups. The combination of vildagliptin and other OADs provided an effective glucose-lowering therapy, but attention should be paid to hypoglycemic events as well as refractoriness in the reduction of HbA1c levels, especially when vildagliptin is administered in combination with insulin secretagogues for an extended period. In the current studies, the degree of HbA1c reduction by vildagliptin in combination with insulin secretagogues (SU or glinide) was relatively smaller when compared to the combination with non-insulin secretagogues (Met, TZD, or α-GI).

In addition to hypoglycemia, weight gain is another important issue to be considered while choosing pharmacotherapy for the management of T2DM [24]. In these studies, a >1 kg increase in weight was found with the add-on to insulin secretagogues (SU, glinide) and TZD therapy, in contrast to a previous study on sitagliptin, where weight reduction was observed due to a decrease in dose of SU [25]. The increase in body weight in the add-on to insulin secretagogues group is presumably due to defensive eating secondary to the increased tendency to mild hypoglycemia in the SU and glinide groups; in the TZD group it is not clear why the usual increase in weight is exacerbated by the addition of vildagliptin when one considers its mechanisms to mitigate body weight [26].

One limitation of this manuscript is that two independent clinical studies were reviewed in a parallel manner; hence, no statistical analysis was performed to compare efficacy and safety parameters among the different treatment groups. Another limitation is that only combination of vildagliptin with OAD was focused in this article, although it has been reported that vildagliptin as add-on to insulin significantly reduced HbA1c in Japanese patients with T2DM [27]. Concerning the safety of DPP-4 inhibitors, no studies have revealed that DPP-4 inhibitors provide beneficial outcome on incidence of cardiovascular events, however, meta-analysis have shown that DPP-4 inhibitors have a neutral effect on major cardiovascular events [28, 29].

Conclusions

In conclusion, vildagliptin as an add-on to other OADs in Japanese patients with T2DM results in robust decrease in HbA1c levels with good tolerability and low risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. Vildagliptin improved glucose metabolism regardless of the type of OADs combined with vildagliptin. Vildagliptin is considered to be a clinically reasonable treatment option with good tolerability profile for patients with T2DM responding inadequately to other OADs.

Abbreviations

AEs, Adverse events; BMI, Body mass index; DPP-4, Dipeptidyl peptidase-4; E, Endpoint; GFR, Glomerular filtration rate; GLP-1, Glucagon-like peptide-1; HbA1c, Glycated hemoglobin; HOMA-IR, Homeostasis model assessments for insulin resistance; HOMA-β, Homeostasis model assessments for β-cell function; JDS, Japanese Diabetes Society; MDRD, modification of diet in renal disease; Met, Metformin; NGSP, National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program; OADs, Oral antidiabetes drugs; SAEs, Serious adverse events; SU, Sulfonylurea; T2DM, Type 2 diabetes mellitus; TZD, Thiazolidinedione; α-GI, α-glucosidase inhibitor

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Amit Garg and Abhilasha Verma (Novartis Healthcare Private Limited, Hyderabad, India) for editorial assistance.

Funding

No sources of support provided for this paper. Two clinical studies that were compiled in this paper were conducted by the sponsorship of Novartis Pharma KK.

Availability of data and materials

Available on request.

Authors’ contributions

MO made intellectual contributions to the manuscript, and RS contributed to drafting and critical revision of the manuscript. All the authors meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship, participated at all stages of manuscript development and approved the final manuscript for publication. Authors had full access to all of the data and take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

There was no conflict of interest to be stated. Masato Odawara is the medical adviser for one of the two clinical studies that were compiled in this paper. Rieko Sagara is an employee at Novartis Pharm K.K.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This is a review based on two studies which were carried out in human participants. The studies were approved by the institutional review board in each institute participated to the studies. All the subjects enrolled provided written informed consent prior to administration of the study drug in the studies. The studies were conducted in accordance with the Helsinki declaration and good clinical practices.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
The Department of Diabetology, Endocrinology, Metabolism and Rheumatology, Tokyo Medical University
(2)
Medical Division, Novartis Pharm K.K

