Is GFR decline induced by SGLT2 inhibitor of clinical importance?

BACKGROUND: Use of sodium-glucose-cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors often causes an initial decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR). This study addresses the question whether the initial decline of renal function with SGLT2 inhibitor treatment is related to vascular changes in the systemic circulation. METHODS: We measured GFR (mGFR) and estimated GFR (eGFR) in 65 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment randomized either to a combination of empagliflozin and linagliptin (SGLT2 inhibitor based treatment group) (n = 34) or metformin and insulin (non-SGLT2 inhibitor based treatment group) (n = 31). mGFR was measured using the gold standard clearance technique by constant infusion of inulin. In addition to blood pressure (BP), we measured pulse wave velocity (PWV) under standardized conditions reflecting vascular compliance of large arteries, as PWV is considered to be one of the most reliable vascular parameter of cardiovascular (CV) prognosis. RESULTS: Both mGFR and eGFR decreased significantly after initiating treatment, but no correlation was found between change in mGFR and change in eGFR in either treatment group (SGLT2 inhibitor based treatment group: r=-0.148, p = 0.404; non-SGLT2 inhibitor based treatment group: r = 0.138, p = 0.460). Noticeably, change in mGFR correlated with change in PWV (r = 0.476, p = 0.005) in the SGLT2 inhibitor based treatment group only and remained significant after adjustment for the change in systolic BP and the change in heart rate (r = 0.422, p = 0.018). No such correlation was observed between the change in eGFR and the change in PWV in either treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Our main finding is that after initiating a SGLT2 inhibitor based therapy an exaggerated decline in mGFR was related with improved vascular compliance of large arteries reflecting the pharmacologic effects of SGLT2 inhibitor in the renal and systemic vascular bed. Second, in a single patient with T2D, eGFR may not be an appropriate parameter to assess the true change of renal function after receiving SGLT2 inhibitor based therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02752113).

Identification of Risk Factors for Gliptin-associated Bullous Pemphigoid among Diabetic Patients.

Drug-associated bullous pemphigoid has been shown to follow long-term gliptin (dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors) intake. This study aimed at identifying risk factors for gliptin-associated bullous pemphigoid among patients with type 2 diabetes. A retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary centre among diabetic patients exposed to gliptins between the years 2008-2021. Data including demographics, comorbidities, medications, and laboratory results were collected using the MDClone platform. Seventy-six patients with type 2 diabetes treated with dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors who subsequently developed bullous pemphigoid were compared with a cohort of 8,060 diabetic patients exposed to dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitors who did not develop bullous pemphigoid. Based on a multivariable analysis adjusted for age and other covariates, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias were significantly more prevalent in patients with bullous pemphigoid (p = 0.0013). Concomitant use of either thiazide or loop diuretics and gliptin therapy was associated with drug-associated bullous pemphigoid (p < 0.0001 for both). While compared with sitagliptin, exposure to linagliptin and vildagliptin were associated with bullous pemphigoid with an odds ratio of 5.68 and 6.61 (p < 0.0001 for both), respectively. These results suggest gliptins should be prescribed with caution to patients with type 2 diabetes with coexisting Alzheimer's and other dementias, or patients receiving long-term use of thiazides and loop diuretics. The use of sitagliptin over linagliptin and vildagliptin should be preferred in these patients.

Gliptin-induced bullous pemphigoid.

OBJECTIVES: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a rare, autoimmune, blistering disease in elderly patients that can be triggered by external factors including drugs. Drug-induced bullous pemphigoid (DIBP) does not always follow a self-limiting course after the withdrawal of the offending drug. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors or gliptins seem to be associated with a significant risk of inducing BP. CASE PRESENTATION: We report 2 cases of BP attributed to the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin. In both cases, the clinical manifestation was strongly suggestive of BP. The diagnosis was verified by histology and direct immunofluorescence (DIF). Linagliptin and all other possible drug triggers of BP were discontinued after consultation with an endocrinologist and a cardiologist. Systemic treatment of BP consisted of methylprednisolone and tetracycline. During the follow-up period, one of the patients suffered a fatal brain stroke while the other was managed with reduced doses of corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: The proper management of autoimmune bullous skin disorders in elderly patients includes a scrupulous assessment of plausible drug triggers. Systemic corticosteroids for treating severe cases of DIBP can worsen concomitant diseases which often necessitates multidisciplinary care.

