J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 DOI 10.1007/s40618-016-0465-1 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Efficacy, safety and impact on β cell function of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes and the difference between Asians and Caucasians: a meta analysis W. Gao 1 Q. Wang 2 S. Yu 2 Received: 1 December 2015 / Accepted: 1 April 2016 / Published online: 12 April 2016 Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE) 2016 Abstract Background To assess the efficacy, safety and impact on β-cell function of DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin in T2DM patients and their difference between Asians and Caucasians. Methods We conducted a literature search (from 1 January 2000 to 14 April 2015) for s of DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy in T2DM. Results A total of 27 s were included. Compared with metformin, DPP-4 inhibitor plus metformin therapy was associated with higher reduction in HbA1c [ 0.61 %, 0.69 to 0.52], FPG [ 1.10 mmol/l, 1.29 to 0.92], TC [ 0.11 mmol/l, 0.20 to 0.02], TG [ 0.21 mmol/l, 0.33 to 0.10], HOMA-IR [ 0.19, 0.36 to 0.02], gastrointestinal adverse events [OR 0.86, 0.77 0.97] and higher increment in HOMA-β [10.21, 7.73 12.69]. Comparison of HbA1c, FPG, body weight and HOMA-IR changes between Asian and Caucasian patients did not show a significant between-group difference of 0.05 % ( 0.30, 0.20; P = 0.69), 0.17 mmol/l ( 0.52, 0.85; P = 0.62), 0.15 kg ( 0.64, 0.35; P = 0.53) and 0.27 ( 0.98, 1.53; P = 0.64) compared with metformin. Comparisons of HOMA-β between Asian and Caucasian Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40618-016-0465-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * S. Yu xingbi3@hotmail.com; yushuwen@sdu.edu.cn 1 2 School of Pharmaceutical Science, Shandong University, 44 Wenhua Xi Road, Jinan 250012, Shandong, China Shandong University Affiliated Jinan Central Hospital, 105 Jie Fang Road, Jinan 250013, Shandong, China patients showed a significant between-group difference of 7.68 ( 14.95, 0.42; P = 0.04). Conclusion DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin therapy was effective and safe for T2DM patients. The glucose-lowering efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors was same in Asian and Caucasian patients, although the effect on HOMA-β was inferior in Asian patients. The effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on HOMA-IR and body weight in Asian patients was comparable with that observed in Caucasian patients. Keywords Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors Metformin Type 2 diabetes mellitus Asian Caucasian Introduction Diabetes is one of the most common epidemics worldwide and has become a serious global health issue. It is estimated by the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) that approximately 6.6 % of the world s population aged between 20 and 79 years had diabetes in 2010; by 2030 the figure will rise to 7.8 % [1], with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) accounting for approximately 90 95 % of all cases [2]. Current clinical treatment recommendations for T2DM generally include life style modification, medical nutritional therapy and exercise, followed by the addition of metformin monotherapy if haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels rise above the target of 7.0 % [3]. These pharmacologic therapies are often initially effective, but fail as time goes so that additional oral agents are added [4]. Incretin therapies which focus on increasing levels of the incretin hormone glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) have provided a novel therapeutic alternative for patients with T2DM [5, 6] in recent years. GLP-1 can elicit glucosedependent stimulation of insulin secretion and inhibition
1062 J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 of glucagon secretion [7]. However, the half-life period of GLP-1 is very short (2 min) and is rapidly inactivated by the enzyme dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP-4) [8]. DPP-4 inhibitors work by enhancing endogenous GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), which are hormones released in response to food intake, and prevent inactivation of endogenous GLP-1 through competitive inhibition of the DPP-4 enzyme responsible for GLP-1 degradation [9]. The enhancement leads to the increase of insulin, reduction of glucagon secretion and liver glucose production. DPP-4 inhibitors have been examined in and used both in monotherapy and as combination therapy with metformin and sulphonylurea [10 12]. A main clinical use is as