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.

Cyclosporine-induced kidney damage was halted by sitagliptin and hesperidin via increasing Nrf2 and suppressing TNF-α, NF-κB, and Bax.

Cyclosporine A (CsA) is employed for organ transplantation and autoimmune disorders. Nephrotoxicity is a serious side effect that hampers the therapeutic use of CsA. Hesperidin and sitagliptin were investigated for their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and tissue-protective properties. We aimed to investigate and compare the possible nephroprotective effects of hesperidin and sitagliptin. Male Wistar rats were utilized for induction of CsA nephrotoxicity (20 mg/kg/day, intraperitoneally for 7 days). Animals were treated with sitagliptin (10 mg/kg/day, orally for 14 days) or hesperidin (200 mg/kg/day, orally for 14 days). Blood urea, serum creatinine, albumin, cystatin-C (CYS-C), myeloperoxidase (MPO), and glucose were measured. The renal malondialdehyde (MDA), glutathione (GSH), catalase, and SOD were estimated. Renal TNF-α protein expression was evaluated. Histopathological examination and immunostaining study of Bax, Nrf-2, and NF-κB were performed. Sitagliptin or hesperidin attenuated CsA-mediated elevations of blood urea, serum creatinine, CYS-C, glucose, renal MDA, and MPO, and preserved the serum albumin, renal catalase, SOD, and GSH. They reduced the expressions of TNF-α, Bax, NF-κB, and pathological kidney damage. Nrf2 expression in the kidney was raised. Hesperidin or sitagliptin could protect the kidney against CsA through the mitigation of oxidative stress, apoptosis, and inflammation. Sitagliptin proved to be more beneficial than hesperidin.

Two-Year Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Initial Triple Combination of Metformin, Sitagliptin, and Empagliflozin in Drug-Naïve Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients.

BACKGRUOUND: We investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of initial triple therapy using metformin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, and a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: We enrolled 170 drug-naïve patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level >7.5% who had started triple therapy (metformin, sitagliptin, and empagliflozin). Glycemic, metabolic, and urinary parameters were measured for 24 months. RESULTS: After 24 months, HbA1c level decreased significantly from 11.0%±1.8% to 7.0%±1.7%. At 12 and 24 months, the rates of achievement of the glycemic target goal (HbA1c <7.0%) were 72.5% and 61.7%, respectively, and homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function and insulin resistance indices improved. Whole-body fat percentage decreased by 1.08%, and whole-body muscle percentage increased by 0.97% after 24 months. Fatty liver indices and albuminuria improved significantly. The concentration of ketone bodies was elevated at the baseline but decreased after 24 months. There were no serious adverse events, including ketoacidosis. CONCLUSION: Initial triple combination therapy with metformin, sitagliptin, and empagliflozin led to achievement of the glycemic target goal, which was maintained for 24 months without severe hypoglycemia but with improved metabolic function and albuminuria. This combination therapy may be a good strategy for drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Prusogliptin (DBPR108) monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, double-blind, active and placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

AIM: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of prusogliptin (DBPR108), a novel and highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, in individuals with type 2 diabetes who had not been using glucose-lowering agents regularly for the 8 weeks before the screening period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this multicentre, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, adult patients with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to receive either DBPR108 100 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg, or placebo once daily during the initial 24-week double-blind treatment period, followed by a 28-week open-label extension period during which all patients received DBPR108 100 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was the mean change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: In total, 766 patients were enrolled and received DBPR108 100 mg (n = 462), sitagliptin 100 mg (n = 152), or placebo (n = 152). The mean age of all patients was 54.3 ± 10.5 years, with 58% being men. The median duration of type 2 diabetes was 0.38 (0.02, 2.65) years, and the mean HbA1c (SD) at baseline was 7.94% (0.62), 7.88% (0.61) and 7.83% (0.59) for DBPR108, sitagliptin and placebo groups, respectively. At week 24, the least square mean (SE) changes from baseline in HbA1c were -0.63% (0.04%) for DBPR108, -0.60% (0.07%) for sitagliptin and -0.02% (0.07%) for placebo. The mean treatment difference between DBPR108 and placebo was -0.61% (95% CI -0.77% to -0.44%), and between DBPR108 and sitagliptin was -0.03% (95% CI -0.19% to 0.13%). These results indicate that DBPR108 was superior to placebo and non-inferior to sitagliptin. DBPR108 also significantly reduced fasting and postprandial plasma glucose levels and had little effect on body weight. The mean (SD) changes in HbA1c from baseline to week 52 were -0.50% (0.97%) for the DBPR108 group, -0.46% (0.96%) for the sitagliptin group and -0.41% (0.95%) for the placebo group. The incidence of adverse events was comparable across all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: DBPR108 showed superiority to placebo and non-inferiority to sitagliptin in terms of glycaemic control over the initial 24 weeks in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, its efficacy was sustained for up to 52 weeks.