Baseline Cardiovascular Risk Factor Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Coronary Disease Versus Stroke: Secondary Analysis of Cardiovascular Outcome Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease are at increased risk for recurrent ischemic events. Cardiovascular risk factor control is vital for secondary prevention, but how this compares among individuals with different T2D macrovascular complications is unknown. We aimed to determine if there might be differences in risk factor control in patients with T2D with previous stroke versus coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses were performed on 12 856 patients with T2D with prior history of stroke with or without CAD from 3 diabetes cardiovascular outcome trials: CARMELINA (The Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin), EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients), and CAROLINA (The Cardiovascular Outcome Study of Linagliptin vs Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes). Risk factors at baseline assessed included dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking, and current antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy. Control, respectively, was defined as LDL (low-density lipoprotein)-C <100 mg/dL or statin use, systolic blood pressure <140 and diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, not currently smoking, and use of an antiplatelet/anticoagulant medication. The odds ratio of 3 to 4 (or good) versus 0 to 2 (or suboptimal) risk factors controlled was analyzed by logistic regression models. RESULTS: The odds for good versus suboptimal risk factor control in patients with CAD alone was higher than in those with stroke alone across all 3 trials odds ratios (95% CI): CARMELINA, 2.05 (1.67-2.51), EMPA-REG OUTCOME, 2.50 (2.10-2.99), and CAROLINA, 1.63 (1.21-2.20). The respective odds ratios were lower (and rendered nonsignificant in CAROLINA) when cardiovascular risk factor control in patients with both CAD and stroke were compared with those with stroke alone: CARMELINA, 1.45 (1.13-1.87); EMPA-REG OUTCOME, 1.62 (1.25-2.08); and CAROLINA, 1.16 (0.74-1.83). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary populations of patients with T2D, there was significant discordance in control of cardiovascular risk factors between patients with stroke versus CAD, with the former having less optimal control. The intermediate results in patients with both CAD and stroke suggest that these differences could be related at least in part to clinician factors. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01243424, NCT01131676, NCT01897532.

Neuroprotective Role of DPP-4 Inhibitor Linagliptin Against Neurodegeneration, Neuronal Insulin Resistance and Neuroinflammation Induced by Intracerebroventricular Streptozotocin in Rat Model of Alzheimer's Disease.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is an age-related, multifactorial progressive neurodegenerative disorder manifested by cognitive impairment and neuronal death in the brain areas like hippocampus, yet the precise neuropathology of AD is still unclear. Continuous failure of various clinical trial studies demands the utmost need to explore more therapeutic targets against AD. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and neuronal insulin resistance due to serine phosphorylation of Insulin Receptor Substrate-1 at 307 exhibits correlation with AD. Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) have also indicated therapeutic effects in AD by increasing the level of Glucagon-like peptide-1 in the brain after crossing Blood Brain Barrier. The present study is hypothesized to examine Linagliptin, a DPP-4i in intracerebroventricular streptozotocin induced neurodegeneration, and neuroinflammation and hippocampal insulin resistance in rat model of AD. Following infusion on 1st and 3rd day, animals were treated orally with Linagliptin (0.513 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, and 5 mg/kg) and donepezil (5 mg/kg) as a standard for 8 weeks. Neurobehavioral, biochemical and histopathological analysis was done at the end of treatment. Dose-dependently Linagliptin significantly reversed behavioral alterations done through locomotor activity (LA) and morris water maze (MWM) test. Moreover, Linagliptin augmented hippocampal GLP-1 and Akt-ser473 level and mitigated soluble Aß (1-42), IRS-1 (s307), GSK-3ß, TNF-α, IL-1ß, IL-6, AchE and oxidative/nitrosative stress level. Histopathological analysis also exhibited neuroprotective and anti-amylodogenic effect in Hematoxylin and eosin and Congo red staining respectively. The findings of our study concludes remarkable dose-dependent therapeutic potential of Linagliptin against neuronal insulin resistance via IRS-1 and AD-related complication. Thus, demonstrates unique molecular mechanism that underlie AD.