add-on therapy to metformin when metformin alone is insufficient for maintaining adequate glycemic control [13]. Several meta-analyses have been published on DPP-4 inhibitors; however, previous studies mainly summarized the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin and vildagliptin [11, 14]. Since 2009, more DPP-4 inhibitors have been approved by the FDA and more studies have appeared, including some that assessed the effects of saxagliptin, linagliptin and alogliptin. Thus it was necessary to provide an up-to-date comprehensive picture of the clinical efficacy and safety of the DPP-4 inhibitors. Patient groups on several different background therapies for T2DM were studied [11, 15], making it difficult to compare findings in uniform patient groups. More importantly, these studies did not differentiate outcomes in different ethnic groups. Recent evidence suggested that both anthropometric characteristics and clinical characteristics might be different in Asian and Caucasian T2DM patients [16, 17]. Thus, we guess that an ethnic difference in response to treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin exists between Asian and Caucasian T2DM patients. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy, safety and impact on β-cell function of DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy with metformin monotherapy and also assesses the difference of clinical efficacy between Asians and Caucasians. Methods Search strategy and inclusion criteria A Pubmed search for type 2 diabetes or T2DM metformin dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor or DPP-4 inhibitor or sitagliptin or saxagliptin or linagliptin or alogliptin or vildagliptin was performed for trials from 1 January 2000 to 14 April 2015. Electronic searching results were imported in a reference management software (EndNote X6). After deleting the duplicate results, two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts and investigated full texts for eligible studies. Clinical trials were included if they met the following criteria: (1) published in the English language; (2) comparing DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin with metformin monotherapy; (3) included patients with T2DM at least 18 years of age; (4) duration of treatment 12 weeks; (5) at least one baseline and post-treatment efficacy and/or safety outcome of interest and (6) reports of a dispersion measure [standard deviation, standard error of the mean or confidence interval (CI)], for both treatment arms of the study. We also searched completed, but unpublished, trials at relevant web sites (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) and reference lists from the articles to ensure completeness. We independently screened all abstracts generated by the search for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full-text potentially relevant articles were reviewed independently to determine eligibility. Data extraction Two authors extracted data independently and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. From the publications we extracted study characteristics and participants baseline characteristics [author identification, year of publication, sample size for each group, age, sex, ethnic, duration of intervention, body mass index (BMI)]. Our primary outcome was glycemic control as measured by the change in HbA1C from baseline to end of study. Secondary efficacy outcomes included changes in body weight, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin resistance index (HOMA- IR), homeostatic model assessment for β-cell function (HOMA-β) and lipid parameters (total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and triglyceride (TG) levels. To evaluate the safety data, information about hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal adverse events was extracted. Quality assessment The quality of studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using modified Jadad score [19]. Among them, randomizations, concealment of allocation and double blinding accounted for two scores, respectively, Withdrawals and dropouts accounted for one score. Therefore, the modified Jadad score had a total score of seven points (a high score indicating high quality, 1 3 scores considered as low quality, 4 7 scores considered as high quality). The specific details of the Jadad score could be seen in the supplementary material (Table S1). Data analysis Meta-analysis was conducted with the Review Manager (Revman Version 5.3, Copenhagen, Denmark). For efficacy measures, mean changes in HbA1c, FPG, body weight,
