Search

Background: Most patients with myelofibrosis develop ruxolitinib intolerance or disease that is relapsed or refractory, and survival rates after ruxolitinib discontinuation are poor. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fedratinib versus best available therapy (BAT) in patients with myelofibrosis previously treated with ruxolitinib., Methods: FREEDOM2 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in 86 clinics in 16 countries, in which patients aged at least 18 years with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis that was relapsed or refractory or intolerant to ruxolitinib with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 were stratified by spleen size by palpation, platelet count, and previous ruxolitinib treatment, and randomly assigned 2:1 by interactive response technology to receive fedratinib 400 mg per day (4 × 100 mg capsules orally once daily, open-label) or BAT. Patients received prophylactic antiemetics and thiamine supplementation, and symptomatic antidiarrhoeals as required. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients reaching spleen volume reduction (SVR) of at least 35% (SVR35) at end of cycle 6 in the intention-to-treat population. This manuscript reports the primary analysis of the trial; follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03952039., Findings: Between Sept 9, 2019 and June 24, 2022, of 316 patients screened, 201 were randomly assigned and treated (134 to fedratinib, 67 to BAT [including 52 receiving ruxolitinib]); 46 patients from the BAT group crossed over to fedratinib. Approximately half of enrolled patients were male (fedratinib 75 [56%] of 134; BAT 30 [45%] of 67) and most were White (fedratinib 106 [79%] of 134; BAT 58 [87%] of 67). At data cutoff (Dec 27, 2022), median survival follow-up was 64·5 weeks (IQR 37·9-104·9). SVR35 at end of cycle 6 was seen in 48 (36%) of 134 patients receiving fedratinib versus four (6%) of 67 patients receiving BAT (30% difference; 95% CI 20-39; one-sided p-value <0·0001). During the first six cycles 53 (40%) of 134 patients in the fedratinib group and 8 (12%) of 67 patients in the BAT group had grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events, most frequently anaemia (fedratinib 12 [9%] of 134; BAT 6 [9%] of 67) and thrombocytopenia (fedratinib 16 [12%] of 134; BAT 2 [3%] of 67); one patient in the fedratinib group died from acute kidney injury suspected to be related to study drug (no treatment-related deaths in the BAT group). Gastrointestinal adverse events occurred more frequently in the fedratinib group compared with the BAT group, but were mostly grade 1-2 in severity and more frequent in early cycles, and were less frequent than in prior clinical trials. A total of 28 (21%) of 134 patients in the fedratinib group and 3 (4%) of 67 patients in the BAT group had thiamine levels below lower limit of normal per central laboratory assessment, with only one case of low thiamine in the fedratinib arm after the introduction of prophylactic thiamine supplementation., Interpretation: Findings from FREEDOM2 support fedratinib as a second-line Janus kinase inhibitor option to reduce spleen size after ruxolitinib failure or intolerance in patients with myelofibrosis, and shows effective strategies for management of gastrointestinal adverse events and low thiamine concentrations through prophylaxis, monitoring, and treatment., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CNH reports research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Constellation–Morphosys, and Novartis; consulting fees from Galecto, Geron, and GlaxoSmithKline; honoraria from AbbVie, AOP Health, Bristol Myers Squibb–Celgene, CTI BioPharma, Galacteo, Geron, Gilead, IMAGO, Janssen, Keros, Novartis, Promedior, Roche, Shire, and Sierra; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with Galacteo and Keros; and leadership at the European Hematology Association. RM reports honoraria from AbbVie, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, CTI BioPharma, Genentech, Geron, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Morphosys, Novartis, Sierra Oncology, and Telios. MT reports research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb; travel support from Sumitomo; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Sumitomo; and leadership in the Society of Hematologic Oncology. HKA-A reports research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, and Novartis; travel support from AbbVie and Bristol Myers Squibb; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with AbbVie, AOP Health, Blueprint, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and SGK. FPas reports research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb–Celgene; consulting fees from AbbVie, AOP Health, Bristol Myers Squibb–Celgene, Kartos, Karyopharma, Kyowa Kirin–MEI, Novartis, Roche, Sierra Oncology, and Sumitomo; and honoraria from AbbVie, AOP Health, Bristol Myers Squibb–Celgene, Novartis, and Roche. FPal reports research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb; honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, AOP Health, Bristol Myers Squibb, CTI BioPharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Kartos, Novartis, and Telios; travel support from AbbVie and Novartis; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with AbbVie, AOP Health, Bristol Myers Squibb, CTI BioPharma, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis. GB reports honoraria and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Novartis. AMV reports honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Geron, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, and Novartis; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with Bristol Myers Squibb, Geron, Incyte, and Novartis. CM reports research funding from AbbVie and Bristol Myers Squibb; and honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. AI reports honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Novartis, and Pfizer; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with AOP Health, Bristol Myers Squibb, Incyte, Novartis, and Pfizer. PB reports employment and stock or stock options with Bristol Myers Squibb. CH reports employment with Bristol Myers Squibb. SR reports employment and stock or stock options with Bristol Myers Squibb. JW reports employment with Bristol Myers Squibb. J-JK reports consulting fees from AbbVie and GlaxoSmithKline; honoraria from AOP Health and Novartis; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board with Bristol Myers Squibb and Incyte. BX and IK report no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background/aim: Vildagliptin is one of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors that have been shown to improve hyperglycemia in clinical trials among patients with type 2 diabetes. However, few studies have examined the efficacy of vildagliptin in patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD)., Patients and Methods: Eight patients with DKD received oral vildagliptin 50-100 mg/day. The duration of diabetes was 6.7±5.9 years and observation period was 23.6±9.8 months. Changes in fasting blood glucose, and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (UPCR) were studied before and after the administration of vildagliptin., Results: Vildagliptin treatment significantly decreased fasting blood glucose and HbA1c, compared to baseline (132±56 mg/dl, p=0.036, 6.0±0.3, p=0.041, respectively). UPCR tended to be decreased, albeit without statistical significance. However, eGFR was decreased after the administration of vildagliptin. No significant adverse effects were observed in all patients during the study., Conclusion: Although the sample size was limited and the observation period was brief, vildagliptin was found to be an effective and reasonably well-tolerated treatment for patients with DKD., (Copyright © 2024, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Aims: This study aims to evaluate whether there is a difference between the effects of vildagliptin and gliclazide MR (modified release) on glycemic variability (GV) in women with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) as evaluated by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)., Methods: An open-label, randomized study was conducted in T2DM women on steady-dose metformin monotherapy which were treated with 50 mg vildagliptin twice daily or 60-120 mg of gliclazide MR once daily. CGM and GV indices calculation were performed at baseline and after 24 weeks., Results: In total, 42 patients (age: 61.9 ± 5.9 years, baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c): 7.3 ± 0.56) were selected and 37 completed the 24-week protocol. Vildagliptin and gliclazide MR reduced GV, as measured by the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE, p = 0.007 and 0.034, respectively). The difference between the groups did not reach statistical significance. Vildagliptin also significantly decreased the standard deviation of the mean glucose (SD) and the mean of the daily differences (MODD) (p = 0.007 and 0.030)., Conclusions: Vildagliptin and gliclazide MR similarly reduced the MAGE in women with T2DM after 24 weeks of treatment. Further studies are required to attest differences between vildagliptin and gliclazide MR regarding glycemic variability., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study investigated the safety and efficacy of metformin up-titration in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with vildagliptin (100 mg/day) and low-dose metformin (500 or 750 mg/day)., Research Design and Methods: Fifty patients were randomly allocated to the control group (maintaining the initial low-dose of metformin) and the dose increase group (up-titrating of metformin to 1,500-2,250 mg/day) for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks., Results: Among the 25 patients allocated to the dose increase group, four patients were not able to complete the study protocol because of gastrointestinal symptoms. HbA1c in the dose increase group was significantly but modestly lower than in the control group (change in HbA1c: 0.22 ± 0.57 vs. -0.15 ± 0.58%, group comparison, P < 0.05). The dose increase group did not gain weight during the study period, and no hypoglycemic events were reported in both groups. The rate of gastrointestinal symptoms in the dose increase group was profoundly higher than in the control group (32 vs. 0%, P < 0.01)., Conclusions: In Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes treated with vildagliptin and low-dose metformin, metformin up-titration significantly but modestly improved glycemic control without hypoglycemia and weight gain.