Incident and recurrent hypoglycaemia with linagliptin and glimepiride over a median of 6 years in the CAROLINA cardiovascular outcome trial.

AIM: The CAROLINA trial established non-inferiority of linagliptin versus glimepiride for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk. In pre-specified and post-hoc analyses, we investigated treatment effects on total hypoglycaemic burden in CAROLINA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized and treated with 5 mg linagliptin (n = 3014) or 1-4 mg glimepiride (n = 3000) once daily added to standard care. Hypoglycaemia captured from investigator-reported adverse events was analysed with Poisson and negative binomial regressions for the first and total (first plus recurrent) events, respectively. The influence of insulin initiation and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change on the treatment effect for hypoglycaemia was also explored. RESULTS: Over 6.3 years median follow-up, average HbA1c over time did not differ between linagliptin versus glimepiride (weighted mean difference [95% confidence interval]: 0.00%, [-0.05, 0.05]), nor did insulin initiation (18.6% vs. 19.2% of patients, respectively), whereas body weight was lower with linagliptin (-1.54 kg, [-1.80, -1.28]). Hypoglycaemia frequency was lower with linagliptin across all hypoglycaemia categories, including severe episodes. Rate ratios (95% confidence interval) for first and total events for investigator-reported hypoglycaemia were 0.21 (0.19-0.24) and 0.12 (0.10-0.14), respectively, with 8.7 first and 60.8 total estimated events prevented/100 patient-years with linagliptin versus glimepiride. These differences occurred during night-time and daytime, and in subgroup analyses of total events. Treatment differences in hypoglycaemia were neither impacted by HbA1c changes nor insulin initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Across the severity spectrum, linagliptin substantially reduced the hypoglycaemic burden versus glimepiride in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk.

Simplifying Type 2 DM Care with Linagliptin: A Position Paper.

INTRODUCTION: The burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is raising dramatically both internationally and in India. It is often observed that multiple therapies or combinations of different drugs are usually required to successfully control hyperglycemia in patients with T2DM. To facilitate effective control of glucose levels, many new agents have been developed over the past few years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multiple Advisory Board Meetings were conducted with 87 leading key opinion leaders (KOLs) from diabetes specialty PAN India to understand the simplicity aspect of linagliptin therapy in T2DM patients. DISCUSSION: Linagliptin is a xanthine-based, non-peptidomimetic, selective dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor with a different pharmacological profile when compared to other DPP-4 inhibitors already available in India. It is known to decrease the risk of hypoglycemia compared to sulphonylurea (SU), is weight neutral, and no dose modification is required over a broad range of patient populations. This consensus paper discusses the clinical efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors and linagliptin in T2DM. It also highlights the evidence for the safety of linagliptin in T2DM patients with renal impairment (RI), cardiovascular (CV) risk, and heart failure (HF). CONCLUSION: Linagliptin therapy is simplifying the management of T2DM with good efficacy and its use across a wide range of patients without any dose modification.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor-associated cutaneous eruptions: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 plays a complex role in immune regulation and its inhibition can have effects on the pathogenesis of various skin diseases. Studies have shown that DPP-4 inhibitors are associated with an increased risk of bullous pemphigoid (BP). AIM: To analyse the clinical and histopathological features of cutaneous adverse events in patients on DPP-4 inhibitors. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with suspected DPP-4 inhibitor-associated cutaneous adverse events, at a tertiary teaching hospital from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2020. Exclusion criteria included previous history of chronic skin disease and lack of histopathological reports or follow-up records. The clinical characteristics, latency period, Naranjo Adverse Drug Reaction Probability Scale and clinical outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 18 patients (10 men, 8 women; mean age 68.6 years, range 38-89 years) were included. The DPP-4 inhibitors used were teneligliptin (n = 6), vildagliptin (n = 6), sitagliptin (n = 4), linagliptin (n = 1) and saxagliptin (n = 1). The mean interval between therapy initiation and lesion onset was 8.8 months (range 1-24 months). The dermatoses noted were BP (n = 12; 66.6%), lichenoid dermatitis (n = 4; 22.2%), psoriasiform dermatitis (n = 1; 5.6%) and spongiotic dermatitis (n = 1; 5.6%). Eight patients (44.4%) had necrotic keratinocytes as one of the distinct histological features. Causality assessment using the Naranjo scale rated the causative role of DPP-4 inhibitors as 'possible' in all patients. Of the 18 patients, 11 (61.1%) noted improvement in their condition following discontinuation of DPP-4 inhibitors, with 5 having complete remission within 6 months of stopping the drug. CONCLUSION: DPP-4 inhibitor-associated dermatoses are not necessarily limited to BP. It is necessary to recognize the possibility of other dermatoses in patients on DPP-4 inhibitors as drug substitution/cessation may improve disease morbidity.