J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 lipid parameters, HOMA-IR and HOMA-β as continuous variables were assessed. For these continuous variables, weighted mean differences (MD) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) for changes from baseline were calculated. For safety measures, the dichotomous variables such as hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal AEs were assessed using odds ratio (OR) with 95 % CI. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the Q statistic and I 2 tests among trials [18]. Significance of the Q statistic test (P < 0.05) indicates a substantial level of heterogeneity [19]. The I 2 statistic describes the percentage of the variability in effect estimates that is the result of heterogeneity rather than sampling error (chance), where I 2 values of 50 % or more indicate a substantial level of heterogeneity. If the I 2 statistics showed that significant heterogeneity existed between study results, a random effect model was selected. Results Study characteristics A total of 492 potentially relevant articles were identified in electronic database. Based on a review of these abstracts, 45 were retrieved for detailed evaluation, and 25 studies met all of the inclusion criteria [20 28, 30 32, 34 46]. One additional article indentified from reference list in relevant papers [29] and one article from clinicaltrials.gov were 1063 also found [33]. There were four trials in Asian patients [25, 31, 35, 44] and 23 trials in Caucasian patients [20 24, 26 30, 32 34, 36 43, 45, 46]. Search results are summarized in Fig. 1. A total of 10,089 patients were included. Participants baseline characteristics of the included studies were extracted and are summarized in Table 1. All included articles were of high quality (all had a score 4) and the results of modified Jadad score are shown in Table 2S. Glycemic control All 27 trials reported change in HbA1c from baseline to end of study period. We performed a random effects meta-analysis that included 5394 participants assigned to DPP-4 inhibitor + metformin groups and 4373 patients assigned to the metformin groups. The reduction in HbA1c was larger for patients in DPP-4 inhibitor + metformin groups than those in the metformin groups ( 0.61 %, 95 % CI 0.69 to 0.52, P < 0.00001), but with a substantial amount of heterogeneity (I 2 = 78 %, Fig. 2). Subgroup analyses showed an HbA1c reduction in trials assessing sitagliptin ( 0.69 %, 0.78 to 0.60, I 2 = 41 %, P < 0.00001), saxagliptin ( 0.41 %, 0.56 to 0.26, I 2 = 75 %, P < 0.00001), vildagliptin ( 0.69 %, 0.94 to 0.44, I 2 = 81 %, P < 0.00001), linagliptin ( 0.58 %, 0.81 to 0.35, I 2 = 78 %, P < 0.00001) and alogliptin ( 0.65 %, 0.85 to 0.44, I 2 = 76 %, P < 0. 00001). Twenty-five studies reported change of FPG. Random Fig. 1 Flow chart demonstrating process of study selection
1064 J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 Table 1 Basic characteristics of included studies Study reference (NCT number) Study design Participants (N) M/F Ethnic Age (years) Duration of T2DM (years) BMI (kg/m 2 ) Baseline HbA1c Treatment dose (mg) Duration (weeks) Sitagliptin Goldstein et al. [20] Double-blind 182 77/105 Caucasian 53.3 ± 9.6 NA NA 8.8 ± 1.0 I: 100 + Met 2000 24 (NCT00103857) 182 82/100 53.2 ± 9.6 NA NA 8.7 ± 0.9 C: PLB + Met 2000 Derosa et al. [21] Double-blind 91 42/49 Caucasian 55.9 ± 8.8 5.8 ± 2.6 28.1 ± 1.2 8.1 ± 0.8 I: 100 + Met 2500 ± 500 48 87 44/43 54.8 ± 7.9 5.4 ± 2.3 28.9 ± 2.0 8.0 ± 0.7 C: PLB + Met 2500 ± 500 Raz et al. [22] Double-blind 96 49/47 Caucasian NA 8.4 ± 6.5 30.1 ± 4.4 9.3 ± 0.9 I: 100 + Met 1500 18 (NCT00337610) 94 39/55 NA 7.3 ± 5.3 30.4 ± 5.3 9.1 ± 0.8 C: PLB + Met 1500 Scott et al. [23] Double-blind 94 52/42 Caucasian 55.2 ± 9.8 4.9 ± 3.5 30.3 ± 4.7 7.8 ± 1.0 I: 100 + Met 1500 18 (NCT00541775) 92 54/38 55.3 ± 9.3 5.4 ± 3.7 30.0 ± 4.5 7.7 ± 0.9 C: PLB + Met 1500 453 NA Caucasian NA NA NA 8.0 ± 0.8 I: 100 + Met 1500 24 Charbonnel et al. [24] Double-blind (NCT0086515) 224 NA NA NA NA 8.0 ± 0.8 C: PLB + Met 1500 Yang et al. [25] Double-blind 197 92/105 Asian 54.1 ± 9.0 6.4 ± 4.4 25.3 ± 3.1 8.5 ± 0.9 I: 100 + Met 1000 or 1700 24 (NCT00813995) 198 108/90 55.1 ± 9.8 7.3 ± 4.6 25.3 ± 3.6 8.5 ± 0.9 C: PLB + Met 1000 or 1700 Reasner et al. [26] Double-blind 625 353/272 Caucasian 49.4 ± 10.5 3.5 ± 4.5 32.9 ± 7.2 9.9 ± 1.8 I: 100 + Met 2000 18 (NCT00482729) 6256/265 50.0 ± 10.5 3.2 ± 4.3 33.7 ± 7.8 9.8 ± 1.8 C: Met 2000 366 172/194 Caucasian 55.5 ± 9.6 6.8 ± 5.2 NA NA I: 100 + Met 2500 26 Lavalle-Gonzalez et al. [27] Double-blind (NCT01106677) 183 94/98 55.3 ± 9.8 6.8 ± 5.3 NA NA C: PLB + Met 2500 Saxagliptin Fonseca et al. [28] Double-blind 138 57/81 Caucasian 55.2 ± 9.4 6.5 ± 5.4 30.8 ± 5.0 8.4 ± 0.9 I: 5 + Met 1500 18 (NCT00960076) 144 71/73 55.5 ± 9.9 5.9 ± 5.2 31.0 ± 10.6 8.3 ± 0.9 C: Met 2000 Hermans et al. [29] Double-blind 147 88/59 Caucasian 58.7 ± 11.3 6.0 ± 5.3 32.1 ± 6.7 7.7 ± 0.9 I: 5 + Met 1500 24 (NCT01006590) 139 76/63 58.6 ± 9.8 6.9 ± 6.0 31.2 ± 5.7 7.8 ± 0.8 C: Met 2000 Jadzinsky et al. [30] Double-blind 320 165/155 Caucasian 52.0 ± 10.4 2.0 ± 3.6 29.9 ± 4.5 9.4 ± 1.3 I: 5 + Met 2000 24 (NCT00327015) 328 163/165 51.8 ± 10.7 1.7 ± 3.0.2 ± 4.9 9.4 ± 1.3 C: Met 2000 Yang et al. [31] Double-blind 283 136/147 Asian 53.8 ± 10.4 5.1 ± 5.0 26.3 ± 3.6 7.9 ± 0.8 I: 5 + Met 1500 24