References

  1. Treatment Guide for Diabetes 2012–2013. the Japan Diabetes Society. Bunkodo Co. Ltd. 2013.Google Scholar
  2. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient centered approach: update to a position statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015;38:140–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Oishi M, Yamazaki K, Okuguchi F, Sugimoto H, Kanatsuka A, Kashiwagi A. Japan Diabetes Clinical Data Management Study Group. Changes in oral antidiabetic prescriptions and improved glycemic control during the years 2002–2011 in Japan (JDDM32). J Diabetes Invest. 2014;5:581–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Japan Diabetes Clinical Data Management Study Group (JDDM). Available at: http://jddm.jp/data/index.html (Last accessed, 2nd Feb, 2016).Google Scholar
  5. Namba M, Katsuno T, Kusunoki Y, Matsuo T, Miuchi M, Miyagawa J. New strategy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus with incretin-based therapy. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2013;17:10–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Drucker DJ, Nauck MA. The incretin system: glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes. Lancet. 2006;368:1696–705.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kim W, Egan JM. The role of incretins in glucose homeostasis and diabetes treatment. Pharmacol Rev. 2008;60:470–512.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Krentz AJ, Patel MB, Bailey CJ. New drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus: what is their place in therapy? Drugs. 2008;68:2131–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Pi-Sunyer FX, Schweizer A, Mills D, Dejager S. Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin monotherapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007;76:132–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bosi E, Camisasca RP, Collober C, Rochotte E, Garber AJ. Effects of vildagliptin on glucose control over 24 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. Diabetes Care. 2007;30:890–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Garber AJ, Foley JE, Banerji MA, Ebeling P, Gudbjörnsdottir S, Camisasca RP, et al. Effects of vildagliptin on glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with a sulphonylurea. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2008;10:1047–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Garber AJ, Schweizer A, Baron MA, Rochotte E, Dejager S. Vildagliptin in combination with pioglitazone improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes failing thiazolidinedione monotherapy: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2007;9:166–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kothny W, Foley J, Kozlovski P, Shao Q, Gallwitz B, Lukashevich V. Improved glycaemic control with vildagliptin added to insulin, with or without metformin, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013;15:252–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim YG, Hahn S, Oh TJ, Kwak SH, Park KS, Cho YM. Differences in the glucose-lowering efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors between Asians and non-Asians: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2013;56:696–708.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Guideline for clinical evaluation of oral hypoglycemic agents. Issued on 9th July 2011. Available at: http://www.pmda.go.jp/files/000153859.pdf (Last accessed, 2nd Feb 2016).Google Scholar
  16. Kikuchi M, Utsunomiya K, Moriya T, Terao S, Kitawaki T, Mimori N, et al. Long-term evaluation of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes; mono or combination with sulfonylurea therapy for 52 weeks. J New Rem Clin. 2010;59:137–54 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  17. Odawara M, Suzuki M, Hamada I, Iguchi S. Clinical evaluation of combination therapy with vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes; safety of add-on to metformin, thiazolidine, α-GI or glinide for 52 weeks. J New Rem Clin. 2012;61:2593–611 (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  18. Madsbad S, Krarup T, Deacon CF, Holst JJ. Glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in the treatment of diabetes: a review of clinical trials. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2008;11:491–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Swallow E, Kantor E, Fan L, Gruenberger JB. Comparative efficacy of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison of randomized trials. Clin Drug Investig. 2011;31:665–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Davis JA, Singh S, Sethi S, Roy S, Mittra S, Rayasam G, et al. Nature of action of Sitagliptin, the dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitor in diabetic animals. Indian J Pharmacol. 2010;42:229–33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Ahrén B, Schweizer A, Dejager S, Villhauer EB, Dunning BE, Foley JE. Mechanisms of action of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin in humans. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2011;13:775–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Sakamoto M, Nishimura R, Irako T, Tsujino D, Ando K, Utsunomiya K. Comparison of vildagliptin twice daily vs. sitagliptin once daily using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM): crossover pilot study (J-VICTORIA study). Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2012;11:92.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Esposito K, Chiodini P, Maiorino MI, Capuano A, Cozzolino D, Petrizzo M, et al. A nomogram to estimate the HbA1c response to different DPP-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 98 trials with 24 163 patients. BMJ Open. 2015;5, e005892.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Phung OJ, Scholle JM, Talwar M, Coleman CI. Effect of noninsulin antidiabetic drugs added to metformin therapy on glycemic control, weight gain, and hypoglycemia in type 2 diabetes. JAMA. 2010;303:1410–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kubota A, Maeda H, Kanamori A, Atoba K, Jin Y, Minagawa F, et al. Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin monotherapy and combination therapy in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients. J Diabetes Invest. 2012;3:503–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Foley JE, Jordan J. Weight neutrality associated with the DPP-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin: mechanistic basis and clinical experience. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2010;6:541–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirose T, Suzuki M, Tsumiyama I. Efficacy and Safety of Vildagliptin as an Add-on to Insulin with or without Metformin in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A 12-week, Double-Blind, Randomized Study. Diabetes Ther. 2015;6:559–71.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Savarese G, Perrone-Filardi P, D’Amore C, Vitale C, Trimarco B, Pani L, et al. Cardiovascular effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in diabetic patients: A meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2015;181:239–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Abbas AS, Dehbi HM, Ray KK. Cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibition: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled cardiovascular outcome trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2016;18:295–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Odawara and Sagara. 2016

Advertisement