Renal hemodynamic effects differ between antidiabetic combination strategies: randomized controlled clinical trial comparing empagliflozin/linagliptin with metformin/insulin glargine.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes causes cardio-renal complications and is treated with different combination therapies. The renal hemodynamics profile of such combination therapies has not been evaluated in detail. METHODS: Patients (N = 97) with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive either empagliflozin and linagliptin (E+L group) or metformin and insulin glargine (M+I group) for 3 months. Renal hemodynamics were assessed with para-aminohippuric acid and inulin for renal plasma flow (RPF) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Intraglomerular hemodynamics were calculated according the Gomez´ model. RESULTS: Treatment with E+L reduced GFR (p = 0.003), but RPF remained unchanged (p = 0.536). In contrast, M+I not only reduced GFR (p = 0.001), but also resulted in a significant reduction of RPF (p < 0.001). Renal vascular resistance (RVR) decreased with E+L treatment (p = 0.001) but increased with M+I treatment (p = 0.001). The changes in RPF and RVR were different between the two groups (both padjust < 0.001). Analysis of intraglomerular hemodynamics revealed that E+L did not change resistance of afferent arteriole (RA) (p = 0.116), but diminished resistance of efferent arterioles (RE) (p = 0.001). In M+I group RA was increased (p = 0.006) and RE remained unchanged (p = 0.538). The effects on RA (padjust < 0.05) and on RE (padjust < 0.05) differed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes and preserved renal function treatment with M+I resulted in reduction of renal perfusion and increase in vascular resistance, in contrast to treatment with E+I that preserved renal perfusion and reduced vascular resistance. Moreover, different underlying effects on the resistance vessels have been estimated according to the Gomez model, with M+I increasing RA and E+L predominantly decreasing RE, which is in contrast to the proposed sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02752113) on April 26, 2016.

Cardiovascular outcomes and safety with linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared with the sulphonylurea glimepiride in older people with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of the randomized CAROLINA trial.