We describe 2 patients with diabetes mellitus, presenting with upper abdominal pain. Although imaging findings were consistent with acute pancreatitis (AP), serum amylase and lipase levels were within normal limits. In both the cases, the only identifiable diagnostic culprit was vildagliptin. This is the first reported case of vildagliptin causing AP clinically and radiographically without elevated serum pancreatic enzymes. In conclusion, even when serum amylase and lipase levels are normal, AP should be kept in mind when making a differential diagnosis of patients with diabetes mellitus who present with abdominal pain and take dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

Background: Vildagliptin and pioglitazone/rosiglitazone are emerging Oral Hypoglycemic Agents (OHAs) which are used to treat patients suffering from Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). In this analysis, we aimed to systematically compare the adverse drug events which were observed with the use of vildagliptin versus pioglitazone or rosiglitazone respectively., Methods: Online databases were searched for studies comparing vildagliptin with pioglitazone/rosiglitazone. Adverse drug events were considered as the clinical endpoints in this analysis. We calculated Odds Ratios (OR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) using the RevMan 5.3 software. All the authors had full access to the data which were used and approved the final version of the manuscript., Results: A total number of 2396 patients were analyzed (1486 and 910 patients were treated with vildagliptin and pioglitazone/rosiglitazone respectively). Vildagliptin and pioglitazone/rosiglitazone were both associated with similar overall adverse drug events (OR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.81-1.24; P = 1.00). Headache (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.60-1.27; P = 0.49) and upper respiratory tract infection (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.71-1.27; P = 0.75) were similarly observed. However, dizziness was significantly lower with pioglitazone/rosiglitazone (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.43-0.92; P = 0.02). Back pain, diarrhea and nausea were insignificantly lower with pioglitazone/rosiglitazone (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.49-1.33; P = 0.40), (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.48-1.44; P = 0.52) and (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.25-1.05; P = 0.07) respectively, whereas peripheral edema and weight gain were insignificantly higher (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.56-2.62; P = 0.63) and (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 0.51-10.34; P = 0.28) respectively. Nevertheless, when pioglitazone and rosiglitazone were separately compared with vildagliptin, peripheral edema and weight gain were significantly higher with rosiglitazone (OR: 2.36, 95% CI: 1.40-3.99; P = 0.001) and (OR: 5.20, 95% CI: 2.47-10.92; P = 0.0001) respectively., Conclusion: Both vildagliptin and pioglitazone/rosiglitazone are acceptable for the treatment of patients with T2DM on the basis that they are not significantly different in terms of overall adverse drug events. However, weight gain and peripheral edema would have to be re-assessed in further larger randomized controlled trials.

The aim of this non-interventional, multi-database, analytical cohort study was to assess the cardiovascular (CV) safety of vildagliptin vs other non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) using real-world data from 5 European electronic healthcare databases. Patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥18 years on NIAD treatment were enrolled. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the outcomes of interest (myocardial infarction [MI], acute coronary syndrome [ACS], stroke, congestive heart failure [CHF], individually and as a composite) were estimated using negative binomial regression. Approximately 2.8% of the enrolled patients (n = 738 054) used vildagliptin at any time during the study, with an average follow-up time of 1.4 years, resulting in a cumulative current vildagliptin exposure of 28 330 person-years. The adjusted IRRs (vildagliptin [±other NIADs] vs other NIADs) were in the range of 0.61 to 0.97 (MI), 0.55 to 1.60 (ACS), 0.02 to 0.77 (stroke), 0.49 to 1.03 (CHF), and 0.22 to 1.02 (composite CV outcomes). The IRRs and their 95% CIs were close to 1, demonstrating no increased risk of adverse CV events, including the risk of CHF, with vildagliptin vs other NIADs in real-world conditions., (© 2017 Crown copyright. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To compare the effects of either vildagliptin or glimepiride on glycemic variability, oxidative stress, and endothelial parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin alone., Methods: In this randomized, open-label, parallel study, 34 patients with T2DM being treated with metformin having an HbA1c of 7.0-10.0% were allocated into either the vildagliptin or glimepiride group. A mixed-meal tolerance test and 72-hour continuous glucose monitoring were conducted, and urinary 8-iso-prostaglandinF 2α (PGF 2α ) and endothelial-dependent flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) were evaluated at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment., Results: Similar significant improvements in HbA1c level were shown in both vildagliptin (-0.8%) and glimepiride (-0.9%) groups after treatment (Ps<0.001). The mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) and the mean of daily differences (MODD) were significantly decreased by vildagliptin (P = 0.044 and P = 0.031, respectively) but not by glimepiride. Glimepiride was significantly associated with a higher incidence of hypoglycemia than vildagliptin (P = 0.005). There were no significant differences in urinary 8-iso-PGF 2α or FMD between the two groups., Conclusions: Vildagliptin effectively improved glucose level with a significantly greater reduction in glycemic variability and hypoglycemia than glimepiride in patients with T2DM ongoing metformin therapy. The two drugs showed no significant differences in urinary 8-iso-PGF 2α and FMD., Trial Registration: NCT01404676.

Bullous pemfigoid (BP), an autoimmune disorder, can also be induced by some medications. Vildagliptin is a new drug used to treat diabetes mellitus (DM). Recently, a few cases of vildagliptin-induced BP have been described in the literature. We report a patient with BP in which vildagliptin was thought to be as a possible causative agent. The awareness of BP development risk during gliptin therapy can prevent unnecessary usage of systemic drugs with serious side effects.

Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes present with an accelerated atherosclerotic process. Animal evidence indicates that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (gliptins) have anti-inflammatory and anti-atherosclerotic effects, yet clinical data are scarcely available., Design and Methods: A prospective, randomized, open-label study was performed in 60 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and type 2 diabetes, who participated in a cardiac rehabilitation program. After a washout period of 3 weeks, patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive combined vildagliptin/metformin therapy (intervention group: n = 40) vs. metformin alone (control group: n = 20) for a total of 12 weeks. Blinded assessment of interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß, the primary endpoint), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and high sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP), were performed at baseline and after 12 weeks., Results: Mean age of study patients was 67 ± 9 years, 75% were males, and baseline HbA1c and inflammatory markers levels were similar between the two groups. At 12 weeks of follow up, levels of IL-1ß, hsCRP, and HbA1c were significantly lower in the intervention group as compared with the control group. There was a continuous elevation of IL-1ß among the control group, which was not observed in the intervention group (49 vs. 4%, respectively; p < 0.001). The hsCRP was lowered by 60% in the vildagliptin/metformin group vs. 23% in the metformin group (p < 0.01). Moreover, a significant relative reduction of the HbA1c was seen in the intervention group (7% reduction, p < 0.03)., Conclusion: The addition of vildagliptin to metformin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes and CAD led to a significant suppression of the IL-1ß elevation during follow up. A significant relative reduction of hsCRP and HbA1c in the intervention group was also observed. Trial registration NCT01604213.

Objective: The GUARD study evaluated the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of vildagliptin treatment with or without metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in real-life settings. Here we present the results of the GUARD study for the patient subset from Egypt., Research Design and Methods: This was a 24 ± 6 weeks, prospective, non-interventional study that enrolled adult patients with T2DM receiving vildagliptin or vildagliptin + metformin combination therapy as per local prescribing information., Main Outcome Measures: The primary effectiveness endpoint was change in HbA1c levels from baseline to week 24 ± 6 endpoint. Safety was assessed by reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs)., Results: Of 2786 patients enrolled from Egypt, 655 received vildagliptin and 2131 received vildagliptin + metformin. Overall, at baseline, mean (± standard deviation [SD]) age was 49.5 ± 9.49 years, BMI was 31.5 ± 4.85 kg/m 2 , HbA1c was 8.4 ± 0.86%, and duration of T2DM was 2.3 ± 3.78 years. At week 24, significant reductions in mean (±SD) HbA1c were observed in the vildagliptin (-1.47 ± 0.79%) and vildagliptin + metformin (-1.62 ± 0.82%) groups (both p < 0.0001) from baseline HbA1c of 8.1% and 8.4%, respectively. At week 24, 67.5% patients in the vildagliptin group and 60.5% in the vildagliptin + metformin group achieved HbA1c ≤7.0%. Treatment with vildagliptin (± metformin) was well tolerated, with a low incidence of hypoglycemia in both groups (vildagliptin, 0.5%; vildagliptin + metformin, 0.6%). No SAEs or deaths were reported in the vildagliptin group; however, 0.2% of patients experienced SAEs and one death (accidental death) was reported in the vildagliptin + metformin group., Conclusion: In a real-world setting, vildagliptin, with or without metformin, resulted in significant reductions in HbA1c and was well tolerated in patients with T2DM from Egypt. Limitations of the study include non-randomization and the open-label, observational nature of the study.