J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 1065 Table 1 continued Study reference (NCT number) Study design Participants (N) M/F Ethnic Age (years) Duration of T2DM (years) BMI (kg/m 2 ) Baseline HbA1c Treatment dose (mg) Duration (weeks) (NCT00661362) 287 139/148 54.4 ± 10.1 5.1 ± 4.0 26.1 ± 3.5 7.9 ± 0.8 C: PLB + Met 1500 Defronzo et al. [32] Double-blind 191 103/88 Caucasian 54.7 ± 9.6 NA 31.2 ± 4.67 8.1 ± 0.8 I: 5 + Met 1500 2500 24 (NCT00121667) 179 96/83 54.8 ± 10.2 NA 31.6 ± 4.8 8.1 ± 0.9 C: PLB + Met 1500 2500 NCT00885378 [33] Double-blind 74 40/34 Caucasian 53.9 ± 10.4 5.8 ± 6.4 33.7 ± 5.9 7.9 ± 1.0 I: 5 + Met 1911 12 86 45/41 56.6 ± 10.0 6.2 ± 4.2 32.5 ± 6.2 8.0 ± 0.8 C: PLB + Met 1855 Vildagliptin Bosi et al. [34] Double-blind 185 NA Caucasian 53.9 ± 9.5 5.8 ± 4.7 32.9 ± 5.0 8.4 ± 1.0 I: 100 + Met 2099 24 (NCT00099892) 182 NA 54.5 ± 10.3 6.2 ± 5.3 33.2 ± 6.1 8.3 ± 0.9 C: PLB + Met 2102 Pan et al. [35] Double-blind 146 73/73 Asian 54.2 ± 9.6 4.9 ± 5.8 26.0 ± 3.3 8.1 ± 0.9 I: 100 + Met 1500 24 144 66/78 54.5 ± 9.7 5.2 ± 4.6 25.5 ± 3.1 8.0 ± 0.8 C: PLB + Met 1500 Goodman et al [36] Double-blind 125 66/59 Caucasian 54.7 ± 10.3 NA 31.7 ± 4.6 8.5 ± 1.0 I: 100 + Met 1889 24 122 82/40 54.5 ± 9.7 NA 31.7 ± 4.3 8.7 ± 1.1 C: PLB + Met 1932 Bosi et al. [37] Double-blind 295 171/124 Caucasian 52.8 ± 10.6 1.9 ± 2.6 31.4 ± 4.8 8.7 ± 1.0 I: 100 + Met 2000 24 294 171/123 52.4 ± 10.7 2.2 ± 3.3 31.3 ± 4.6 8.6 ± 0.9 C: Met 2000 Ahren [38] Double-blind 56 39/17 Caucasian 57.9 ± 10.0 5.6 ± 4.2 29.4 ± 3.6 7.7 ± 0.6 I: 100 + Met 1500 3000 24 54/17 55.7 ± 11.0 5.5 ± 3.7 30.2 ± 3.6 7.8 ± 0.7 C: PLB + Met 1500-3000 Linagliptin Ross et al. [39] Double-blind 224 121/103 Caucasian 58.4 ± 10.6 NA 29.6 ± 5.0 8.0 ± 0.7 I: 5 + Met 1500 12 (NCT01012037) 44 21/23 55.9 ± 10.7 NA 28.7 ± 5.5 7.9 ± 0.7 C: PLB + Met 1500 Haak et al. [40] Double-blind 143 77/105 Caucasian 56.4 ± 10.7 NA 28.6 ± 4.8 8.6 ± 1.0 I: 5 + Met 2000 24 (NCT00798161) 147 82/100 55.2 ± 10.6 NA 29.5 ± 2.5 8.5 ± 0.9 C: Met 2000 Taskinen et al. [41] Double-blind 523 42/49 Caucasian 56.5 ± 10.1 NA 29.9 ± 4.8 8.1 ± 0.9 I: 5 + Met 1500 24 (NCT00601250) 177 44/43 56.6 ± 10.9 NA 30.1 ± 5.0 8.0 ± 0.9 C: PLB + Met 1500 Forst et al. [42] Double-blind 66 49/47 Caucasian 59.6 ± 9.8 7.3 ± 7.5 31.7 ± 4.5 8.5 ± 0.9 I: 5 + Met 1500 12 (NCT00309608) 79/55 60.1 ± 8.1 6.2 ± 5.2.2 ± 4.2 8.4 ± 0.7 C: PLB + Met 1500
1066 J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 Table 1 continued Treatment dose (mg) Duration (weeks) BMI (kg/m 2 ) Baseline HbA1c Study design Participants (N) M/F Ethnic Age (years) Duration of T2DM (years) Study reference (NCT number) Alogliptin Nauck et al. [43] Double-blind 210 52/42 Caucasian 54.0 ± 11.0 NA 32.0 ± 5.0 NA I:25 + Met 1500 26 (NCT00286442) 104 54/38 56.0 ± 11.0 NA 32.0 ± 6.0 NA C: PLB + Met 1500 Seino et al. [44] Double-blind 96 NA Asian 52.3 ± 8.0 6.6 ± 4.8 25.8 ± 3.7 8.0 ± 0.7 I: 25 + Met 500 or 750 12 (NCT01318109) 100 NA 52.1 ± 8.0 6.0 ± 4.4 26.1 ± 4.6 8.0 ± 0.9 C: PLB + Met 500 or 750 Pratley et al. [45] Double-blind 114 92/105 Caucasian 54.6 ± 10.4 4.2 ± 5.0 31.0 ± 5.4 NA I: 25 + Met 2000 26 (NCT01023581) 111 108/90 52.6 ± 11.3 4.1 ± 4.6 30.5 ± 5.0 NA C: Met 2000 Defronzo et al. [46] Double-blind 129 353/272 Caucasian 53.7 ± 9.3 5.6 ± 4.9 31.5 ± 5.7 8.6 ± 0.7 I: 25 + Met 1851 26 (NCT00328627) 129 356/265 55.2 ± 9.9 6.0 ± 5.0 30.6 ± 4.8 8.5 ± 0.6 C: PLB + Met 1937 Data presented as mean ± standard deviation HbA1c glycosylated haemoglobin, BMI body mass index (calculated as weight in kg divided by height in m 2 ), I, DPP-4 inhibitor plus metformin, C metformin, NA not applicable, M/F male/ female effects meta-analysis showed that there was a significant difference for reduction in FPG between patients in DPP-4 inhibitor + metformin groups and metformin groups ( 1.10 mmol/l, 95 % CI 1.29 to 0.92, P < 0.00001), but with a substantial amount of heterogeneity (I 2 = 74 %, Fig. 3). Subgroup analyses also showed an obvious difference in FPG reduction in trials