AIM: To compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of linagliptin with glimepiride in older and younger participants in the CAROLINA trial in both prespecified and post hoc analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: People aged 40 to 85 years with relatively early type 2 diabetes, inadequate glycaemic control and elevated CV risk were randomly assigned to linagliptin 5 mg or glimepiride 1 to 4 mg. The primary endpoint was time to first occurrence of three-point major adverse CV events (MACE: CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke). We evaluated clinical and safety outcomes across age groups. RESULTS: Of 6033 participants, 50.7% were aged <65 years, 35.3% were aged 65 to 74 years, and 14.0% were aged ≥75 years. During the 6.3-year median follow-up, CV/mortality outcomes did not differ between linagliptin and glimepiride overall (hazard ratio [HR] for three-point MACE 0.98, 95.47% confidence interval [CI] 0.84, 1.14) or across age groups (interaction P >0.05). Between treatment groups, reductions in glycated haemoglobin were comparable across age groups but moderate-to-severe hypoglycaemia was markedly reduced with linagliptin (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.15, 0.21) with no differences among age groups (P = 0.23). Mean weight was -1.54 kg (95% CI -1.80, -1.28) lower for linagliptin versus glimepiride. Adverse events increased with age, but were generally balanced between treatment groups. Significantly fewer falls or fractures occurred with linagliptin. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin and glimepiride were comparable for CV/mortality outcomes across age groups. Linagliptin had significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia and falls or fractures than glimepiride, including in "older-old" individuals for whom these are particularly important treatment considerations.

Safety and effectiveness of linagliptin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes: A postmarketing surveillance study.

We designed a postmarketing surveillance study of linagliptin for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Korea. This prospective, observational, multicentre study investigated the safety and glycaemic effectiveness of linagliptin as monotherapy or combination therapy with other antidiabetic drugs in routine clinical practice. Endpoints were the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and the change in HbA1c. Overall, 3119 and 2171 patients were included in the safety and effectiveness analysis sets, respectively. A total of 56 patients (1.8%) experienced ADRs. The most common ADR was gastrointestinal disorders (0.7%), followed by metabolism and nutrition disorders (0.5%). ADRs of special interest, including pancreatic diseases, cardiac diseases and hypoglycaemia, occurred in 12 patients, 11 of whom had hypoglycaemia, while one had a skin lesion. Mean HbA1c change during the study period was -0.8%. Lower body mass index, shorter diabetes duration and higher baseline HbA1c were independently associated with a better effectiveness, while the presence of diabetic complications, dyslipidaemia and the use of sulphonylureas were associated with a poor response. In conclusion, linagliptin showed an excellent safety profile and glycaemic effectiveness in Korean patients with T2D.

Linagliptin Effects on Heart Failure and Related Outcomes in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at High Cardiovascular and Renal Risk in CARMELINA.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus are at increased risk for heart failure (HF), particularly those with coexisting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease. Some but not all dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors have been associated with increased HF risk. We performed secondary analyses of HF and related outcomes with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin versus placebo in CARMELINA (The Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin), a cardiovascular outcomes trial that enrolled participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease. METHODS: Participants in 27 countries with type 2 diabetes mellitus and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease were randomized 1:1 to receive once daily oral linagliptin 5 mg or placebo, on top of standard of care. All hospitalization for HF (hHF), cardiovascular outcomes, and deaths were prospectively captured and centrally adjudicated. In prespecified and post hoc analyses of HF and related events, Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for region and baseline history of HF were used. Recurrent hHF events were analyzed using a negative binomial model. In a subset of participants with left ventricular ejection fraction captured within the year before randomization, HF-related outcomes were assessed in subgroups stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction > or ≤50%. RESULTS: CARMELINA enrolled 6979 participants (mean age, 65.9 years; estimated glomerular filtration rate, mL/min per 1.73m2; hemoglobin A1c, 8.0%; 62.9% men; diabetes mellitus duration, 14.8 years), including 1873 (26.8%) with a history of HF at baseline. Median follow-up was 2.2 years. Linagliptin versus placebo did not affect the incidence of hHF (209/3494 [6.0%] versus 226/3485 [6.5%], respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.08), the composite of cardiovascular death/hHF (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08), or risk for recurrent hHF events (326 versus 359 events, respectively; rate ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.20). There was no heterogeneity of linagliptin effects on hHF by history of HF at baseline, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate or urine albumin-creatinine ratio, or prerandomization left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, international cardiovascular outcome trial in participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease, linagliptin did not affect the risk of hHF or other selected HF-related outcomes, including among participants with and without a history of HF, across the spectrum of kidney disease, and independent of previous left ventricular ejection fraction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01897532.