To date, several clinical trials have compared differences in glucose fluctuation observed with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, most patients were assessed for limited periods or during hospitalization. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of switching from sitagliptin to vildagliptin, or vice versa, on 12-week glucose fluctuations using self-monitoring of blood glucose in the standard care setting. We conducted a multicenter, prospective, open-label controlled trial in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. Thirty-two patients were treated with vildagliptin (50 mg) twice daily or sitagliptin (50 mg) once daily and were allocated to one of two groups: vildagliptin treatment for 12 weeks before switching to sitagliptin for 12 weeks, or vice versa. Daily profiles of blood glucose were assessed several times during each treatment period, and the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions and M-value were calculated. Metabolic biomarkers such as hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), glycated albumin, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol were also assessed. With vildagliptin treatment, mean amplitude of glycemic excursions was significantly improved compared with sitagliptin treatment (57.9 ± 22.2 vs. 68.9 ± 33.0 mg/dL; p=0.0045). M-value (p=0.019) and mean blood glucose (p=0.0021) were also lower with vildagliptin, as were HbA1c, glycated albumin, and 1,5-anhydroglucitol. There were no significant differences in other metabolic parameters evaluated. Reduction of daily blood glucose profile fluctuations by vildagliptin was superior to that of sitagliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Introduction: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors reduce hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by enhancing insulin and suppressing glucagon secretion. Since T2DM is associated with progressive loss of β-cell function, we hypothesized that the DPP-4 inhibitor action to improve β-cell function would be attenuated with longer duration of T2DM., Methods: Data from six randomized, placebo-controlled trials of 24 weeks duration, where β-cell response to vildagliptin 50 mg twice daily was assessed, were pooled. In each study, the insulin secretory rate relative to glucose (ISR/G 0-2h) during glucose load (standard meal or oral glucose tolerance test) was assessed at baseline and end of study. The mean placebo-subtracted difference (PSD) in the change in ISR/G 0-2h from baseline for each study was evaluated as a function of age, duration of T2DM, baseline ISR/G 0-2h, glycated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ), fasting plasma glucose, body mass index, and mean PSD in the change in HbA 1c from baseline, using univariate model., Results: There was a strong negative association between the PSD in the change from baseline in ISR/G 0-2h and duration of T2DM ( r = -0.89, p <0.02). However, there was no association between the PSD in the change from baseline in ISR/G 0-2h and the PSD in the change from baseline in HbA 1c ( r =0.33, p =0.52). None of the other characteristics were significantly associated with mean PSD change in ISR/G 0-2h., Conclusion: These findings indicate that the response of the β-cell, but not the HbA 1c reduction, with vildagliptin is dependent on duration of T2DM. Further, it can be speculated that glucagon suppression may become the predominant mechanism via which glycemic control is improved when treatment with a DPP-4 inhibitor, such as vildagliptin, is initiated late in the natural course of T2DM., Competing Interests: Disclosure PK and JEF are employed by and own stocks in Novartis. VB is employed by Novartis. The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG. Part of this data was presented as a poster (1093-P) at the 76th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association, June 10–14, 2016, New Orleans, LA, USA. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.

The present observational study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of vildagliptin with metformin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Data were pooled from the vildagliptin postmarketing survey (PMS), the vildagliptin/metformin fixed drug combination (DC) PMS, and a retrospective observational study of vildagliptin/metformin (fixed DC or free DC). The effectiveness endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a glycemic target (HbA1c) of ≤7.0% at 24 weeks. In total, 4303 patients were included in the analysis; of these, 2087 patients were eligible. The mean patient age was 56.99 ± 11.25 years. Overall, 58.94% patients achieved an HbA1c target of ≤7.0% at 24 weeks. The glycemic target achievement rate was significantly greater in patients with baseline HbA1c < 7.5% versus ≥7.5% (84.64% versus 43.97%), receiving care at the hospital versus clinic (67.95% versus 52.33%), and receiving vildagliptin/metformin fixed DC versus free DC (70.69% versus 55.42%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that disease duration ( P < 0.0001), baseline HbA1c ( P < 0.0001), and DC type ( P = 0.0103) had significant effects on drug effectiveness. Vildagliptin plus metformin appeared as an effective treatment option for patients with T2DM in clinical practice settings in Korea.

Background: The use of dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin may be beneficial. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of vildagliptin add-on therapy in these patients remains unclear., Subjects and Methods: A total of 73 patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin were randomly assigned to receive either add-on therapy of vildagliptin (n=37) or conventional therapy without DPP-4 inhibitors (n=36) for glucose control. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, dose and number of insulin injections, number of hypoglycemia episodes, and liver and renal function were monitored for 2years., Results: The baseline characteristics of subjects, including age, dose of insulin injections, or HbA1c levels, did not differ between the two groups. In the vildagliptin group, HbA1c levels significantly decreased and the significance of HbA1c reduction was maintained for 24months (from 8.0±1.2% to 7.4±1.0%, p<0.05, at the end of observational period). In addition, the dose and number of insulin injections significantly reduced (-5.6units, p<0.01, and -0.9 times, p<0.001). However, these parameters were unchanged in the control group. The number of patients who experienced three or more episodes of hypoglycemia per year was significantly lower in the vildagliptin group (n=4) than in the control group (n=11) (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.97; p<0.05)., Conclusion: Vildagliptin as an add-on to insulin treatment for 24months was well tolerated and led to sustained reductions in HbA1c, the dose and number of insulin injections, and the risk of hypoglycemia., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: In this post hoc analysis of the EDGE study, we assessed the effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin versus other oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) as add-on to first-line sulphonylurea (SU) therapy in patients who did not receive metformin in a real-life setting., Methods: The primary endpoint was odds of achieving an HbA1c reduction of >0.3% without tolerability issues. Secondary endpoint was odds of achieving HbA1c <7.0% without hypoglycaemia or weight gain. Changes in HbA1c, body weight; and safety were also assessed., Results: 2936 patients received vildagliptin and 820 received comparator OADs (any α-GI, TZD, glinide) as add-on to first-line SU therapy. Overall, the mean age, disease duration, HbA1c, and BMI at baseline were 57.1 years, 6.3 years, 8.5%, and 27.7kg/m 2 , respectively. The odds ratios for achieving primary and secondary endpoints were 1.6 (95% CI: 1.36, 1.86; p<0.0001) and 1.8 (1.45, 2.21; p<0.0001), respectively, in favour of vildagliptin. The between-treatment differences (vildagliptin vs. comparator OAD) for the mean change in HbA1c and body weight were -0.2±0.04% (p<0.0001) and -0.8±0.16kg (p<0.0001), respectively. Overall, the incidence of adverse events was low (vildagliptin, 7% vs. comparator, 8.2%) in both groups. Similar results were observed in a subset of patients enrolled from India and patients who received TZDs as a comparator OAD., Conclusion: Under real-life settings, vildagliptin as add-on to SU monotherapy showed better glycaemic response without tolerability issues compared with other OADs., (Copyright © 2016 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To evaluate the real-world effectiveness of vildagliptin and vildagliptin/metformin, combined with patient engagement, on glycemic outcomes. Patient engagement included both clinicians' engaging patients through education and counseling; and patients' self-engagement through disease awareness, lifestyle changes, and medication adherence., Methods: Prospective, observational, open-label, multi-center, pharmacoepidemiologic study of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients treated de novo with vildagliptin or vildagliptin/metformin. Data were collected at baseline (treatment initiation), 105±15d, and ≥145d., Results: The evaluable sample included 896 mainly male (58%), overweight (mean±SD BMI=30.3±5.4kg/m 2 ), in later middle age (mean±SD age=64±11years) patients. Over the three visits, mean(±SD) HbA1c levels declined from 8.1%(±1.0) to 7.3%(±1.0) to 7.2%(±0.9); HbA1c control rates rose from 7% to 36% to 43%. Mean±SD FPG levels decreased from 170(±49) to 141(±41) to 139(±42)mg/dL; control rates increased from 12% to 39% to 43% (all p<0.0001). Weight decreased nominally by 2kg (p=0.0290) and BMI by 0.8kg/m 2 (p<0.0001). Modeling showed patient engagement activities by clinicians and by patients to be major determinants of glycemic outcomes. No unknown safety signals were detected., Conclusions: Vildagliptin and vildagliptin/metformin are effective and safe oral agents in the management of T2DM, especially if part of a treatment program with active patient engagement by clinicians and empowered patients., (Copyright © 2016 Primary Care Diabetes Europe. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To compare directly the clinical effects of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes, with a special emphasis on incretin hormones and L-cell feedback inhibition induced by dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP-4) inhibition., Methods: A total of 24 patients (12 on a diet/exercise regimen, 12 on metformin) were treated, in randomized order, for 7-9 days, with either vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily = 100 mg/d), sitagliptin (100 mg once daily in those on diet, 50 mg twice daily in those on metformin treatment = 100 mg/d) or placebo (twice daily). A mixed-meal test was performed., Results: Intact glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide concentrations were doubled by both DPP-4 inhibitors. Meal-related total GLP-1 responses were reduced by vildagliptin and sitagliptin treatment alike in the majority of patients (vildagliptin: p = 0.0005; sitagliptin: p = 0.019), but with substantial inter-individual variation. L-cell feedback appeared to be more pronounced in those whose intact GLP-1 relative to total GLP-1 increased more, and who had greater reductions in fasting plasma glucose after DPP-4 inhibition. K-cell feedback inhibition overall was not significant. There were no differences in any of the clinical variables (glycaemia, insulin and glucagon secretory responses) between vildagliptin and sitagliptin treatment., Conclusions: Vildagliptin and sitagliptin affected incretin hormones, glucose concentrations, insulin and glucagon secretion in a similar manner. Inter-individual variations in L-cell feedback inhibition may indicate heterogeneity in the clinical response to DPP-4 inhibition., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Clinical trials have identified peripheral oedema (PO) as an adverse event of vildagliptin (an oral anti-diabetic drug [OAD]). A post-marketing study (PMS) was conducted to advance the understanding of vildagliptin use and particular safety concerns identified within the risk-management plan. PMS objectives included comparing the hazards between vildagliptin monotherapy and combination therapy for selected a priori identified risks, including PO., Aim: This study was a per-protocol supplementary analysis to investigate the pattern of onset and effect of vildagliptin combination therapy on PO risk., Methods: The PMS used an observational cohort design. OAD exposure, selected risk factors and outcome data were collected from general practitioners in England regarding vildagliptin users for the 6-month period after starting treatment. Data analysis comprised univariate case/non-case analysis, time-to-onset analysis and Cox proportional hazard models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) of PO adjusting for selected patients' baseline characteristics., Results: The study cohort included 4828 patients (median age 63 years; interquartile range [IQR] 54-71), 2692 of whom were male (55.8 %). The crude cumulative hazard of PO was 19.09 cases (95 % confidence interval [CI] 13.54-26.10) per 1000 person-years; 50 % of cases occurred during the first 34 days of treatment. A significantly faster time to PO onset was observed in patients prescribed concomitant sulfonylureas versus other treatment combinations (log rank test [LRT] p = 0.0365); in patients with a prior history of PO (LRT p < 0.001), arrhythmia (LRT p = 0.0003) or hypertension (LRT p = 0.0125); and in patients aged ≥60 years (LRT p = 0.0047). Similarly, the case/non-case univariate analysis indicated that patients with PO were older; had a higher prevalence of a history of either arrhythmia, hypertension or PO; and frequently used a sulfonylurea in combination. In the hazard function analysis, only sex and prior PO history had a profound effect on risk of PO after starting vildagliptin. Furthermore, effect modification was observed between sex and prior PO history; in male patients of average age (62 years), the HR was 12.84 (95 % CI 4.96-33.23); in females, it was 1.44 (95 % CI 0.32-6.40)., Conclusions: In this planned supplementary analysis, the findings suggest that PO occurred most frequently within 1 month after starting treatment with vildagliptin, and previous PO history and male sex in elderly patients were important predictors of this risk. The observation that concomitant use of a sulfonylurea may also increase PO risk early after starting treatment should be taken into consideration if prescribing OADs in combination with vildagliptin.