assessing sitagliptin ( 1.27 mmol/l, 1.51 to 1.02, I 2 = 50 %, P < 0.00001), saxagliptin ( 0.63 mmol/l, 0.98 to 0.28, I 2 = 76 %, P = 0.0004), vildagliptin ( 1.53 mmol/l, 2.37 to 0.68, I 2 = 87 %, P = 0.0004), linagliptin ( 1.21 mmol/l, 1.57 to 0.85, I 2 = 51 %, P < 0.00001) and alogliptin ( 1.12 mmol/l, 1.38 to 0.86, I 2 = 0 %, P < 0.00001). Body weight In the 14 trials that reported data on body weight changes, DPP-4 inhibitors + metformin showed a slight weight gain compared with metformin (mean difference 0.11 kg, 95 % CI 0.03 to 0.26, I 2 = 1 %), but the difference was not significant (P = 0.13) (Fig. 1S). Increment of weight compared to metformin was found for each of the DPP-4 inhibitors + metformin: sitagliptin (0.17 kg, 0.20 to 0.55, I 2 = 0, P = 0.37), saxagliptin (0.37 kg, 0.61 to 1.34, I 2 = 89 %, P = 0.46), vildagliptin (0.22 kg, 0.15 to 0.59, I 2 = 0, P = 0.24, linagliptin (0.16 kg, 0.36 to 0.68, I 2 = 0, P = 0.55) and alogliptin (0.04 kg, 0.24 to 0.32, I 2 = 0, P = 0.76). HOMA β and HOMA IR Fifteen trials reported HOMA-β. Random effects metaanalysis showed a significant increase in HOMA-β between patients in DPP-4 inhibitor + metformin groups and metformin groups (10.21, 95 % CI 7.73 to 12.69, I 2 = 50 %, P < 0.00001, Fig. 4). Twelve trials reported HOMA- IR. DPP-4 inhibitors + metformin combination therapy remarkably decreased the HOMA-IR compared with metformin ( 0.19, 95 % CI 0.36 to 0.02, I 2 = 31 %, P = 0.03, Fig. 5). Summary of β-cell effects from included studies are shown in Table S3. Lipid Mean difference for HDL and LDL were 0.00 mmol/l ( 0.02 to 0.03, I 2 = 0 %, P = 0.86) and 0.02 mmol/l ( 0.04 to 0.08, I 2 = 39 %, P = 0.55), respectively. Random effects meta-analysis show significant difference in reduction in TC and TG between the two groups: mean difference for TC and TG were 0.11 mmol/l ( 0.20 to 0.02, I 2 = 78 %, P = 0.02) and 0.21 mmol/l ( 0.33 to 0.10, I 2 = 78 %, P = 0.0002), respectively. Summary of lipid parameters from included studies are shown in Table S3.
J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 1067 Fig. 2 Weighted mean difference in change in HbA1c for DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin vs metformin. DPP-4i dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, MET metformin Adverse events Data on hypoglycemic episodes were retrieved in 19 of 27 trials. To better observe the adverse events, we included all of the different doses of DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin, so the sample sizes were higher than those reported in Table 1. DPP-4 inhibitors + metformin decreased the risk of hypoglycemic compared with metformin (OR 0.85, 95 % CI 0.58 1.23, I 2 = 0), but the decrease was not significantly different (P = 0.38). Fixed effects meta-analysis showed that there was a significant reduction in gastrointestinal AEs risk between patients in DPP-4 inhibitor + metformin
1068 J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 Fig. 3 Weighted mean difference in change in FPG for DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin vs metformin groups and metformin groups (OR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.77 0.97, I 2 = 10 %, P = 0.01, Fig. 6). Subgroup analyses showed an obvious difference in trials assessing add-on therapy (OR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.65 0.94, I 2 = 0, P = 0.009), but there were no significant difference in initial combination therapy between the two groups (OR 0.92, 95 % CI 0.79 1.06, I 2 = 36 %, P = 0.25). Summary of adverse events from included studies are shown in Table S4.
J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 1069 Fig. 4 Weighted mean difference in change in HOMA-β for DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin vs metformin Comparison the efficacy of DPP 4 inhibitor and metformin combination therapy in Asian and Caucasian patients The difference in HbA1c and FPG reduction with DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy compared with metformin monotherapy between Asian and Caucasian patients was not statistically significant: ( 0.05 %, 95 % CI 0.30 to 0.20, P = 0.69) and (0.17 mmol/l, 95 % CI 0.52 to 0.85, P = 0.62). However, the between-group difference in HOMA-β change from baseline had significant difference ( 7.68, 95 % CI 14.95 to 0.42, P = 0.04) compared with metformin. Asian and Caucasian patients experienced comparable improvement in HOMA-IR (0.27, 95 % CI, 0.98 to 1.53, P = 0.64) and comparable changes in body weight ( 0.15 kg, 95 % CI, 0.64 to 0.35; P = 0.53) with DPP-4 inhibitor plus metformin combination therapy compared with metformin (Table 2).