Linagliptin, when compared to placebo, improves CD34+ve endothelial progenitor cells in type 2 diabetes subjects with chronic kidney disease taking metformin and/or insulin: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endothelial Progenitor cells (EPCs) has been shown to be dysfunctional in both type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) leading to poor regeneration of endothelium and renal perfusion. EPCs have been shown to be a robust cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk indicator. Cellular mechanisms of DPP4 inhibitors such as linagliptin (LG) on CVD risk, in patients with T2DM with established CKD has not been established. Linagliptin, a DPP4 inhibitor when added to insulin, metformin or both may improve endothelial dysfunction in a diabetic kidney disease (DKD) population. METHODS: 31 subjects taking metformin and/or Insulin were enrolled in this 12 weeks, double blind, randomized placebo matched trial, with 5 mg LG compared to placebo. Type 2 diabetes subjects (30-70 years old), HbA1c of 6.5-10%, CKD Stage 1-3 were included. CD34+ cell number, migratory function, gene expression along with vascular parameters such as arterial stiffness, biochemistry, resting energy expenditure and body composition were measured. Data were collected at week 0, 6 and 12. A mixed model regression analysis was done with p value < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: A double positive CD34/CD184 cell count had a statistically significant increase (p < 0.02) as determined by flow cytometry in LG group where CD184 is SDF1a cell surface receptor. Though mRNA differences in CD34+ve was more pronounced CD34- cell mRNA analysis showed increase in antioxidants (superoxide dismutase 2 or SOD2, Catalase and Glutathione Peroxidase or GPX) and prominent endothelial markers (PECAM1, VEGF-A, vWF and NOS3). Arterial stiffness measures such as augmentation Index (AI) (p < 0.04) and pulse wave analysis (PWV) were improved (reduced in stiffness) in LG group. A reduction in LDL: HDL ratio was noted in treatment group (p < 0.04). Urinary exosome protein examining podocyte health (podocalyxin, Wilms tumor and nephrin) showed reduction or improvement. CONCLUSIONS: In DKD subjects, Linagliptin promotes an increase in CXCR4 expression on CD34 + progenitor cells with a concomitant improvement in vascular and renal parameters at 12 weeks. Trial Registration Number NCT02467478 Date of Registration: 06/08/2015.

Efficacy and safety of evogliptin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes: A multicentre, active-controlled, randomized, double-blind study with open-label extension (the EVERGREEN study).

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of evogliptin compared with linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this 12-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, and 12-week open-label extension study, a total of 207 patients with type 2 diabetes who had HbA1c levels of 7.0%-10.0% were randomized 1:1 to receive evogliptin 5 mg (n = 102) or linagliptin 5 mg (n = 105) daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline HbA1c at week 12. The secondary endpoint was the change in the mean amplitude of glycaemic excursion (MAGE) assessed by continuous glucose monitoring. In the extension study conducted during the following 12 weeks, evogliptin 5 mg daily was administered to both groups: evogliptin/evogliptin group (n = 95) and linagliptin/evogliptin group (n = 92). RESULTS: After 12 weeks of treatment, the mean change in HbA1c in the evogliptin group and in the linagliptin group was -0.85% and -0.75%, respectively. The between-group difference was -0.10% (95% CI: -0.32 to 0.11), showing non-inferiority based on a non-inferiority margin of 0.4%. The change in MAGE was -24.6 mg/dL in the evogliptin group and -16.7 mg/dL in the linagliptin group. These values were significantly lower than the baseline values in both groups. However, they did not differ significantly between the two groups. In the evogliptin/evogliptin group at week 24, HbA1c decreased by -0.94%, with HbA1c values of <7.0% in 80.2% of the patients. The incidence and types of adverse events were comparable between the two groups for 24 weeks. CONCLUSION: In this study, the glucose-lowering efficacy of evogliptin was non-inferior to linagliptin. It was maintained at week 24 with a 0.94% reduction in HbA1c. Evogliptin therapy improved glycaemic variability without causing any serious adverse events in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP4i)-associated bullous pemphigoid: Estimating the clinical profile and exploring intraclass differences.