Introduction: We have previously shown modest weight loss with vildagliptin treatment. Since body weight balance is associated with changes in blood pressure (BP) and fasting lipids, we have assessed these parameters following vildagliptin treatment., Methods: Data were pooled from all double-blind, randomized, controlled, vildagliptin mono-therapy trials on previously drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who received vildagliptin 50 mg once daily (qd) or twice daily (bid; n=2,108) and wherein BP and fasting lipid data were obtained., Results: Data from patients receiving vildagliptin 50 mg qd or bid showed reductions from baseline to week 24 in systolic BP (from 132.5±0.32 to 129.8±0.34 mmHg; P<0.0001), diastolic BP (from 81.2±0.18 to 79.6±0.19 mmHg; P<0.0001), fasting triglycerides (from 2.00±0.02 to 1.80±0.02 mmol/L; P<0.0001), very low density lipoprotein cholesterol (from 0.90±0.01 to 0.83±0.01 mmol/L; P<0.0001), and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (from 3.17±0.02 to 3.04±0.02 mmol/L; P<0.0001), whereas high density lipoprotein cholesterol increased (from 1.19±0.01 to 1.22±0.01 mmol/L; P<0.001). Weight decreased by 0.48±0.08 kg (P<0.001)., Conclusion: This large pooled analysis demonstrated that vildagliptin shows a significant reduction in BP and a favorable fasting lipid profile that are associated with modest weight loss.

Background: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are a class of oral hypoglycemic drugs and are used widely to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus in many countries. Adverse effects include nasopharyngitis, headache, elevated serum pancreatic enzymes, and gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, a few cases of interstitial pneumonia associated with their use have been reported in the Japanese literature. Here we describe a patient who developed drug-induced acute lung injury shortly after the administration of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin., Case Presentation: A 38-year-old Japanese woman with diabetes mellitus developed acute respiratory failure 1 day after administration of vildagliptin. Chest computed tomography revealed nonsegmental ground-glass opacities in her lungs. There was no evidence of bacterial pneumonia or any other cause of her respiratory manifestations. After discontinuation of vildagliptin, she recovered fully from her respiratory disorder. She received insulin therapy for her diabetes mellitus, and her subsequent clinical course has been uneventful., Conclusions: The period of drug exposure in previously reported cases of patients with drug-induced interstitial pneumonia caused by dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor varied from several days to over 6 months. In the present case, our patient developed interstitial pneumonia only 1 day after the administration of vildagliptin. The precise mechanism of her vildagliptin-induced lung injury remains uncertain, but physicians should consider that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor-induced lung injury, although rare, may appear acutely, even within days after administration of this drug.

Background: The multinational EDGE (Effectiveness of Diabetes control with vildaGliptin and vildagliptin/mEtformin) study assessed the effectiveness and tolerability of vildagliptin versus other oral antihyperglycemic drugs (OAD) when added to monotherapy in patients in the real-world setting., Methods: Prospective, real-world observational study. The primary endpoint (PEP) was the proportion of patients achieving a reduction in HbA1c > 0.3% without peripheral edema, hypoglycemia, discontinuation, dueto gastrointestinal event, or weight gain > 5%. The secondary endpoint (SEP) was the proportion of patient achieving HbA1c < 7% (at month 12), without proven hypoglycemia or weight gain (≥ 3%)., Results: Of the 3,523 patients enrolled in Mexico, 2,847 were in the vildagliptin and 676 in the comparator cohort. The PEP was reached in 61.8 and 53.2% in the vildagliptin and comparator cohorts, respectively. The unadjusted odds ratio was 1.42 (95% CI: 1.19-1.68) in favor of vildagliptin. A similar advantage for vildagliptin-based therapies was seen for the SEP. The percentage was lower in the vildagliptin (n = 145; 5.0%) than in the comparator group (n = 95; 14.0%)., Conclusion: Vildagliptin, added to a first-line OAD monotherapy, allows patients to reach target HbA1c without experiencing significant adverse events.

Background: Previous work suggests that Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may respond more favorably to a DPP-4 (dipeptidyl peptidase-4) inhibitor than Caucasians. We aimed to compare the efficacy of the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily [bid]) between Japanese and Caucasian populations., Methods: This analysis pooled data from 19 studies of drug-naïve patients with T2DM who were treated for 12 weeks with vildagliptin 50 mg bid as monotherapy. The pool comprised Japanese patients (n=338) who had been treated in Japan and Caucasian patients (n=1,275) who were treated elsewhere. Change from baseline (Δ) in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at 12 weeks (in millimoles per mole) versus baseline HbA1c (both in percentage National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program units [NGSP%] and millimoles per mole) for each population was reported. Universal HbA1c in millimoles per mole was calculated from either the Japanese Diabetes Society or the NGSP% HbA1c standards., Results: At baseline, mean values for Japanese and Caucasian patients, respectively, were as follows: age, 59 years and 56 years; % male, 69% and 57%. The average HbA1c was reduced from 7.90% to 6.96% (Japanese Diabetes Society) and from 8.57% to 7.50% (United States National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program), while HbA1c was reduced from 63 mmol/mol to 53 mmol/mol and from 70 mmol/mol to 58 mmol/mol in Japanese and Caucasians, respectively. ΔHbA1c increased with increasing baseline in both populations. The slopes were the same (0.41, r (2)=0.36; and 0.41, r (2)=0.15), and the intercepts were 15.4 mmol/mol and 17.2 mmol/mol, respectively. In Japanese patients, mean ΔHbA1c was greater by 1.7 mmol/mol (0.2% NGSP HbA1c) at any given baseline HbA1c than in Caucasians (P=0.01)., Conclusion: The present pooled analysis suggests that Japanese patients respond better to vildagliptin treatment compared with Caucasians. However, when glycemic control was corrected by using the same glycemic standard, the difference in HbA1c reduction between these populations was not clinically meaningful.

