Article

Sitagliptin: A Review of Its Use in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Drugs (Impact Factor: 4.13). 01/2014; 74(2). DOI: 10.1007/s40265-013-0169-1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Sitagliptin (Januvia(®), Xelevia™, Glactiv(®), Tesavel(®)) is an orally administered, potent and highly selective inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) and was the first agent of its class to be approved for use in the management of adults with type 2 diabetes. Numerous randomized placebo- or active comparator-controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of sitagliptin in terms of improving glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes, including its use as monotherapy, initial combination therapy (usually with fixed-dose combinations of sitagliptin/metformin), or add-on therapy to metformin or to other antihyperglycaemic drugs, with or without metformin. The primary endpoint of the clinical trials was the reduction from baseline in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c), although sitagliptin also showed beneficial effects for other endpoints, such as the proportion of patients who achieved target HbA1c, and reductions from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels and 2-h postprandial glucose (PPG) levels. Sitagliptin was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, had a low risk of hypoglycaemia (although this depends on background therapy) and had a neutral effect on body weight. Despite concerns regarding a possible increased risk of rare pancreatic adverse events (e.g. pancreatitis) with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1)-based therapies, such as GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors, no causal association has been found; regulators in Europe recently conducted a review of available data, concluding that there is little evidence that these drugs could cause pancreatic inflammation or pancreatic cancer. A similar review is planned in the USA and postmarketing surveillance will continue. Thus, oral sitagliptin is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment option for the management of patients with type 2 diabetes.

2 Followers
 · 
183 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inhibitors of sodium–glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT2) are proposed as a novel approach for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Several compounds are already available in many countries (dapagliflozin, canagliflozin, empagliflozin and ipragliflozin) and some others are in a late phase of development. The available SGLT2 inhibitors share similar pharmacokinetic characteristics, with a rapid oral absorption, a long elimination half-life allowing once-daily administration, an extensive hepatic metabolism mainly via glucuronidation to inactive metabolites, the absence of clinically relevant drug–drug interactions and a low renal elimination as parent drug. SGLT2 co-transporters are responsible for reabsorption of most (90 %) of the glucose filtered by the kidneys. The pharmacological inhibition of SGLT2 co-transporters reduces hyperglycaemia by decreasing renal glucose threshold and thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion. The amount of glucose excreted in the urine depends on both the level of hyperglycaemia and the glomerular filtration rate. Results of numerous placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials of 12–104 weeks duration have shown significant reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), resulting in a significant increase in the proportion of patients reaching HbA1c targets, and a significant lowering of fasting plasma glucose when SGLT2 inhibitors were administered as monotherapy or in addition to other glucose-lowering therapies including insulin in patients with T2DM. In head-to-head trials of up to 2 years, SGLT2 inhibitors exerted similar glucose-lowering activity to metformin, sulphonylureas or sitagliptin. The durability of the glucose-lowering effect of SGLT2 inhibitors appears to be better; however, this remains to be more extensively investigated. The risk of hypoglycaemia was much lower with SGLT2 inhibitors than with sulphonylureas and was similarly low as that reported with metformin, pioglitazone or sitagliptin. Increased renal glucose elimination also assists weight loss and could help to reduce blood pressure. Both effects were very consistent across the trials and they represent some advantages for SGLT2 inhibitors when compared with other oral glucose-lowering agents. The pharmacodynamic response to SGLT2 inhibitors declines with increasing severity of renal impairment, and prescribing information for each SGLT2 inhibitor should be consulted regarding dosage adjustments or restrictions in moderate to severe renal dysfunction. Caution is also recommended in the elderly population because of a higher risk of renal impairment, orthostatic hypotension and dehydration, even if the absence of hypoglycaemia represents an obvious advantage in this population. The overall effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on the risk of cardiovascular disease is unknown and will be evaluated in several ongoing prospective placebo-controlled trials with cardiovascular outcomes. The impact of SGLT2 inhibitors on renal function and their potential to influence the course of diabetic nephropathy also deserve more attention. SGLT2 inhibitors are generally well-tolerated. The most frequently reported adverse events are female genital mycotic infections, while urinary tract infections are less commonly observed and generally benign. In conclusion, with their unique mechanism of action that is independent of insulin secretion and action, SGLT2 inhibitors are a useful addition to the therapeutic options available for the management of T2DM at any stage in the natural history of the disease. Although SGLT2 inhibitors have already been extensively investigated, further studies should even better delineate the best place of these new glucose-lowering agents in the already rich armamentarium for the management of T2DM.
    Drugs 12/2014; DOI:10.1007/s40265-014-0337-y · 4.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) continues to increase each year. However, the efficacy of glucose-lowering therapies remains unsatisfactory. Moreover, the clinical characteristics and manifestations of DM in Chinese patients are different from those in Western patients. Thus, it is imperative to develop an optimal treatment protocol for lowering blood glucose levels in Chinese patients with DM. Sitagliptin has been used in People's Republic of China, and sitagliptin and metformin combination therapy may not alter their individual pharmacokinetics. To date, several clinical trials undertaken to investigate the efficacy of sitagliptin and metformin combination therapy have revealed that it effectively controlled glycated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose, and postprandial plasma glucose levels to a greater extent than sitagliptin or metformin alone. In addition, the combined therapy was well tolerated and induced few side effects, which were largely mild. Furthermore, the combined therapy was easy to administer, and the patients receiving this therapy showed good compliance. Therefore, for Chinese patients with type 2 DM, sitagliptin and metformin combination therapy is preferred.
    Patient Preference and Adherence 01/2015; 9:281. DOI:10.2147/PPA.S64691 · 1.49 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since their introduction to clinical practice in the 1950s, sulfonylureas have been widely prescribed for use in patients with type 2 diabetes. Of all the other medications currently available for clinical use, only metformin has been used more frequently. However, several new drug classes have emerged that are reported to have equal glucose-lowering efficacy and greater safety when added to treatment of patients in whom metformin monotherapy is no longer sufficient. Moreover, current arguments also suggest that the alternative drugs may be superior to sulfonylureas with regard to the risk of cardiovascular complications. Thus, while there is universal agreement that metformin should remain the first-line pharmacologic therapy for those in whom lifestyle modification is insufficient to control hyperglycemia, there is no consensus as to which drug should be added to metformin. Therefore, given the current controversy, we provide a Point-Counterpoint on this issue. In the preceding point narrative, Dr. Abrahamson provides his argument suggesting that avoiding use of sulfonylureas as a class of medication as an add-on to metformin is not appropriate as there are many patients whose glycemic control would improve with use of these drugs with minimal risk of adverse events. In the counterpoint narrative below, Dr. Genuth suggests there is no longer a need for sulfonylureas to remain a first-line addition to metformin for those patients whose clinical characteristics are appropriate and whose health insurance and/or financial resources make an alternative drug affordable.-William T. CefaluEditor in Chief, Diabetes Care. © 2015 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.
    Diabetes Care 01/2015; 38(1):170-5. DOI:10.2337/dc14-0565 · 8.57 Impact Factor