Greater time spent with HbA1c less than 7.0% with oral semaglutide versus oral comparators: An exploratory analysis of the PIONEER studies.

AIM: To assess how long participants with type 2 diabetes spent with HbA1c less than 7.0% and how likely they were to maintain this target with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg or oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg or subcutaneous liraglutide 1.8 mg. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analyses used on-treatment data without rescue medication for all randomized participants (semaglutide [approved maintenance doses], n = 1880; comparators [not including placebo], n = 1412). Duration of time with HbA1c less than 7.0% was calculated using an HbA1c time curve. A binary endpoint of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% at weeks 26 (week 24 for PIONEER 7) and 52 of each trial (and week 78 for PIONEER 3) was analysed. RESULTS: Mean duration of time with HbA1c less than 7.0% was greater with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin in PIONEER 3 (27 vs. 22 weeks) and with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin (27-34 vs. 19 vs. 22 weeks, respectively), and similar versus subcutaneous liraglutide. A greater proportion of participants achieved and maintained HbA1c less than 7.0% for more than 75% of the trial with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus oral comparators. The odds of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% at weeks 24/26 and 52/78 were significantly greater with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus oral comparators or subcutaneous liraglutide, and with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg resulted in greater time spent with HbA1c less than 7.0%, and a greater likelihood of achieving and maintaining HbA1c less than 7.0% versus oral comparators.

Impact of Treviamet® & Treviamet XR® on quality of life besides glycemic control in type 2 DM patients.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining the quality of life is the main objective of managing type 2 diabetes (T2DM) (QoL). Since it is a key factor in patient motivation and adherence, treatment-related QoL has always been considered when choosing glucose-lowering medicines. The objective of the study was to evaluate the quality of life besides glycemic control among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients receiving Treviamet® & Treviamet XR® (Sitagliptin with Metformin) in routine care. METHODS: It was a prospective, open-label, non-randomized clinical trial including T2DM patients uncontrolled on Metformin therapy. All patients received Treviamet® & Treviamet XR® for six months. Sequential changes in QoL, fasting plasma glucose, HbA1c, body weight, and blood pressure were monitored from baseline to 3 consecutive follow-up visits. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was also noted throughout the study. RESULTS: A total of 504 patients were screened; 188 completed all three follow-ups. The mean QoL score significantly declined from 57.09% at baseline to 33.64% at the 3rd follow-up visit (p < 0.01). Moreover, a significant decline in mean HbA1c and FPG levels was observed from baseline to 3rd follow-up visit (p < 0.01). Minor adverse events were observed, including abdominal discomfort, nausea, flatulence, and indigestion. Gender, HbA1c, diarrhea, and abdominal discomfort were significant predictors of a patient's QoL, as revealed by the Linear Regression Model (R2 = 0.265, F(16, 99) = 2.231). CONCLUSION: Treviamet® & Treviamet XR® significantly improved glycemic control (HbA1c levels) and QoL in T2DM patients without serious adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT05167513), Date of registration: December 22, 2021.