Background: Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an acquired subepidermal autoimmune blistering disease in which there are humoral and cellular responses against the BP180 and BP230 antigens. Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors enhance endogenous glucagon peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide secretion with food intake, which leads to insulin secretion, as well as to the reduction of glucagon secretion. Recently, several cases of DPP-4 inhibitor-associated BP have been reported., Objectives: To report 3 cases of DPP-4 inhibitor-associated BP, one of which is due to linagliptin use, as well as to review all currently published cases of DPP-4 inhibitor-associated BP., Case Reports: Three patients diagnosed with BP at our department showed a clear temporal relationship between the introduction of DPP-4 for the treatment of diabetes and the onset of BP. One case was due to linagliptin use, while the other 2 cases were due to an association with vildagliptin-metformin use., Conclusions: This is the first report of linagliptin-associated BP. Furthermore, 2 other cases of vildagliptin-associated BP are reported., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Aims: To report the cardiovascular (CV) safety profile and heart failure (HF) risk of vildagliptin from a large pool of studies, including trials in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), such as those with congestive HF and/or moderate/severe renal impairment., Methods: We conducted a retrospective meta-analysis of prospectively adjudicated CV events. Patient-level data were pooled from 40 double-blind, randomized controlled phase III and IV vildagliptin studies. The primary endpoint was occurrence of major adverse CV events (MACEs; myocardial infarction, stroke and CV death). Assessments of the individual MACE components and HF events (requiring hospitalization or new onset) were secondary endpoints. The risk ratio (RR) of vildagliptin (50 mg once- and twice-daily combined) versus comparators (placebo and all non-vildagliptin treatments) was calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) method., Results: Of the 17 446 patients, 9599 received vildagliptin (9251.4 subject-years of exposure) and 7847 received comparators (7317.0 subject-years of exposure). The mean age of the patients was 57 years, body mass index 30.5 kg/m(2) (nearly 50% obese), glycated haemoglobin concentration 8.1% and T2DM duration 5.5 years. A MACE occurred in 83 (0.86%) vildagliptin-treated patients and 85 (1.20%) comparator-treated patients, with an M-H RR of 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-1.11]. Similar RRs were observed for the individual events. Confirmed HF events were reported in 41 (0.43%) vildagliptin-treated patients and 32 (0.45%) comparator-treated patients, with an M-H RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.68-1.70)., Conclusions: This large meta-analysis indicates that vildagliptin is not associated with an increased risk of adjudicated MACEs relative to comparators. Moreover, this analysis did not find a significant increased risk of HF in vildagliptin-treated patients., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The aim of present study is to compare the efficacy and safety of adding vildagliptin with sulfonylurea dose-increasing as an active comparator in patients who had inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using metformin plus sulfonylurea in real clinical practice. Patients using metformin plus sulfonylurea were assigned to either vildagliptin add-on (50 mg twice a day, n=172) or sulfonylurea dose-increasing by 50% (n=172) treatment groups. The primary endpoint was a change in HbA(1c) after 24 weeks. The secondary endpoints were patients achieving HbA(1c)≤7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and changes in the fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2-h postprandial glucose (2pp), lipid profiles, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio. Body weight and hypoglycemia were also investigated. The mean HbA(1c) at baseline was 8.6% (70 mmol/mol) in both groups. At week 24, the adjusted mean HbA(1c) levels decreased by -1.19% (-13.09 mmol/mol) with vildagliptin add-on and -0.46% (-5.06 mmol/mol) with sulfonylurea (P<0.001). Significantly more vildagliptin add-on patients achieved HbA(1c)≤7.0% (53 mmol/mol) than did sulfonylurea patients (40.1% vs. 7.9%; P<0.001). Greater reductions in FPG and 2pp were observed with vildagliptin add-on than with sulfonylurea (P<0.001). The vildagliptin add-on group exhibited no clinically relevant weight gain and had a lower incidence of hypoglycemia compared with the sulfonylurea group. Vildagliptin add-on therapy might be a suitable option for patients with T2DM that is controlled inadequately by metformin and sulfonylurea, based on its greater glucose control and better safety profile (ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01099137)., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: This study compared the efficacy of vildagliptin and sitagliptin in lowering fasting plasma glucose (FPG) as single-pill combinations (SPCs) with metformin., Methods: The randomized crossover, open-label, active-controlled study design assessed the FPG-lowering abilities of a vildagliptin/metformin (50/1000 mg twice daily) SPC compared with a sitagliptin/metformin (50/1000 mg twice daily) SPC after 2 weeks of treatment in 99 type 2 diabetes patients uncontrolled by stable metformin therapy (1000-2000 mg/day)., Results: The change in FPG from baseline to day 14 was significantly greater (P < 0.02, Wilcoxon) with vildagliptin [-21.9 mg/dL (SD 27.0)] than with sitagliptin [-14.5 mg/dL (SD 23.0)]. After 14 days of treatment, the mean FPG was 137.8 mg/dL (SD 28.5) with vildagliptin and 140.1mg/dL (SD 26.5) with sitagliptin (P < 0.05, Wilcoxon)., Conclusion: Both of these DPP-4 inhibitors, given as SPCs twice daily with metformin, lowered FPG after 14 days of treatment. However, vildagliptin produced a significantly greater reduction in FPG vs baseline compared with sitagliptin, which may translate into clinical relevance., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate tolerability/safety and the efficacy of the combination of vildagliptin plus metformin in a real-life population of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Research Design and Methods: This multicenter, single-arm, 6 month, observational, prospective cohort study was conducted at 39 centers across Turkey. T2DM patients on vildagliptin and metformin for ≤4 weeks were enrolled regardless of their previous antidiabetic therapy., Main Outcome Measures: Efficacy was evaluated by measuring hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. Tolerability/safety parameters evaluated included hypoglycemic events, gastrointestinal events, peripheral edema and weight gain., Results: This study enrolled 665 patients with a mean ± standard deviation (SD) age of 55.1 ± 10.2 years and female predominance (n = 394, 59.2%). Safety was assessed in all enrolled patients. Hypoglycemia was reported in 10 (1.5%) patients (95% confidence interval = 0.8-2.7%). Efficacy was assessed in 289 (43.5%) patients treated for 6 ± 1 months; these patients showed a mean decrease in HbA1c of 0.8% from baseline value of 7.8% (p < 0.001). The percentages of patients who achieved HbA1c targets of ≤6.5% and ≤7.0% were significantly increased, from 10.7% to 33.6% and from 22.1% to 52.6%, respectively (p < 0.001 each). The decrease in HbA1c was independent of baseline HbA1c (≤8% vs. 8-10% vs. ≥10%), age (≤65 vs. >65 years) and body mass index (<30 vs. ≥30 kg/m(2)) (p < 0.001 each). In total, 136 adverse events (AEs) were observed in 71 (10.7%) patients; 10 (1.5%) patients experienced hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal AEs were most commonly reported (n = 29, 4.4%)., Conclusions: In a 'real-life' setting, the vildagliptin and metformin combination was associated with significant improvements in reaching target HbA1c levels, even in elderly and obese patients with T2DM. Moreover, vildagliptin and metformin demonstrated a good overall tolerability/safety profile.

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic progressive disease that requires treatment intensification with antihyperglycemic agents due to progressive deterioration of β-cell function. A large observational study of 45,868 patients with T2DM across 27 countries (EDGE) assessed the effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin as add-on to other oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) versus other comparator OAD combinations. Here, we present results from the Middle East countries (Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, and the United Arab Emirates)., Methods: Patients inadequately controlled with OAD monotherapy were eligible after the add-on treatment was chosen by the physician based on clinical judgment and patient need. Patients were assigned to either vildagliptin or comparator OADs (sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, glinides, α-glucosidase inhibitors, or metformin, except incretin-based therapies) based on the add-on therapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction of >0.3% without peripheral edema, hypoglycemia, discontinuation due to a gastrointestinal event, or weight gain≥5%. One of the secondary endpoints was the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c<7% without hypoglycemia or weight gain. Change in HbA1c from baseline to study endpoint and safety were also assessed., Results: Of the 4,780 patients enrolled in the Middle East, 2,513 received vildagliptin and 2,267 received other OADs. Overall, the mean (±standard deviation) age at baseline was 52.1±10.2 years, mean HbA1c was 8.5%±1.3%, and mean T2DM duration was 4.2±4.0 years. The proportion of patients achieving the primary (76.1% versus 61.6%, P<0.0001) and secondary (54.8% versus 29.9%, P<0.0001) endpoints was higher with vildagliptin than with the comparator OADs. The unadjusted odds ratios for the primary and secondary endpoints were 1.98 (95% confidence interval 1.75-2.25) and 2.8 (95% confidence interval 2.5-3.2), respectively, in favor of vildagliptin. Vildagliptin achieved a numerically greater reduction in HbA1c (1.7%) from baseline versus comparator OADs (1.4%). The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between studied cohorts., Conclusion: In real life, treatment with vildagliptin was associated with a higher proportion of patients with T2DM achieving better glycemic control without tolerability issues in the Middle East.