Data regarding the clinical characteristics of patients with dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP4i)-associated BP is inconclusive. We aimed to characterize the clinical features of patients with DPP4i-associated BP, and to assess whether there are phenotypic differences associated with different agents belonging to the DPP4i class. A retrospective prevalence study was performed, including all consecutive patients diagnosed with BP throughout the years 2000 to 2019. The study included 397 patients with BP, of whom 58 (14.6%) were DPP4i-associated. Compared to other patients with BP, patients with DPP4i-associated BP had a more prominent male preponderance (60.3% vs 41.0%; P = .006), presented more frequently with extensive disease (60.3% vs 46.3%; P = .049), had greater truncal (96.6% vs 85.5%; P = .019) and cephalic (51.7% vs 33.6%; P = .008) involvement, and had less frequent peripheral eosinophilia (25.9% vs 51.9%; P < .001). Compared to patients with vildagliptin-associated BP, those with linagliptin-associated BP were managed by higher dosage of systemic corticosteroids in order to achieve disease control (prednisone > 1 mg/kg: 68.2% vs 40.0%; P = .046). In conclusion, DPP4i-associated BP seems to have a unique clinical profile characterized by male predominance, extensive disease, truncal and cephalic involvement, and less peripheral eosinophilia. Linagliptin may be associated with a harder course necessitating more aggressive therapy.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and bullous pemphigoid: A systematic review and adjusted meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: There have been a number of case reports and small clinical series reporting the potential association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPPIs) for diabetes and the onset of bullous pemphigoid (BP). The aim of this study was to assess the association between DPPI use and BP, and whether this varied according to DPPI type. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. We identified five studies with cases and controls. We performed unadjusted and adjusted meta-analyses to assess the potential association. RESULTS: Adjusted meta-analysis revealed significant association between DPPI use and BP (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.59-2.86, I2  = 46%, P < 0.00001). This association was stronger between vildagliptin and BP (OR 5.08, 95% CI 1.70-15.19, P = 0.004) compared to linagliptin (OR 2.87, 95%CI 1.06-7.79, P = 0.04), and no association was found between sitagliptin and BP (OR 1.29, 95%CI 0.79-2.08, P = 0.31). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the association between DPPI use and BP remained significant in males (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.46-3.78, P = 0.0005) and females (OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.10-3.22, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Limitations were that studies reviewed were retrospective by design which are susceptible to bias and lack of randomisation. Our adjusted analysis supports a significant association between DPPI use and onset of bullous pemphigoid. Vildagliptin had the highest odds of BP. These findings have clinical implications for dermatologists and the management of patients with diabetes and being treated with DPPI agents.

Efficacy and safety of linagliptin to improve glucose control in older people with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy: A randomized trial.

AIM: To assess the addition of linagliptin as an alternative to insulin uptitration in older people with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This phase 4, randomized, multicentre, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 24-week study recruited individuals on stable insulin, with baseline HbA1c 7.0%-10.0%, aged ≥60 years and body mass index ≤45 kg/m2 . HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose were measured at study visits, and participants assessed glycaemic control with a self-monitoring blood glucose device. Adverse events (AEs) were reported during the study. RESULTS: Three hundred and two participants were randomized 1:1 to linagliptin 5 mg qd and placebo, with one third of patients from Japan. Study population age and HbA1c (baseline mean ± SD) were 72.4 ± 5.4 years and 8.2 ± 0.8%, respectively; ~80% of participants were aged ≥70 years; 80% had macrovascular complications, one third had a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 ; and half had been diagnosed with diabetes for >15 years. Linagliptin significantly improved glucose control at 24 weeks (HbA1c-adjusted mean change vs. placebo: -0.63%; P <0.0001) and the probability of achieving predefined HbA1c targets without hypoglycaemia (HbA1c <8.0%: OR 2.02; P <0.05 and HbA1c <7.0%: OR 2.44; P <0.01). Linagliptin versus placebo was well tolerated, with similar incidences of AEs, including clinically important hypoglycaemia (blood glucose <54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of linagliptin improves glucose control without an excess of hypoglycaemia in older patients with type 2 diabetes on stable insulin therapy.