Comparison of therapeutic efficacy and safety of sitagliptin, dapagliflozin, or lobeglitazone adjunct therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on sulfonylurea and metformin: Third agent study.

AIMS: Compare the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin, dapagliflozin, and lobeglitazone in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes, despite metformin and sulfonylurea therapy. METHODS: The study randomized patients into three groups, receiving sitagliptin 100 mg, dapagliflozin 10 mg, or lobeglitazone 0.5 mg daily (n = 26 each) and monitored changes in biochemical parameters and body composition for 24 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was changes in HbA1c at 24 months. RESULTS: The mean change in HbA1c in the sitagliptin, dapagliflozin, and lobeglitazone groups was -0.81 ± 0.21%, -1.05 ± 0.70%, and -1.08 ± 0.98%, after 24 months. Dapagliflozin treatment significantly lowered systolic blood pressure by 5.5 mmHg and alanine aminotransferase levels. Dapagliflozin and lobeglitazone treatment significantly reduced proteinuria and insulin resistance. Dapagliflozin decreased whole body fat percentage by 1.2%, whereas sitagliptin and lobeglitazone increased it by 1.1% and 1.8%, respectively. Whole body muscle percentage increased in the dapagliflozin group and decreased in the lobeglitazone group. The safety profiles of the three treatments were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: All three drugs displayed good glucose-lowering efficacy and comparable safety profiles. However, dapagliflozin therapy produced favorable changes in body composition. Dapagliflozin may be a suitable adjunct therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes seeking to improve their body composition.

Medication adjustment of afatinib and combination therapy with sitagliptin for alleviating afatinib-induced diarrhea in rats.

Afatinib, as the first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), causes severe gastrointestinal adverse reactions that greatly affect patients' quality of life and even potentially result in treatment discontinuation. Multiple dose adjustments and concomitant use of anti-diarrheal medications are commonly employed to manage diarrhea, also allowing for a recovery period between each adjustment. However, these approaches are based on empirical guidance and still have limitations. This study aims to explore reliable approaches to alleviate diarrhea by focusing on two strategies: adjusting the dosing regimen of afatinib itself and implementing combination therapy. In this study, we firstly revealed a dose-dependent relationship between afatinib-induced diarrhea and gastrointestinal epithelial damage, resulting in atrophy, reduced expression of tight junction proteins, and increased permeability. We further found that even after discontinuation of the medication, although the severity of diarrhea had improved to baseline, the tight junction proteins and permeability of the intestinal epithelium did not fully recover, and the pharmacokinetics studies showed that drug absorption significantly increased than normal. This indicated the recovery period was longer than expected and may accelerate the occurrence of subsequent episodes of diarrhea. Hence, it would be prudent to consider adjustments to the starting dose or the recovery interval. Furthermore, we initially investigated the relationship between DPP enzyme and afatinib-induced diarrhea and found a significant decrease in plasma DPP enzyme activity following afatinib-induced diarrhea. Subsequently, we conducted continuous treatment with sitagliptin and observed significant improvement in afatinib-induced diarrhea. We observed that sitagliptin can promote the production of anti-inflammatory factors, increase the expression of intestinal epithelial tight junction proteins, and improve intestinal microbiota, further validating the mechanism through the use of GLP-23-33 as GLP-2 receptor inhibitor. In conclusion, sitagliptin exhibits promising potential as a therapeutic option for managing afatinib-induced diarrhea. Taken together, our study provides valuable insights into alleviating afatinib-induced diarrhea through both afatinib medication adjustment and sitagliptin combination therapy.

