Comparison of Vildagliptin-Metformin and Glimepiride-Metformin Treatments in Type 2 Diabetic Patients

Department of Internal Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Korea.
Diabetes & metabolism journal 10/2011; 35(5):529-35. DOI: 10.4093/dmj.2011.35.5.529
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin-metformin treatment compared to those of glimepiride-metformin treatment for type 2 diabetes.
In a randomized, open-label, comparative study, 106 patients with type 2 diabetes were enrolled. The primary endpoint was a reduction in HbA1c from baseline and secondary endpoints included fasting plasma glucose (FPG) or 2-hour postprandial glucose (2h-PPG) reduction from baseline, as well as HbA1c responder rate and HbA1c reduction according to baseline HbA1c category.
Comparable HbA1c reduction was observed with a mean±standard deviation change from baseline to the 32-week endpoint of -0.94±1.15% in the vildagliptin group and -1.00±1.32% in the glimepiride group. A similar reduction in 2h-PPG (vildagliptin group 3.53±4.11 mmol/L vs. the glimepiride group 3.72±4.17 mmol/L) was demonstrated, and the decrements in FPG (vildagliptin group 1.54±2.41 mmol/L vs. glimepiride group 2.16±2.51 mmol/L) were not different between groups. The proportion of patients who achieved an HbA1c less than 7% at week 32 was 50.1% in the vildagliptin group and 56.0% in the glimepiride group. An average body weight gain of 2.53±1.21 kg in the glimepiride group was observed in contrast with the 0.23±0.69 kg weight gain noted in the vildagliptin group. A 10-fold lower incidence of hypoglycemia was demonstrated in the vildagliptin group, in addition to an absence of severe hypoglycemia.
Vildagliptin-metformin treatment provided blood glucose control efficacy comparable to that of glimepiride-metformin treatment and resulted in better adverse event profiles with lower risks of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives to evaluate the effects of vildagliptin compared to glimepiride on glycemic control, insulin resistance and post-prandial lipemia. Material and Methods 167 type 2 diabetic patients, not adequately controlled by metformin, were randomized to vildagliptin 50 mg twice a day or glimepiride 2 mg three times a day for 6 months, in a double blind, randomized clinical trial. We evaluated: body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, fasting plasma insulin (FPI), homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR), fasting plasma proinsulin (FPPr), glucagon, lipid profile, resistin, retinol binding protein-4 (RBP-4), visfatin and vaspin. Furthermore, at the randomization and at the end of the study all patients underwent an euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp to evaluate M value and an oral fat load. Results despite a similar decrease of glycated hemoglobin, there was an increase of body weight with glimepiride + metformin and a decrease with vildagliptin + metformin. Fasting plasma insulin increased with glimepiride + metformin, while it did not change with vildagliptin + metformin. Vildagliptin + metformin improved lipid profile. Regarding insulin sensitivity, vildagliptin + metformin increased M value. Resistin, RBP-4, vaspin and visfatin were decreased by vildagliptin + metformin, but in group to group comparison, only vaspin reduction resulted statistically significant. Vildagliptin + metformin reduced post-prandial lipemia and insulinemia compared to glimepiride + metformin. Conclusion vildagliptin, in addition to metformin, was more effective than glimepiride + metformin in reducing insulin resistance and post-prandial lipemia.
    Metabolism 07/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.metabol.2014.04.008 · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To review the most recent clinical data on the safety and efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and to evaluate their position in current treatment guidelines and algorithms.Methods: PubMed searches were performed to identify published data on the safety and efficacy of DPP-4 inhibitors approved for use in the United States, and clinical guidelines describing recommendations for their use.Results: In the past 2 years, more than 100 publications have added clinical trial data on DPP-4 inhibitors to the medical literature. Since becoming available in 2006, these agents have demonstrated an excellent safety/tolerability profile, and as add-on to metformin may have comparable glycemic efficacy as other oral agents. As a result, DPP-4 inhibitors have assumed roles in clinical practice guidelines and treatment algorithms that are comparable with that of the sulfonylurea class. Advantages of DPP-4 inhibitors include an oral route of administration, a mechanism of action based on glucose-stimulated insulin secretion, and a low risk of hypoglycemia. The main disadvantage associated with this class is a relatively high cost. Clinical experience with DPP-4 agents is also less than that with older classes of agents that have been in use for decades; however, long-term data on the safety and efficacy of DPP-4s will be available in the near future to refine their place in therapy.Conclusions: Based on comparison of the non-glycemic effects such as risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, and durability, DPP-4 inhibitors may be considered as an alternative to sulfonylureas. However, direct cost may be a determining factor in the choice of therapy.
    Endocrine Practice 10/2013; 19(6):1-41. DOI:10.4158/EP12303.RA · 2.59 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitors and sulphonylureas are two important second-line anti-diabetic agents. The objective of this research was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with sulphonlyureas by meta-analytic approach of available randomized studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrone Central Register of Controlled Trials databases up to 30 June 2013 collecting all randomized clinical trials with a treatment duration ≥ 18 weeks. Data on glycated haemoglobin(HbA1c), body weight, hypoglycemia, total adverse events and cardiovascular events were retrieved and analyzed. The analysis included 12 randomized studies comprising 10,982 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Based on meta-analysis, sulphonylureas lowered HbA1c significantly more than DPP-4 inhibitors with weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.105(95% Confidence Interval, CI, 0.103 to 0.107). The results were consistent in trials with longer(>32 weeks) or shorter(≤32 weeks) duration; however, DPP-4 inhibitors showed greater reduction in HbA1c compared to the second generation sulphonylureas and in patients with baseline eGFR < 50 mL/min/1.73 m(2) . Patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors are less likely to achieve HbA1c < 7% compared with sulphonylureas(Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio, MH-OR, 0.91; 95%CI 0.84 to 0.99). DPP-4 inhibitors was associated with a reduction in body weight(WMD -1.652; 95%CI -1.658 to -1.646), and lower risk of hypoglycemia(MH-OR, 0.13; 95%CI 0.11 to 0.16), total adverse events(MH-OR, 0.79; 95%CI 0.72 to 0.87) and cardiovascular events(MH-OR, 0.53; 95%CI 0.32 to 0.87) compared to sulphonylureas. Although compared to sulphonylureas, DPP-4 inhibitors is less efficacious, it demonstrates a beneficial effect on body weight, episode of hypoglycemia, and total adverse events. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews 03/2014; 30(3). DOI:10.1002/dmrr.2482 · 3.59 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

Available from