Linagliptin as add-on to empagliflozin in a fixed-dose combination in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Glycaemic efficacy and safety profile in a two-part, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

AIMS: This two-part, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (83 sites) evaluated the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin (Empa) 10 or 25 mg and linagliptin (Lina) 5 mg fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who were poorly controlled with Empa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients (previously drug-naive or using one oral antidiabetic drug for ≥ 12 weeks) entered an open-label stabilization period (16 weeks, Empa 10 mg [Part A] or Empa 25 mg [Part B]). Subsequently, they received Empa 10 mg plus placebo (Plc) for Empa/Lina10/5 (Empa/Plc 10/5; Part A) or Empa 25 mg plus Plc for Empa/Lina 25/5 (Empa/Plc 25/5; Part B) for 2 weeks. Patients with HbA1c 7.5-10.0% were randomized (1:1) to a 24-week regimen of once-daily Empa/Lina 10/5 (n = 107) or Empa/Plc 10/5 (n = 108) in Part A, or to Empa/Lina 25/5 (n = 116) or Empa/Plc 25/5 (n = 116) in Part B, with a 28-week extension period in Part B. RESULTS: Change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 24 was greater (P < 0.0001) with Empa/Lina than with Empa/Plc (primary outcome, Empa/Lina 10/5: -0.94 vs -0.12%; adjusted mean difference, -0.82%; Empa/Lina 25/5: -0.91 vs -0.33%; adjusted mean difference, -0.59%). Over 24- and 52-week periods, higher proportions of patients achieved HbA1c < 7.0% and greater decreases in fasting plasma glucose were observed with Empa/Lina compared with Empa/Plc. Empa/Lina was well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events or diabetic ketoacidosis. One case of confirmed hypoglycaemia with Empa/Plc 25/5 was reported. CONCLUSIONS: These results support Empa/Lina FDC as a potential option for Japanese patients with T2DM who require combination therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02489968.

Effects of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor Linagliptin on Left Ventricular Dysfunction in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Concentric Left Ventricular Geometry (the DYDA 2™ Trial). Rationale, Design, and Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population.

PURPOSE: A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study aimed to define the potential positive effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibition on left ventricular systolic function (LVSF) beyond glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (DYDA 2™ trial). METHODS: Individuals with fairly controlled T2DM and asymptomatic impaired LVSF were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive for 48 weeks either linagliptin 5 mg daily or placebo, in addition to their stable diabetes therapy. Eligibility criteria were age ≥ 40 years, history of T2DM with a duration of at least 6 months, HbA1c ≤ 8.0% (≤ 64 mmol/mol), no history or clinical signs/symptoms of cardiac disease, evidence at baseline echocardiography of concentric LV geometry (relative wall thickness ≥ 0.42), and impaired LVSF defined as midwall fractional shortening (MFS) ≤ 15%. The primary end-point was the modification from baseline to 48 weeks of MFS. As an exploratory analysis, significant changes in LV global longitudinal strain and global circumferential strain, measured by speckle tracking echocardiography, were also considered. Secondary objectives were changes in diastolic and/or in systolic longitudinal function as measured by tissue Doppler. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients were enrolled. They were predominantly males, mildly obese, with typical insulin-resistance co-morbidities such as hypertension and dyslipidemia. Mean relative wall thickness was 0.51 ± 0.09 and mean MFS 13.3% ± 2.5. CONCLUSIONS: DYDA 2 is the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to explore the effect of a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor on LVSF in T2DM patients in primary prevention regardless of glycemic control. The main characteristics of the enrolled population are reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT02851745.