Comparative efficacy and safety profile of once-weekly Semaglutide versus once-daily Sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of genetically-modified human proteins and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have presented a promising strategy for effectively managing diabetes. Due to the scarcity of clinical trials focusing on the safety and efficacy of semaglutide as an adjunctive treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes who had inadequate glycemic control with metformin, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. This was necessary to fill the gap and provide a comprehensive assessment of semaglutide compared to sitagliptin, a commonly prescribed DPP-4 inhibitor, in this patient population. METHODS: A comprehensive and systematic search was carried out on reputable databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect to identify relevant studies that compared the efficacy of once-weekly Semaglutide with once-daily Sitagliptin in individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The analysis of the gathered data was performed utilizing the random-effects model, which considers both within-study and between-study variations. RESULTS: The meta-analysis incorporated three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), encompassing 2401 participants, with a balanced distribution across the treatment groups. The primary focus of the study revolved around evaluating changes in HbA1C, blood pressure, pulse rate, body weight, waist circumference, and BMI. The findings revealed that once-weekly Semaglutide showed substantially improved HbA1C (WMD: -0.98; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.69, p-value: < 0.0001; I2: 100%), systolic (WMD: -3.73; 95% CI: -5.42, -2.04, p-value: <0.0001; I2: 100%) and diastolic blood pressures (WMD: -0.66; 95% CI: -1.02, -0.29, p-value: 0.0005; I2: 100%), and body weight (WMD: -3.17; 95% CI: -3.84, -2.49, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) compared to once-daily Sitagliptin. However, there was an observed increase in pulse rate (WMD: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.61, 5.06, p-value: <0.00001; I2: 100%) associated with Semaglutide treatment. Regarding secondary outcomes, there was an elevated risk of total adverse events and premature treatment discontinuation with Semaglutide. The risk of serious, severe, moderate, and mild adverse events did not significantly differ between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the administration of once-weekly Semaglutide exhibited a substantial reduction in HbA1c, average systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP), body weight, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), and a rise in pulse rate, as opposed to the once-daily administration of Sitagliptin.

Vascular and metabolic effects of ipragliflozin versus sitagliptin (IVS) in type 2 diabetes treated with sulphonylurea and metformin: IVS study.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with type 2 diabetes who were inadequately controlled with metformin and sulphonylurea, we compared the glucose-lowering efficacy, cardiometabolic parameters and safety of two drugs, ipragliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, and sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with 7.5%-9.0% glycated haemoglobin treated with metformin and sulphonylurea were randomly assigned to ipragliflozin (50 mg, n = 70) or sitagliptin (100 mg, n = 70) therapy for 24 weeks. Measures of glycaemic control, fatty liver indices, other metabolic parameters and subclinical atherosclerosis were compared by a paired t-test before and after 24 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Mean glycated haemoglobin levels decreased from 8.5% to 7.5% in the ipragliflozin group and from 8.5% to 7.8% in the sitagliptin group, resulting in a 0.34% between-group difference (95% confidence interval, 0.10%-0.43%, p = .088). Fasting and postprandial 2-h glucose levels also showed a similar trend, with a greater reduction with ipragliflozin therapy. An increase of over 70% in ketone levels and a decrease in whole body and abdominal fat masses were observed with ipragliflozin treatment. Fatty liver indices also improved with ipragliflozin treatment. Despite no difference in carotid intima-media thickness and ankle-brachial index, ipragliflozin therapy improved flow-mediated vasodilation, reflecting endothelial function, while sitagliptin did not. The safety profile did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ipragliflozin add-on therapy can be a viable option for better glycaemic control with multiple vascular and metabolic benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled with metformin and sulphonylurea.

A phase I open-label clinical trial to study drug-drug interactions of Dorzagliatin and Sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity.

This is a phase 1, open-label, single-sequence, multiple-dose, single-center trial conducted in the US (NCT03790839), to evaluate the clinical pharmacokinetics, safety and pharmacodynamics of dorzagliatin co-administered with sitagliptin in patients with T2D and obesity. The trial has completed. 15 patients with T2D and obesity were recruited and treated with sitagliptin 100 mg QD on Day 1-5, followed by a combination of sitagliptin 100 mg QD with dorzagliatin 75 mg BID at second stage on Day 6-10 and the third stage of dorzagliatin 75 mg BID alone on Day 11-15. Primary outcomes include pharmacokinetic geometric mean ratio (GMR), safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes include the incremental area under the curve for 4 hours post oral glucose tolerance test (iAUC) of pharmacodynamic biomarkers and glucose sensitivity. GMR for AUC0-24h and Cmax were 92.63 (90% CI, 85.61, 100.22) and 98.14 (90% CI, 83.73, 115.03) in combination/sitagliptin, and 100.34 (90% CI, 96.08, 104.79) and 102.34 (90% CI, 86.92, 120.50) in combination/dorzagliatin, respectively. Combination treatment did not increase the adverse events and well-tolerated in T2D patients. Lack of clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic interactions between dorzagliatin and sitagliptin, and an improvement of glycemic control under combination potentially support their co-administration for diabetes management.