Aims: Vildagliptin promotes beta cell survival by inhibiting cell apoptosis. It has been suggested that chronic ER (endoplasmic reticulum) stress triggers beta cell apoptosis. The objective of the study is to explore whether the pro-survival effect of vildagliptin is associated with attenuation of endoplasmic reticulum stress in islets of db/db mice., Methods: Vildagliptin was orally administered to db/db mice for 6 weeks, followed by evaluation of beta cell apoptosis by caspase3 activity and TUNEL staining method. Endoplasmic reticulum stress markers were determined with quantitative RT-PCR, immunohistochemistry and immunoblot analysis., Results: After 6 weeks of treatment, vildagliptin treatment increased plasma active GLP-1 levels (22.63±1.19 vs. 11.69±0.44, P<0.001), inhibited beta cell apoptosis as demonstrated by lower amounts of TUNEL staining nuclei (0.37±0.03 vs. 0.55±0.03, P<0.01) as well as decreased caspase3 activity (1.48±0.11 vs. 2.67±0.13, P<0.01) in islets of diabetic mice compared with untreated diabetic group. Further, vildagliptin treatment down-regulated several genes related to endoplasmic reticulum stress including TRIB3 (tribbles homolog 3) (15.9±0.4 vs. 33.3±1.7, ×10⁻³, P<0.001), ATF-4(activating transcription factor 4) (0.83±0.06 vs. 1.42±0.02, P<0.001) and CHOP(C/EBP homologous protein) (0.07±0.01 vs. 0.16±0.01, P<0.001)., Conclusions: Vildagliptin promoted beta cell survival in db/db mice in association with down-regulating markers of endoplasmic reticulum stress including TRIB3, ATF-4 as well as CHOP., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To report three cases of bullous pemphigoid in patients treated with vildagliptin. Case 1: An 86-year-old woman presented with bullous pemphigoid after 1 month of treatment with vildagliptin and metformin. After introduction of clobetasol, the symptoms resolved although vildagliptin was continued. However, the skin lesions reappeared 3 months later. Sustained remission was achieved only after definitive withdrawal of vildagliptin. Case 2: A 79-year-old man presented with bullous pemphigoid after 37-month treatment with gliclazide, vildagliptin and metformin. The disease at first responded to clobetasol but 3 months later the lesions reappeared. They finally regressed when the gliptin was discontinued. Case 3: A 77-year-old woman, treated with gliclazide and vildagliptin for 26 months, presented with bullous pemphigoid, which responded well to discontinuation of the gliptin and topical clobetasol. Gliptins are new molecules for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, which have been suspected of implication in bullous pemphigoid. Such cases have been described in the literature (seven with vildagliptin and three with sitagliptin). In nine of these cases, the gliptin was associated with metformin, but the latter had never been considered responsible. The mechanism implicated in the development of bullous pemphigoid has not yet been clearly identified, but may involve a modified immune response or alteration of the antigenic properties of the epidermal basement membrane. These reports support the risk of bullous pemphigoid in patients exposed to gliptins., (© 2014 Société Française de Pharmacologie et de Thérapeutique.)

Background: To assess the efficacy of a vildagliptin and metformin combination therapy to a metformin monotherapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients., Methods: Sixty-one patients with diabetes inadequately controlled by a metformin monotherapy were randomized to treatment with a combination therapy of vildagliptin 100mg and a metformin versus metformin monotherapy. This was a 12-week randomized parallel group study. During the study we assessed parameters of glycemic and lipid metabolism as well as the treatment effects on the release of proinflammatory and antiinflammatory cytokines., Results: Compared with baseline values we observed a significant improvement of glycaemic parameters such as HbA1c, FPG, PPG, FPI, HOMA-IR and HOMA-β index as well as decrease of TCh, TG and LDL and an increase of HDL with the greatest extent of vildagliptin plus a low-dose metformin therapy group. A metformin combination therapy significantly decreased such inflamation parameters as hs-CRP, ox-LDL, TNF-α and IL-1β levels relative to monotherapies. All treatments were well tolerated and there was no incidence of hypoglycaemia., Conclusions: Vildagliptin added to an ongoing metformin therapy allows to achieve better metabolic control parameters in comparison with a metformin monotherapy and the combination treatment is well tolerated and has a low risk of serious adverse effects., (Copyright © 2014 Institute of Pharmacology, Polish Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier Urban & Partner Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.)

Background: Vildagliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor (DPP4i). Its efficacy and safety of DPP4i in Chilean real life type 2 diabetic (T2D) patients is not well known., Aim: To assess the safety profile and effectiveness of 12 weeks of treatment with Vildagliptin for glycemic control in T2D Chilean patients with a poor glycemic control., Patients and Methods: Retrospective assessment of the effects of Vildagliptin treatment during 12 weeks in 103 T2D patients aged 29 to 92 years (47% males). The main outcomes were changes in glycosylated hemoglobin and the occurrence of adverse effects., Results: After 12 weeks of Vildagliptin use, glycosylated hemoglobin decreased from 8.3 ± 1.4 to 7.2 ± 1.1% (p < 0.01). Fasting plasma glucose and the number of hypoglycemic events also decreased significantly. No significant weight change was observed. The treatment had good compliance, tolerance and patient satisfaction., Conclusions: Vildagliptin treatment reduced glycosylated hemoglobin by 1.1% and was well tolerated in this group of diabetic patients.

Background and Aims: In Italy, the reimbursed use of incretin mimetics and incretin enhancers was subject to enrollment of patients into a web-based system recording the general demographic and clinical data of patients. We report the utilization data of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) receptor agonists and dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors in clinical practice as recorded by the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) Monitoring Registry., Methods and Results: From February 2008 to August 2010, 75,283 patients with type 2 diabetes were entered into the registry and treated with exenatide, sitagliptin, or vildagliptin. The treatment was administered to patients in a wide range of ages (≥75 years, n = 6125 cases), body mass index (BMI) (≥35 kg/m(2), n = 22,015), and metabolic control (HbA(1c) ≥ 11% ((96 mmol/mol), n = 3151). Overall, 1116 suspected adverse drug reactions were registered, including 12 cases of acute pancreatitis (six on exenatide). Hypoglycemic episodes mainly occurred in combination with sulfonylureas. Treatment discontinuation for the three drugs (logistic regression analysis) was negatively associated with the male gender and positively with baseline HbA1c, diabetes duration, and, limitedly to DPP-4 inhibitors, with BMI. Treatment discontinuation (including loss to follow-up, accounting for 21-26%) was frequent. Discontinuation for treatment failure occurred in 7.7% of cases (exenatide), 3.8% (sitagliptin), and 4.1% (vildagliptin), respectively, corresponding to 27-40% of all discontinuations, after excluding lost to follow-up. HbA1c decreased on average by 0.9-1.0% (9 mmol/mol). Body weight decreased by 3.5% with exenatide and by 1.0-1.5% with DPP-4 inhibitors., Conclusions: In the real world of Italian diabetes centers, prescriptions of incretins have been made in many cases outside the regulatory limits. Nevertheless, when appropriately utilized, incretins may grant results at least in line with pivotal trials., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In order to test the hypothesis that the degree of weight change with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor vildagliptin is dependent on the level of glycemic control at baseline, the weight changes from pooled monotherapy studies after 24 weeks of therapy with vildagliptin were assessed versus the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels at baseline., Methods: Data were pooled from eight clinical monotherapy trials including 2,340 previously drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who received vildagliptin monotherapy (50 mg once daily [n=359] or 50 mg twice daily [n=1,981]). The trials were all randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials with a prespecified week 24 study visit., Results: Linear regression analysis of weight change after 24 weeks relative to baseline FPG showed an intercept of -2.259 kg (95% confidence interval -2.86, -1.66; P<0.0001) and a positive slope of 0.1552 kg (95% confidence interval 0.10-0.21; P<0.0001). Neutral caloric balance (no weight change) was observed at a FPG of 14.6 mmol/L (263 mg/dL). Baseline FPG values below and above this threshold were associated with weight loss and weight gain, respectively. For instance, from this analysis, a baseline FPG of 8 mmol/L (144 mg/dL) predicts a weight loss of 1 kg., Conclusion: The present analysis showed that treatment with vildagliptin results in a negative caloric balance when glucose levels are below the renal threshold at baseline.

Background: Cardiovascular disease, endothelial dysfunction, and oxidative stress are common complications among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). In addition to the average blood glucose concentration, glycemic variability may be an important factor for the development of chronic diabetes complications. Patients with T2DM are treated with various types of oral glucose-lowering drugs. Exercise is considered to benefit the health of both healthy and unhealthy individuals, which has been confirmed by a number of scientific research studies in which the participants' health improved. Our general aim in this study will be to evaluate glucose variability after submaximal exercise test in patients receiving treatment with either vildagliptin or glibenclamide. The specific aims of this study are to evaluate the oxidative stress, endothelial function, and metabolic and cardiovascular responses to exercise under treatment with vildagliptin or glibenclamide. All these responses are important in patients with T2DM., Methods/design: This study is a PROBE (Prospective, Randomized, Open-label, Blinded-Endpoint) design clinical trial. The estimated sample needed is 20 patients with T2DM. In addition to the routine treatment (metformin), patients will receive a second drug orally for 12 weeks: the METV group will receive metformin plus vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily), and the METG group will receive metformin plus glibenclamide (5 to 10 mg twice daily.). Before and after intervention, evaluation of glycemic variability, endothelial function, oxidative stress, and metabolic and cardiovascular response will be performed at rest, during and after a submaximal exercise test (30 minutes, with an intensity based at 10% under the heart rate at the second threshold)., Discussion: In addition to drug treatment, exercise is recommended for treatment of glycemic control in patients with T2DM, especially for its beneficial effects on blood glucose and HbA1c. Few studies have determined the effects of the association between exercise and oral glucose-lowering drugs. The study will be conducted to assess the metabolic and cardiovascular responses at rest, and during and after submaximal exercise in patients receiving one of two oral glucose-lowering drugs (vildagliptin or glibenclamide)., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01867502 study release date: May-17-2013.