1070 J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 Fig. 5 Weighted mean difference in change in HOMA-IR for DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin vs metformin Discussion DPP-4 inhibitors are a relatively new therapeutic class of oral antihyperglycemic drugs for the management of T2DM. This meta-analysis investigated the clinical efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy and their effect on β-cell function, insulin resistance, body weight and lipid level. In terms of clinical efficacy, DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin lowered HbA1c by 0.41 0.69 %, FPG by 0.63 1.53 mmol/ml than metformin. The improvement in HbA1c and FPG were found to have no significant difference in Asian patients and Caucasian patients. However, the result was not consistent with findings from previous meta-analyses of DPP-4 inhibitors in Asian patients compared with placebo, which reported greater HbA1c reductions than in Caucasian. This may be due to the different research background and also the less included studies in Asian patients. So the effectiveness of incretin-based therapies in various races should be further investigated as more evidence becomes available. Obesity is a major factor in the pathogenesis of T2DM. A 1-kg weight gain has been shown to increase the risk of diabetes by 4.5 9 %, whereas an 11 % weight loss decreases the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes mortality by 25 % [47]. The majority of patients with T2DM face vital challenges in terms of achieving and maintaining glycemic and weight loss targets. In our assay, almost DPP-4 inhibitor (except Bosi [34] and Fonseca [28]) plus metformin combination therapy decreased the body weight in different degrees and did not show remarkably weight gain compared with metformin monotherapy. The overall weight neutrality observed with DPP-4 inhibitors appears to be a class effect, as has been demonstrated by previous studies either as monotherapy or add-on therapy, without significant changes in body weight [18]. T2DM is characterized by increased insulin resistance, and deteriorating β-cell function, resulting in chronic hyperglycaemia. DPP-4 inhibitors induced the increase of GLP-1 levels resulted in enhanced sensitivity of β-cells to glucose and improved glucose-dependent insulin secretion. Improvements
J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 1071 Fig. 6 Meta-analysis of gastrointestinal adverse events between DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin vs metformin
1072 J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 Table 2 Comparison of DPP-4 inhibitor + metformin efficacy versus metformin in Asian and Caucasian T2DM patients Asian, WMD change from baseline (95 % CI, P value) Size (DPP-4i + Met versus Met) Caucasian, WMD change from baseline (95 % CI, P value) Size (DPP-4i + Met versus Met) Difference estimate (95 % CI, P value) DPP-4i + Met versus Met HbA1c (%) 0.66 ( 0.91, 0.41, <0.00001) FPG (mmol/l) 0.96 ( 1.42, 0.49, <0.0001) 707/717 0.59 ( 0.68, 0.51, <0.00001) 565/576 1.13 ( 1.33, 0.92, <0.00001) 4687/3656 0.05 ( 0.30, 0.20, 0.69) 4585/3575 0.17 ( 0.52, 0.85, 0.62) Weight (kg) 0.01 ( 0.24, 0.21, 0.974/384 0.21 (0.01, 0.40, 0.05) 2527/2055 0.15 ( 0.64, 0.35, 0.53) HOMA-β 6.08 (2.88, 9.29, 0.0002) 520/501 11.87 (8.76, 14.98, <0.00001) HOMA-IR 0.09 ( 0.49, 0.31, 0.66) 270/264 0.21 ( 0.39, 0.02, 0.03) 2411/1905 7.68 ( 14.95, 0.42, 0.04) 2077/1592 0.27 ( 0.98, 1.53, 0.64) CI confidence interval, DPP-4i dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, FPG fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c glycosylated haemoglobin, HOMA-β homeostatic model of assessment for β-call function, HOMA-IR homeostatic model of assessment for insulin resistance, T2DM type 2 diabetes mellitus, WMD weighted mean difference in HOMA-β were found to be greater in patients with DPP-4 inhibitor plus metformin treatment compared with metformin in this meta-analysis. However, improvements in HOMA-β were found to be significantly less in Asian patients than in Caucasian patients (P = 0.01). It has been suggested that in leaner Asian patients with T2DM, loss of glycemic control may be attributed to insulin deficiency rather than insulin resistance [48]. Thus, the promotion of insulin secretion by DPP-4 inhibitors though improvement in HOMA-β may be specially relevant for Caucasian patients. T2DM is also associated with lipid metabolic disorder, thus promoting the formation and development of atherosclerosis [49]. DPP-4 inhibitor plus metformin combination therapy yield a better efficacy in reducing TG and TC compared with metformin monotherapy. DPP-4 inhibitors as a new type of hypoglycemic drugs also have a certain role in regulation blood lipids. The studies of DPP-4 inhibitors on lipid metabolism were mainly concentrated on TG. DPP-4 inhibitors could increase the level of endogenous GLP-1 and the increase of GLP-1 may be an endocrine signal affecting the metabolism of lipoprotein in the intestine [50]. On the one hand, GLP-1 could prevent the breakdown of the fatty acids, thereby reducing the level of free fatty acids, which were positively correlated with the level apob48 [51]. The decrease of apob48 slowed down the exogenous pathway of lipid metabolism, which helped to reduce the production of intestinal lipoprotein [51]. One the other hand, GLP-1 could delay the gastric emptying, reduce the absorption of TG, thus lower the level of TG [52]. DPP-4 inhibitors also had a certain effect on lowering TC, while had no obvious regulation effect on LDL and HDL. The mechanism of the effect on TC, LDL and HDL needed more basic research and clinical follow-up observation to further clarify. Monotherapy targeting a single pathway may be effective in improving glycemic control in short term but often inadequate to control the multiple defects associated with T2DM [53]. Although metformin monotherapy is the cornerstone of T2D treatment, high doses are associated with an increased incidence of gastrointestinal AEs. Overall, compared with metformin monotherapy, DPP-4 inhibitors plus metformin combination therapy were well tolerated with