Time-dependent event accumulation in a cardiovascular outcome trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Estimating cardiovascular (CV) event accrual is important for outcome trial planning. Limited data exist describing event accrual patterns in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We compared apparent CV event accrual patterns with true event rates in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS). METHODS: Centrally adjudicated event dates and accrual rates for a 4-point major adverse CV event composite (MACE-4; includes CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or unstable angina hospitalization), MACE-4 components, all-cause mortality (ACM), and heart failure hospitalization were compiled. We used three graphical methods (Weibull probability plot, plot of negative log of the Kaplan-Meier survival distribution estimate, and the Epanechnikov kernel-smoothed estimate of the hazard rate) to examine hazard rate morphology over time for the 7 outcomes. RESULTS: Plots for all outcomes showed real-time constant event hazard rates for the duration of the follow-up, confirmed by Weibull shape parameters. The Weibull shape parameters for ACM (1.14, 95% CI 1.08-1.21) and CV death (1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16) were not sufficiently > 1 as to require non-constant hazard rate models to accurately depict the data. The time lag between event occurrence and event adjudication being completed, the adjudication gap, improved over the course of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: In TECOS, the nonfatal event hazard rates were constant over time. Small increases over time in the hazard rate for fatal events would not require complex modelling to predict event accrual, providing confidence in traditional modelling methods for predicting CV outcome trial event rates in this population. The adjudication gap provides a useful metric to monitor within-trial event accrual patterns. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00790205.

Risk heterogeneity of bullous pemphigoid among dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: A population-based cohort study using Japanese Latter-Stage Elderly Healthcare Database.

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Although the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and bullous pemphigoid (BP) has begun to be established, some studies have suggested there are risk differences among DPP-4 inhibitors. We conducted a population-based cohort study to examine the risk differences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the claims databases of the Fukuoka Prefecture Wide-Area Association of Latter-Stage Elderly Healthcare between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2017, we conducted a retrospective cohort study to compare patients receiving one DPP-4 inhibitor with those who were prescribed another antidiabetic drug. The primary outcome was an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of the development of bullous pemphigoid during a 3-year follow-up. The secondary outcome was the development of BP requiring systemic steroids immediately after the diagnosis. These were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: The study comprised 33,241 patients, of which 0.26% (n = 88) developed bullous pemphigoid during follow-up. The percentages of patients with bullous pemphigoid who required immediate systemic steroid treatment was 0.11% (n = 37). We analyzed four DPP-4 inhibitors: sitagliptin, vildagliptin, alogliptin, and linagliptin. Vildagliptin and linagliptin raised the risk of BP significantly (primary outcome, vildagliptin, HR 2.411 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.325-4.387], linagliptin, HR 2.550 [95% CI 1.266-5.136], secondary outcome, vildagliptin HR 3.616 [95% CI 1.495-8.745], linagliptin HR 3.556 [95% CI 1.262-10.024]). A statistically significant risk elevation was not observed with sitagliptin and alogliptin (primary outcome, sitagliptin, HR 0.911 [95% CI 0.508-1.635], alogliptin, HR 1.600 [95% CI 0.714-3.584], secondary outcome, sitagliptin, HR 1.192 [95% CI 0.475-2.992], alogliptin, HR 2.007 [95% CI 0.571-7.053]). CONCLUSIONS: Not all the DPP-4 inhibitors could induce bullous pemphigoid significantly. Therefore, the association warrants further investigations before generalization.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin treatment in older adults with moderately controlled type 2 diabetes: the STREAM study.