To compare the efficacy and safety of adding liraglutide, saxagliptin and vildagliptin to current therapy in Chinese type 2 diabetes subjects with poor glycemic control.A 24-week, randomized, open-label, parallel clinical trial was performed. A total 178 patients completed the trial who had been randomly assigned to add-on once daily liraglutide (1.2 mg/day injected subcutaneously), to saxagliptin (5 mg once daily) or to vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily). Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values, fasting and postprandial blood glucose (FBG and P2BG), body weight, body mass index (BMI), episodes of hypoglycemia and adverse events were evaluated.Over the 24-week treatment period, greater lowering of mean of HbA1c was achieved with 1.2 mg liraglutide (-1.50%, 95% CI [-1.67, -1.34]) than with saxagliptin (-1.23%, 95% CI [-1.36, -1.11]) and vildagliptin (-1.25%, 95% CI [-1.37, -1.13]). There was no significant between-group difference of percentages of subjects who reached a target HbA1c<7.0%, but significantly more subjects with liraglutide achieved HbA1c≤6.5% compared with saxagliptin and vildagliptin. The mean reduction of FBG value from baseline was 2.23 mmol/L with liraglutide, much greater than 1.83 mmol/L with saxagliptin (p=0.013), but similar to 2.03 mmol/L with -vildaglitpin group. As to the P2BG value, greater reductions was found with liraglutide (-4.80 mmol/L) than -3.56 mmol/L with saxagliptin (p=0.000) and -3.57 mmol/L with vildagliptin (p=0.000). Moreover, greater mean reductions of body weight and BMI with liraglutide (-6.0 kg and -2.1 kg/m(2)) were achieved than with saxagliptin and vildagliptin (both p<0.001), whereas no significant difference was found between saxagliptin and vildagliptin group. The incidence of hypoglycemia was recorded low and similar in each treatment group. Nausea was more common with liraglutide (27%) than with saxagliptin (3.2%) and vildagliptin (5.2%), but no significant between-group difference was reported in other AEs.Adding liraglutide demonstrated superiority to saxagliptin and vildagliptin for reductions of HbA1c and weight loss in Chinese subjects with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control with conventional oral hypoglycemic agents. These findings support the add-on of liraglutide could offer notable advantages over DPP-4 inhibitors in both efficacy and safety., (© J. A. Barth Verlag in Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

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 were 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., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The purpose of this article is to characterize skin lesions in cynomolgus monkeys following vildagliptin (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor) treatment. Oral vildagliptin administration caused dose-dependent and reversible blister formation, peeling and flaking skin, erosions, ulcerations, scabs, and sores involving the extremities at ≥5 mg/kg/day and necrosis of the tail and the pinnae at ≥80 mg/kg/day after 3 weeks of treatment. At the affected sites, the media and the endothelium of dermal arterioles showed hypertrophy/hyperplasia. Skin lesion formation was prevented by elevating ambient temperature. Vildagliptin treatment also produced an increase in blood pressure and heart rate likely via increased sympathetic tone. Following treatment with vildagliptin at 80 mg/kg/day, the recovery time after lowering the temperature in the feet of monkeys and inducing cold stress was prolonged. Ex vivo investigations showed that small digital arteries from skin biopsies of vildagliptin-treated monkeys exhibited an increase in neuropeptide Y-induced vasoconstriction. This finding correlated with a specific increase in NPY and in NPY1 receptors observed in the skin of vildagliptin-treated monkeys. Present data provide evidence that skin effects in monkeys are of vascular origin and that the effects on the NPY system in combination with increased peripheral sympathetic tone play an important pathomechanistic role in the pathogenesis of cutaneous toxicity., (© 2014 by The Author(s).)

Introduction: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors increase circulating levels of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) and glucose dependent insulinotropic polypeptide regulating glucose-dependent insulin secretion. In addition, GLP-1 suppresses glucagon secretion, delays gastric emptying and increases satiety. The combination of vildagliptin with the biguanide metformin is of particular interest because of its complementary mode of action, addressing insulin resistance, alpha- and beta cell function in the islet of the pancreas., Areas Covered: Because of the abundance of data supporting the use of vildagliptin alone and in combination with metformin, the present paper aims at giving an overview on the current evidence for its use in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus., Expert Opinion: The data suggest that vildagliptin offers similar glycemic control compared to sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones, while having the benefit of being associated with fewer cases of hypoglycemia and less body weight gain. There is increasing evidence that compared with sulfonylureas, vildagliptin has favorable effects on pancreatic alpha- and beta-cell function. Vildagliptin in combination with metformin, improve glycemic control with a favorable safety and tolerability profile, making it an attractive therapeutic option in patients where metformin monotherapy alone is not sufficient.

Background: Several observational studies were conducted with vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) fasting during Ramadan, showing significantly lower incidences of hypoglycemia with vildagliptin versus sulfonylureas, including gliclazide. It was of interest to complement the existing real-life evidence with data from a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial., Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT01758380., Methods: This multiregional, double-blind study randomized 557 patients with T2DM (mean glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 6.9%), previously treated with metformin and any sulfonylurea to receive either vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) or gliclazide plus metformin. The study included four office visits (three pre-Ramadan) and multiple telephone contacts, as well as Ramadan-focused advice. Hypoglycemic events were assessed during Ramadan; HbA(1c) and weight were analyzed before and after Ramadan., Results: The proportion of patients reporting confirmed (<3.9 mmol/L and/or severe) hypoglycemic events during Ramadan was 3.0% with vildagliptin and 7.0% with gliclazide (P=0.039; one-sided test), and this was 6.0% and 8.7%, respectively, for any hypoglycemic events (P=0.173). The adjusted mean change pre- to post-Ramadan in HbA(1c) was 0.05%±0.04% with vildagliptin and -0.03%±0.04% with gliclazide, from baselines of 6.84% and 6.79%, respectively (P=0.165). In both groups, the adjusted mean decrease in weight was -1.1±0.2 kg (P=0.987). Overall safety was similar between the treatments., Conclusion: In line with the results from previous observational studies, vildagliptin was shown in this interventional study to be an effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment in patients with T2DM fasting during Ramadan, with a consistently low incidence of hypoglycemia across studies, accompanied by good glycemic and weight control. In contrast, gliclazide showed a lower incidence of hypoglycemia in the present interventional than the previous observational studies. This is suggested to be linked to the specific circumstances of this study, including frequent patient-physician contacts, Ramadan-focused advice, a recent switch in treatment, and very well-controlled patients, which is different from what is often seen in real life.

Objective: Metformin is an established first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients, but intensification of oral anti-diabetes therapy is usually required over time. A large observational study of 45,868 T2DM patients in 27 countries (EDGE) was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to another oral anti-diabetes drug (OAD) vs other dual OAD combinations. This report presents results from a post-hoc analysis of patients in Germany who received vildagliptin or a sulfonylurea (SU) in combination with metformin., Research Design and Methods: Patients inadequately controlled with monotherapy became eligible only after the add-on treatment was finalized. Patients included were assigned to receive either vildagliptin or another OAD (SUs, thiazolidinediones, glinides, α-glucosidase inhibitors, or metformin; DPP-4 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 [GLP-1] mimetics/analogs were excluded). The primary end-point was the proportion of patients achieving a reduction in HbA1c >0.3% without peripheral edema, hypoglycemia, discontinuation due to gastrointestinal event, or weight gain ≥5%., Results: Of 8887 patients enrolled in Germany, 6439 received vildagliptin and 971 received SUs as add-on to metformin. The primary end-point was reached in 34.9% and 29.6% of patients in the vildagliptin and SU groups, respectively, with an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.27 (95% CI = 1.09, 1.47; p = 0.001). HbA1c decreased in both cohorts from baseline (-0.7% with vildagliptin vs -0.5% with SUs), with a mean between-group difference of -0.2% (95% CI = -0.22, -0.09). The number of hypoglycemic events was 4-fold higher in the SU group than in the vildagliptin group (vildagliptin = 0.11%; SU = 0.41%)., Conclusions: In a real-life setting, vildagliptin was associated with a numerically greater reduction in HbA1c, less hypoglycemia, and more patients reaching target HbA1c without hypoglycemia or weight gain compared with SUs. Open-label design and under reporting of adverse events are limitations of this post hoc analysis.