lower gastrointestinal AEs. This was not consistent with the conclusion of Wu s research [18]. So we performed a subgroup analysis of the initial combination therapy [20, 26, 30, 37, 40, 41, 45] and add-on therapy [23 25, 27 29, 31, 32, 34 36, 42 44, 46] (Fig. 2S). Subgroup analyses showed an obvious difference in trials assessing addon therapy (P = 0.02), but there was no significant difference in initial combination therapy between the two groups (P = 0.25). So the difference may be due to the reduced dose of metformin in DPP-4 inhibitor and metformin combination group in add-on therapy [29, 34, 36, 46]. Moreover, the combination therapy almost did not increase the risk of hypoglycaemia, whatever was the initial combination therapy or add-on therapy. In view of the greater incidence of hypoglycaemia and even severe hypoglycaemia in elderly patients with T2DM [54], DPP-4 inhibitors are promising new therapies because of their overall safety profile, especially the negligible risk of hypoglycaemia [55]. This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy, safety and impact on-β function of DPP-4 inhibitors and metformin combination therapy in 27 randomized controlled trials, drawing comparisons between Asian and Caucasian patients. However, the study has several limitations. Despite the s being all high quality, statistical heterogeneity still existed. This heterogeneity may have been the result of differences in design, patient characteristics,
J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 duration of diabetes, and control drug therapy. The number of studies included in Asian patients was less, so the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Study duration was less than one year for the majority of studies included in this meta-analysis, limiting the assessment of the longterm clinical outcomes. Further investigations are needed to examine the long-term effects of these agents on cardiovascular events and death. Compliance with ethical standards Conflict of interest The authors do not declare any conflict of interest relevant to this manuscript. Ethical approval For this type of study formal consent is not required. Informed consent For this type of study, informed consent is not required. References 1. Shaw JE, Sicree RA, Zimmet PZ (2010) Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 87(1):4 14 2. American Diabetes Association (2014) Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care 37(Suppl 1):S81 S90 3. Shimizu T et al (2012) Medical management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. Nihon rinsho. Jpn J Clin Oncol 70(Suppl 3):591 601 4. Minshall ME et al (2008) Estimating the long-term cost-effectiveness of exenatide in the United States: an adjunctive treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Value Health 11(1):22 33 5. Ahrén B (2011) GLP-1 for type 2 diabetes. Exp Cell Res 317(9):1239 1245 6. Martin JH, Deacon CF, Gorrell MD, Prins JB (2011) Incretinbased therapies-review of the physiology, pharmacology and emerging clinical experience. Intern Med J 41(4):299 307 7. Nauck MA (2011) Incretin-based therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus: properties, functions, and clinical implications. Am J Med 124(1 Suppl):S3 S18 8. Campbell JE, Drucker DJ (2013) Pharmacology, physiology, and mechanisms of incretin hormone action. Cell Metab 17(6):819 837 9. Aroda VR et al (2012) Efficacy of GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors: meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Ther 34(6):1247 1258 10. Rodbard HW et al (2009) Statement by an American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology consensus panel on type 2 diabetes mellitus: an algorithm for glycemic control. Endocr Pract 15(6):540 559 11. Fakhoury WK, Lereun C, Wright D (2010) A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of incretin-based medications in patients with type 2 diabetes. Pharmacology 86(1):44 57 12. Deacon CF, Mannucci E, Ahren B (2012) Glycaemic efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors as add-on therapy to metformin in subjects 1073 with type 2 diabetes-a review and meta analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 14(8):762 767 13. Ahren B (2010) Use of DPP-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: focus on sitagliptin. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 3:31 41 14. Monami M, Iacomelli I, Marchionni N, Mannucci E (2010) Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 20(4):224 235 15. Park H, Park C, Kim Y, Rascati KL (2012) Efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis. Ann Pharmacother 46(11):1453 1469 16. Ma RC, Chan JC (2013) Type 2 diabetes in East Asians: similarities and differences with populations in Europe and the United States. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1281:64 91 17. Chan JC et al (2009) Diabetes in Asia: epidemiology, risk factors, and pathophysiology. JAMA 301(20):2129 2140 18. Wu D, Li L, Liu C (2014) Efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and metformin as initial combination therapy and as monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Obes Metab 16(1):30 37 19. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21(11):1539 1558 20. Goldstein BJ et al (2007) Effect of initial combination therapy with sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, and metformin on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 30(8):1979 1987 21. Derosa G et al (2012) Effects of a combination of sitagliptin plus metformin vs metformin monotherapy on glycemic control, betacell function and insulin resistance in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 98(1):51 60 22. Raz I et al (2008) Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin added to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin 24(2):537 550 23. Scott R et al (2008) Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin when added to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 10(10):959 969 24. Charbonnel B et al (2006) Efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin added to ongoing metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin alone. Diabetes Care 29(12):2638 2643 25. Yang W et al (2012) The addition of sitagliptin to ongoing metformin therapy significantly improves glycemic control in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes. J Diabetes 4(3):227 237 26. Reasner C et al (2011) The effect of initial therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin compared with metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Obes Metab 13(7):644 652 27. Lavalle-Gonzalez FJ et al (2013) Efficacy and safety of canagliflozin compared with placebo and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes on background metformin monotherapy: a randomised trial. Diabetologia 56(12):2582 2592 28. Fonseca V, Zhu T, Karyekar C, Hirshberg B (2012) Adding saxagliptin to extended-release metformin vs. uptitrating metformin dosage. Diabetes Obes Metab 14(4):365 371 29. Hermans MP et al (2012) Effects of saxagliptin added to submaximal doses of metformin compared with uptitration of metformin in type 2 diabetes: the PROMPT study. Curr Med Res Opin 28(10):1635 1645 30. Jadzinsky M et al (2009) Saxagliptin given in combination with metformin as initial therapy improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with either monotherapy: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 11(6):611 622 31. Yang W, Pan CY, Tou C, Zhao J, Gause-Nilsson I (2011) Efficacy and safety of saxagliptin added to metformin in Asian
1074 J Endocrinol Invest (2016) 39:1061 1074 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 94(2):217 224 32. DeFronzo RA et al (2009) The efficacy and safety of saxagliptin when added to metformin therapy in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes with metformin alone. Diabetes Care 32(9):1649 1655 33. National Institutes of Health (2015) Efficacy and safety study of saxaliptin + metformin immediate release (IR) versus metformin IR alone in type 2 diabetes mellitus. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/ show/nct00885378 34. Bosi E et al (2007) Effects of vildagliptin on glucose control over 24 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. Diabetes Care 30(4):890 895 35. Pan C et al (2012) Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Obes Metab 14(8):737 744 36. Goodman M, Thurston H, Penman J (2009) Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy. Horm Metab Res 41(5):368 373 37. Bosi E, Dotta F, Jia Y, Goodman M (2009) Vildagliptin plus metformin combination therapy provides superior glycaemic control to individual monotherapy in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Obes Metab 11(5):506 515 38. Ahren B et al (2004) Twelve- and 52-week efficacy of the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor LAF237 in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27(12):2874 2880 39. Ross SA et al (2012) Efficacy and safety of linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily versus 5 mg once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Curr Med Res Opin 28((9):1465 1474 40. Haak T et al (2012) Initial combination of linagliptin and metformin improves glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Diabetes Obes Metab 14(6):565 574 41. Taskinen MR et al (2011) Safety and efficacy of linagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Diabetes Obes Metab 13(1):65 74 42. Forst T et al (2010) Linagliptin (BI 1356), a potent and selective DPP-4 inhibitor, is safe and efficacious in combination with metformin in patients with inadequately controlled Type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med 27(12):1409 1419 43. Nauck MA et al (2009) Efficacy and safety of adding the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor alogliptin to metformin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Int J Clin Pract 63(1):46 55 44. Seino Y et al (2012) Efficacy and safety of alogliptin added to metformin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with an open-label, long-term extension study. Diabetes Obes Metab 14(10):927 936 45. Pratley RE, Fleck P, Wilson C (2014) Efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with alogliptin plus metformin versus either as monotherapy in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, double-blind, 6-month study. Diabetes Obes Metab 16(7):613 621 46. DeFronzo RA et al (2012) Efficacy and tolerability of the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin combined with pioglitazone, in metformintreated patients with type 2 diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 97(5):1615 1622 47. Arbeeny CM (2004) Addressing the unmet medical need for safe and effective weight loss therapies. Obes Res 12(8):1191 1196 48. Cai X, Han X, Luo Y, Ji L (2015) Efficacy of dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors and impact on beta-cell function in Asian and Caucasian type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: a meta-analysis. J Diabetes 7(3):347 359 49. Esteghamati A et al (2014) Comparative effects of metformin and pioglitazone on YKL-40 in type 2 diabetes: a randomized clinical trial. J Endocrinol Invest 37(12):1211 1218 50. Pal S, Semorine K, Watts GF, Mamo J (2003) Identification of lipoproteins of intestinal origin in human atherosclerotic plaque. Clin Chem Lab Med 41(6):792 795 51. Meier JJ et al (2006) Glucagon-like peptide 1 abolishes the postprandial rise in triglyceride concentrations and lowers levels of non-esterified fatty acids in humans. Diabetologia 49(3):452 458 52. Drucker DJ (2006) The biology of incretin hormones. Cell Metab 3(3):153 165 53. Barnett AH (2009) Redefining the role of thiazolidinediones in the management of type 2 diabetes. Vasc Health Risk Manag 5(1):141 151 54. Rosenstock J (2001) Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the elderly. Drugs Aging 18(1):31 44 55. Paolisso G, Monami M, Marfella R, Rizzo MR, Mannucci E (2012) Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in the elderly: more benefits or risks? Adv Ther 29(3):218 233
本文献由 学霸图书馆 - 文献云下载 收集自网络, 仅供学习交流使用 学霸图书馆 (www.xuebalib.com) 是一个 整合众多图书馆数据库资源, 提供一站式文献检索和下载服务 的 24 小时在线不限 IP 图书馆 图书馆致力于便利 促进学习与科研, 提供最强文献下载服务 图书馆导航 : 图书馆首页文献云下载图书馆入口外文数据库大全疑难文献辅助工具