Sitagliptin has been suggested as a treatment option for older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, no randomized controlled trial has been performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin treatment in older Japanese patients with T2D. The STREAM study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. T2D outpatients aged 65-80 years with moderately controlled glycemic levels (HbA1c 7.4-10.4%) under lifestyle interventions without or with oral anti-diabetic drugs excluding DPP4 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists were recruited (n = 176). The participants were randomized into sitagliptin group (n = 88) who received sitagliptin as an initial or an additive anti-diabetic drug and control group (n = 88) who did not. The treatment goal was HbA1c level < 7.4%. Efficacy and safety during 12-month treatment period were investigated. The mean (± SD) ages were 70.6 ± 3.9 and 71.9 ± 4.4 years old in sitagliptin and control groups, respectively. According to a mixed-effects model analysis, average changes from baseline over the treatment period in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), HbA1c, and glycated albumin (GA) were - 27.2 mg/dL, - 0.61%, and - 2.39%, respectively, in sitagliptin group, and 0.50 mg/dL, - 0.29%, and - 0.93%, respectively, in control group. The reductions in FPG, HbA1c, and GA were significantly greater in sitagliptin group (P < 0.0001, P < 0.01, and P < 0.0001, respectively). There were no differences in the incidence of adverse effects, except for cystatin C elevation and platelet count reduction in sitagliptin group. Sitagliptin treatment effectively improved the glycemic profile without any serious adverse effects in older T2D patients.Trial registration number: UMIN000010376.

Comparison of Adverse Events Occurred During Administration of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor in Patients with Diabetes Using FDA Adverse Event Reporting System.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Various dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of diabetes. The frequencies of known serious side effects might differ among DPP-4 inhibitors, therefore a large sample size is needed to study them in prospective clinical trials. We examined the adverse events that occurred during the administration of a DPP-4 inhibitor in patients with diabetes using FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data. METHODS: We used FAERS data reported between January 2013 and March 2022 in patients with diabetes who received a DPP-4 inhibitor. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate reporting odds ratio (ROR) and adjusted ROR (aROR) controlling for differences in patient background. RESULTS: The 9 target DPP-4 inhibitors were sitagliptin (N = 26,843), vildagliptin (N = 4767), alogliptin (N = 2085), linagliptin (N = 7969), saxagliptin (N = 3334), teneligliptin (N = 461), anagliptin (N = 102), trelagliptin (N = 17), and omarigliptin (N = 12). Compared with sitagliptin, aROR of acute kidney injury was significantly < 1.000 for alogliptin (0.247 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.150-0.408], p < 0.001) but aROR of pemphigoid was significantly > 1.000 for alogliptin (3.082 [95% CI 2.156-4.406], p < 0.001). Similar statistical analyses were conducted for other adverse events and the types of adverse events with aROR of significantly < 1.000 or > 1.000 differed depending on the type of DPP-4 inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: Although it is impossible to select a DPP-4 inhibitor with aROR of < 1.000 of all occurrences of adverse events, these results may be used for drug selection when the patient has adverse events that need to be avoided. We provided the sample code of software R that can reproduce the results.