Aim: The broadly used combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (SU) often fails to bring patients to glycaemic goal. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin plus glimepiride combination in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycaemic control., Methods: A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized patients to receive treatment with vildagliptin 50 mg bid (n = 158) or placebo (n = 160) for 24 weeks., Results: After 24 weeks, the adjusted mean change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was -1.01% with vildagliptin (baseline 8.75%) and -0.25% with placebo (baseline 8.80%), with a between-treatment difference of -0.76% (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients on vildagliptin achieved the HbA1c target <7% (28.3% vs. 5.6%; p < 0.001). The difference in fasting plasma glucose reduction between vildagliptin and placebo was -1.13 mmol/l (p < 0.001). In subgroup of patients with baseline HbA1c ≤8%, vildagliptin reduced HbA1c by 0.74% from baseline 7.82% (between-treatment difference: -0.97%; p < 0.001) with significantly more patients achieving the HbA1c target <7% (38.6% vs. 13.9%; p = 0.014). Vildagliptin was well tolerated with low incidence of hypoglycaemia, slightly higher than with placebo (5.1% vs. 1.9%) and no clinically relevant weight gain., Conclusions: Vildagliptin significantly improved glycaemic control in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin plus glimepiride combination. The addition of vildagliptin was well tolerated with low risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain. This makes vildagliptin an attractive treatment option for patients failing on metformin plus SU particularly in patients with baseline HbA1c ≤8%., (© 2013 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

New-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) is a serious complication after kidney transplantation, but therapeutic strategies remain underexplored. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors selectively foster insulin secretion without inducing hypoglycemia, which might be advantageous in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) with NODAT. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial to assess safety and efficacy of the DPP-4 inhibitor vildagliptin. Intraindividual differences in oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)-derived 2-h plasma glucose (2HPG) from baseline to 3 months after treatment served as primary endpoint. Among secondary outcomes, we evaluated HbA1c, metabolic and safety parameters, as well as OGTTs at 1 month after drug discontinuation. Of 509 stable KTRs who were screened in our outpatient clinic, 63 (12.4%) had 2HPG ≥ 200 mg/dL, 33 of them were randomized and 32 completed the study. In the vildagliptin group 2HPG and HbA1c were profoundly reduced in comparison to placebo (vildagliptin: 2HPG = 182.7 mg/dL, HbA1c = 6.1%; placebo: 2HPG = 231.2 mg/dL, HbA1c = 6.5%; both p ≤ 0.05), and statistical significance was achieved for the primary endpoint (vildagliptin: 2HPG-difference -73.7 ± 51.3 mg/dL; placebo: -5.7 ± 41.4 mg/dL; p < 0.01). Adverse events were generally mild and occurred at similar rates in both groups. In conclusion, DPP-4 inhibition in KTRs with overt NODAT was safe and efficient, providing a novel treatment alternative for this specific form of diabetes., (© Copyright 2013 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Introduction: Metformin monotherapy is recommended as initial treatment of type 2 diabetes. The selection of optimal second-line therapy that is often necessary due to the progressive nature of the disease is still a subject of ongoing discussions., Aim of the Study: The aim of the international EDGE (Effectiveness of Diabetes control with vildaGliptin and vildagliptin/mEtformin) study was to prospectively compare the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin vs other oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled on monotherapy in a real-life clinical setting. In this paper, we present the data of patients participating in the EDGE study in the Czech Republic., Material and Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled on monotherapy were enrolled into the study, and randomised into either the vildagliptin arm or control arm with another OAD at the discretion of the treating physician. Patients with the addition of other incretin-based medications were not enrolled into the study. The efficiency was evaluated as a proportion of patients reaching the combined endpoint of decreasing HbA1c> 3 mmol/mol without hypoglycaemia, peripheral oedema or treatment termination due to gastrointestinal side effects during the 12 months of treatment., Results: 654 patients were enrolled into the study in the Czech Republic. The mean age of the patients when enrolled into the study (vildagliptin group vs control group) was 59.5 ± 10.6 vs 63.7 ± 8.5 years, mean body mass index was 32.4 ± 5.7 vs 31.7 ± 6.5 kg/m2, mean HbA1c was 62 ± 12 vs 64 ± 11 mmol/mol. The probability of reaching the combined primary endpoint (calculated using a binary logistic regression model to calculate the odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals) was higher for vildagliptin regardless of baseline HbA1c or type of medication added in the control group. Primary endpoint was reached by 60.6 % of patients in the vildagliptin group vs 51.3 % of patients in the control group, odds ratio 1.46 (1.06, 1.99); p< 0.019. The proportion of patients reaching secondary endpoint (HbA1c< 54 mmol/mol without hypoglycemic event or weight gain 3 % with baseline glycated hemoglobin > 54 mmol/mol was higher for vildagliptin 45.7 % vs 31.4 % in the control arm, odds ratio 1.84 (1.26, 2.68), p< 0.001. The rate of adverse events was comparable in both groups., Conclusion: In a real-life clinical set-ting, the percentage of patients reaching the combined endpoint of decreasing HbA1c> 3 mmol/mol, without hypoglycaemia, peripheral oedema or treatment termination due to gastrointestinal side effects was higher after the addition of vildagliptin as compared to other antidiabetic agents with comparable rate of side effects.

Aim: Real-life studies are needed to confirm the clinical relevance of findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of vildagliptin add-on vs. other oral antihyperglycaemic drugs (OADs) added to OAD monotherapy in a real-life setting, and to explore the advantages and limitations of large-scale 'pragmatic' trials., Methods: EDGE was a prospective, 1-year, worldwide, real-life observational study in which 2957 physicians reported on the effects of second-line OADs in 45,868 patients with T2DM not reaching glycaemic targets with monotherapy. Physicians could add any OAD, and patients entered either vildagliptin or (pooled) comparator cohort. The primary effectiveness and tolerability end-point (PEP) evaluated proportions of patients decreasing HbA(1c) > 0.3%, without hypoglycaemia, weight gain, peripheral oedema or gastrointestinal side effects. The most clinically relevant secondary end-point (SEP 3) was attainment of end-point HbA(1c) < 7% without hypoglycaemia or ≥ 3% increase in body weight., Results: In this large group of T2DM patients, a second OAD was added at mean HbA(1c) of 8.2 ± 1.3%, with no baseline HbA(1c) difference between cohorts. Second-line OAD therapy attained the PEP in the majority of patients, with higher attainment in those prescribed a vildagliptin-based regimen. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI: 1.42, 1.55; p < 0.001). In patients with baseline HbA(1c) ≥ 7%, SEP 3 was achieved by 35% of patients on a vildagliptin-based combination and by 23% of those receiving comparator combinations. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.96 (95% CI: 1.85, 2.07; p < 0.001). Safety events were reported infrequently and safety profiles of vildagliptin and other OADs were consistent with previous data., Conclusion: EDGE demonstrates that in a 'real-life' setting, vildagliptin as second OAD can lower HbA(1c) to target without well-recognised OAD side effects, more frequently than comparator OADs. In addition, EDGE illustrates that conducting large-scale, prospective, real-life studies poses challenges but yields valuable clinical information complementary to RCTs., (© 2013 The Authors. International Journal of Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: The kidney plays a key role in both the metabolism and excretion of vildagliptin. This study was designed to investigate the effects of varying degrees of renal impairment (RI) on the pharmacokinetics of vildagliptin., Methods: A total of 96 subjects were enrolled, and each subject received vildagliptin 50 mg dosed orally once daily for 14 days. Vildagliptin and metabolite concentrations in plasma and urine were measured on Days 1 and 14., Results: Compared to age-, gender-, BMI-matched subjects with normal renal function, the mean AUC of vildagliptin after 14 days in patients with mild, moderate, and severe RI increased by 40%, 71%, and 100%, respectively, and the Cmax of vildagliptin showed similar and minimal increases of 37%, 32% and 36%, respectively., Conclusions: These pharmacokinetics results suggest that 50 mg once daily is an appropriate dose and recommended for patients with moderate and severe renal impairment.

Background and Aim: Limitations of the currently recommended stepwise treatment pathway for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), especially the failure of monotherapies to maintain good glycemic control, have prompted use of early, more aggressive combination therapies.The VISION study is designed to explore the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as an add-on to metformin therapy compared with up-titration of metformin monotherapy in Chinese patients with T2DM., Methods: VISION, a 24-week, phase 4, prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group study, will include 3312 Chinese T2DM patients aged ≥18 years who are inadequately controlled (6.5% >HbA1c ≤9%) by metformin (750-1000 mg/day). Eligible patients will be randomized to receive either vildagliptin plus metformin or up-titration of metformin monotherapy (5:1). Patients will also be subgrouped (1:1:1:1) based on their age and body mass index (BMI): <60 years and <24 kg/m²; <60 years and ≥24 kg/m²; ≥60 years and <24 kg/m²; and ≥60 years and ≥24 kg/m²., Conclusion: The VISION study will test the hypothesis that early use of combination therapy with vildagliptin and metformin will provide good glycemic control and will be better tolerated than up-titration of metformin monotherapy. The study will also correlate these benefits with age and BMI.