Efficacy and Safety of Sitagliptin in the Treatment of COVID-19.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a high risk of mortality especially among diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. Effective treatments against COVID-19 can complement the vaccination effort worldwide. Many review articles studied the effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors among COVID-19 patients and found conflicting results. This heterogeneity may be due to different systemic pleiotropic effects of different DPP-4 inhibitors. Sitagliptin appears to be one of the good DPP-4 inhibitors that have antiinflammatory and antithrombotic effect. Therefore, this review assessed the benefits and safety of sitagliptin in the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: A detailed literature review using the electronic databases of Pubmed and Google Scholar was conducted during July and August 2021 to find out studies that published in English language and discussed the role of sitagliptin for COVID-19 patients. Results: 14 articles were eligible and thus included in this narrative review. Nine of these articles agreed to the benefit of sitagliptin in the treatment of COVID-19, while 3 studies considered sitagliptin as non useful or even risky, and one study was neutral in its conclusion towards the usage of sitagliptin in COVID-19. Only one study focused on the safety of sitagliptin and found that it is safe. Conclusion: Sitagliptin has anti-inflammatory, antifibrotic and antiapoptotic properties; such effects may be beneficial in reducing risks of COVID-19. Sitagliptin has good safety and fair benefits to reduce mortality among DM patients with COVID-19. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these benefits especially among patients without DM.

Modulatory effects of concomitant quercetin/sitagliptin administration on the ovarian histological and biochemical alterations provoked by doxorubicin in a streptozotocin-induced diabetic rat model.

Limited literature was available on the effects of sitagliptin or quercetin treatments on doxorubicin induced ovarian dysfunction in diabetic animals. The study aim was test the efficacy and suggested mechanisms of quercetin/sitagliptin combined treatment on the doxorubicin-induced ovarian toxicity in rat model with streptozotocin-induced diabetes. Forty eight female Wistar rats were divided into six groups: 1) Control; 2) Streptozotocin induced diabetes; 3) Streptozotocin-induced diabetes + doxorubicin ovarian damage; 4) Streptozotocin-induced diabetes + doxorubicin ovarian damage with; 5) Streptozotocin-induced diabetes + doxorubicin ovarian damage with sitagliptin treatment and 6) Streptozotocin-induced diabetes + doxorubicin ovarian damage with concomitant quercetin/sitagliptin treatment. Biochemical tests for serum estrogen, progesterone, insulin, blood glucose, and ovarian levels of malondialdehyde, nitric oxide, and superoxide dismutase and qRT-PCR for NOBOX, FSHr, and iNOS genes were performed. Histological evaluation was done on ovary sections with hematoxylin and eosin and immunohistochemistry for 8-OHdG and iNOS followed by morphometric analysis. The streptozotocin-induced diabetic group showed varying degrees of follicle atresia and altered biochemical parameters, both were marked in the streptozotocin-induced diabetic + doxorubicin group. The mRNA of NOBOX, FSHr, and iNOS genes were disturbed with increased immunoexpression of iNOS and 8-OHdG. Quercetin and/or sitagliptin administration improved all altered histological and biochemical parameters and was more effective as a combined treatment. The study suggested equal efficacy of both quercetin and sitagliptin in mitigating the doxorubicin-induced ovarian toxicity in the streptozotocin diabetic rat model, and the combined therapy showed anti-inflammatory, anti-antioxidant, and anti-DNA damage mechanisms.

Sitagliptin Versus Placebo to Reduce the Incidence and Severity of Posttransplant Diabetes Mellitus After Kidney Transplantation-A Single-center, Randomized, Double-blind Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Postkidney transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) affects cardiovascular, allograft, and recipient health. We tested whether early intervention with sitagliptin for hyperglycemia (blood glucose >200 mg/dL) within the first week of transplant and discontinued at 3 mo could prevent development of PTDM in patients without preexisting diabetes. METHODS: The primary efficacy objective was to improve 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) by > 20 mg/dL at 3 mo posttransplant. The secondary efficacy objective was to prevent new onset PTDM, defined as a normal OGTT at 3 mo. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients consented, and 50 patients were analyzed. The 3-mo 2-h OGTT (end of treatment) was 141.00 ± 62.44 mg/dL in the sitagliptin arm and 165.22 ± 72.03 mg/dL ( P = 0.218) in the placebo arm. The 6-mo 2-h OGTT (end of follow-up) was 174.38 ± 77.93 mg/dL in the sitagliptin arm and 171.86 ± 83.69 ng/dL ( P = 0.918) in the placebo arm. Mean intrapatient difference between 3- and 6-mo 2-h OGTT in the 3-mo period off study drug was 27.56 + 52.74 mg/dL in the sitagliptin arm and -0.14 + 45.80 mg/dL in the placebo arm ( P = 0.0692). At 3 mo, 61.54% of sitagliptin and 43.48% of placebo patients had a normal 2-h OGTT ( P = 0.2062), with the absolute risk reduction 18.06%. There were no differences in HbA1c at 3 or 6 mo between sitagliptin and placebo groups. Participants tolerated sitagliptin well. CONCLUSIONS: Although this study did not show a significant difference between groups, it can inform future studies in the use of sitagliptin in the very early posttransplant period.

Anagliptin twice-daily regimen improves glycaemic variability in subjects with type 2 diabetes: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To determine whether the twice-daily (BID) regimen is superior to the once-daily (QD) regimen for managing glycaemic variability by comparing the effects of anagliptin 100 mg BID versus sitagliptin 100 mg QD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blinded, randomized, multicentre study was performed in 89 patients with type 2 diabetes treated with metformin alone (6.5% < HbA1c < 8.5%). Subjects were randomly assigned to anagliptin 100 mg BID or sitagliptin 100 mg QD in a 1:1 ratio for 12 weeks. Continuous glucose monitoring was used to measure the mean amplitude of glycaemic excursion (MAGE) and postprandial time in range (TIR) before and after dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor treatment to compare glycaemic variability. RESULTS: The decrease from baseline in MAGE at 12 weeks after DPP-4 inhibitor treatment was significantly greater in the anagliptin BID group than in the sitagliptin QD group (P < .05); -30.4 ± 25.6 mg/dl (P < .001) in the anagliptin group versus -9.5 ± 38.0 mg/dl (P = .215) in the sitagliptin group. The TIR after dinner increased by 33.0% ± 22.0% (P < .001) in the anagliptin group and by 14.6% ± 28.2% (P = .014) in the sitagliptin group, with a statistically significant difference (P = .009). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in the changes in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose (FPG). CONCLUSIONS: The anagliptin BID regimen for the treatment of type 2 diabetes was superior in blood glucose control after dinner to improve glycaemic variability, as indicated by MAGE and TIR, but was equivalent to the QD regimen in terms of HbA1c and FPG.

Patient preference for second- and third-line therapies in type 2 diabetes: a prespecified secondary endpoint of the TriMaster study.

Patient preference is very important for medication selection in chronic medical conditions, like type 2 diabetes, where there are many different drugs available. Patient preference balances potential efficacy with potential side effects. As both aspects of drug response can vary markedly between individuals, this decision could be informed by the patient personally experiencing the alternative medications, as occurs in a crossover trial. In the TriMaster (NCT02653209, ISRCTN12039221), randomized double-blind, three-way crossover trial patients received three different second- or third-line once-daily type 2 diabetes glucose-lowering drugs (pioglitazone 30 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and canagliflozin 100 mg). As part of a prespecified secondary endpoint, we examined patients' drug preference after they had tried all three drugs. In total, 448 participants were treated with all three drugs which overall showed similar glycemic control (HbA1c on pioglitazone 59.5 sitagliptin 59.9, canagliflozin 60.5 mmol mol-1, P = 0.19). In total, 115 patients (25%) preferred pioglitazone, 158 patients (35%) sitagliptin and 175 patients (38%) canagliflozin. The drug preferred by individual patients was associated with a lower HbA1c (mean: 4.6; 95% CI: 3.9, 5.3) mmol mol-1 lower versus nonpreferred) and fewer side effects (mean: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.64) fewer side effects versus nonpreferred). Allocating therapy based on the individually preferred drugs, rather than allocating all patients the overall most preferred drug (canagliflozin), would result in more patients achieving the lowest HbA1c for them (70% versus 30%) and the fewest side effects (67% versus 50%). When precision approaches do not predict a clear optimal therapy for an individual, allowing patients to try potential suitable medications before they choose long-term therapy could be a practical alternative to optimizing treatment for type 2 diabetes.