Search

Bruno Detournay,1 Serge Halimi,2,3 Julien Robert,1 Céline Deschaseaux,4 Sylvie Dejager5,6 1Cemka-Eval, Bourg-la Reine, France; 2Department of Diabetology, Endocrinology and Nutrition, Grenoble University Hospital Center, Grenoble, France; 3University Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France; 4Novartis Pharma SAS, Market Access Department, Rueil-Malmaison, France; 5Novartis Pharma SAS, Medical and Scientific Affairs, Rueil Malmaison, France; 6Department of Diabetology, Metabolism and Endocrinology, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, Paris, France Aim: We aimed to compare the frequency of severe hypoglycemia leading to hospitalization (HH) and emergency visits (EV) for any cause in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus exposed to dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors (DPP4-i) versus those exposed to insulin secretagogues (IS; sulfonylureas or glinides). Methods: Data were extracted from the EGB (Echantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires) database, comprising a representative sample of ~1% of patients registered in the French National Health Insurance System (~600,000 patients). Type 2 diabetes mellitus patients exposed to regimens containing either a DPP4-i (excluding treatment with IS, insulin, or glucagon-like peptide 1 analog) or IS (excluding treatment with insulin and any incretin therapy) between 2009 and 2012 were selected. HH and EV during the exposure periods were identified in both cohorts. A similar analysis was conducted considering vildagliptin alone versus IS. Comparative analyses adjusting for covariates within the model (subjects matched for key characteristics) and using multinomial regression models were performed. Results: Overall, 7,152 patients exposed to any DPP4-i and 1,440 patients exposed to vildagliptin were compared to 10,019 patients exposed to IS. Eight patients (0.11%) from the DPP4-i cohort and none from the vildagliptin cohort (0.0%) were hospitalized for hypoglycemia versus 130 patients (1.30%) from the IS cohort (138 hospitalizations) (P=0.02 and P

Martine Duclos,1,2 Sylvie Dejager,3,4 Nicolas Postel-Vinay,5 Sylvie di Nicola,6 Stéphane Quéré,7 Béatrice Fiquet4,5 1Department of Sport Medicine and Functional Explorations, University-Hospital (CHU), G Montpied Hospital; INRA, UNH, CRNH Auvergne, 2Nutrition Department, University of Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, Auvergne, 3Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, La Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, Paris, 4Clinical and Scientific Affairs, Novartis Pharma SAS, Rueil-Malmaison, 5Department of Hypertension, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris, 6Biostatistics, Inferential, Paris, 7Biostatistics, Novartis Pharma SAS, Rueil-Malmaison, France Background: Although physical activity (PA) is key in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and hypertension, it is difficult to implement in practice. Methods: Cross-sectional, observational study. Participating physicians were asked to recruit two active and four inactive patients, screened with the Ricci-Gagnon (RG) self-questionnaire (active if score ≥16). Patients subsequently completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire. The objective was to assess the achievement of individualized glycated hemoglobin and blood pressure goals (

Alfred Penfornis,1 Jean Frédéric Blicklé,2 Béatrice Fiquet,3 Stéphane Quéré,4 Sylvie Dejager3 1Department of Endocrinology-Metabolism and Diabetology-Nutrition, Jean Minjoz Hospital, University of Franche-Comté, Besançon, France; 2Department of Internal Medicine and Diabetology, Strasbourg University Hospital, Strasbourg, France; 3Clinical Affairs, Novartis Pharma SAS, Rueil-Malmaison, France; 4BioStatistics, Novartis Pharma SAS, Rueil-Malmaison, France Background and aim: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is frequent in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and therapeutic management of diabetes is more challenging in patients with renal impairment (RI). The place of metformin is of particular interest since most scientific societies now recommend using half the dosage in moderate RI and abstaining from use in severe RI, while the classic contraindication with RI has not been removed from the label. This study aimed to assess the therapeutic management, in particular the use of metformin, of T2DM patients with CKD in real life. Methods: This was a French cross-sectional observational study: 3,704 patients with T2DM diagnosed for over 1 year and pharmacologically treated were recruited in two cohorts (two-thirds were considered to have renal disease [CKD patients] and one-third were not [non-CKD patients]) by 968 physicians (81% general practitioners) in 2012. Results: CKD versus non-CKD patients were significantly older with longer diabetes history, more diabetic complications, and less strict glycemic control (mean glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.5% versus 7.1%; 25% of CKD patients had HbA1c ≥8% versus 15% of non-CKD patients). Fifteen percent of CKD patients had severe RI, and 66% moderate RI. Therapeutic management of T2DM was clearly distinct in CKD, with less use of metformin (62% versus 86%) but at similar mean daily doses (~2 g/d). Of patients with severe RI, 33% were still treated with metformin, at similar doses. For other oral anti-diabetics, a distinct pattern of use was seen across renal function (RF): use of sulfonylureas (32%, 31%, and 20% in normal RF, moderate RI, and severe RI, respectively) and DPP4-i (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors) (41%, 36%, and 25%, respectively) decreased with RF, while that of glinides increased (8%, 14%, and 18%, respectively). CKD patients were more frequently treated with insulin (40% versus 16% of non-CKD patients), and use of insulin increased with deterioration of RF (19%, 39%, and 61% of patients with normal RF, moderate RI, and severe RI, respectively). Treatment was modified at the end of the study-visit in 34% of CKD patients, primarily to stop or reduce metformin. However, metformin was stopped in only 40% of the severe RI patients. Conclusion: Despite a fairly good detection of CKD in patients with T2DM, RI was insufficiently taken into account for adjusting anti-diabetic treatment. Keywords: therapeutic management, metformin, sulfonylureas, renal disease, type 2 diabetes

Anja Schweizer,1 Serge Halimi,2,3 Sylvie Dejager4 1Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 2Department of Diabetology, Endocrinology and Nutrition, University Hospital of Grenoble, France; 3Joseph Fourier University, Grenoble, France; 4Novartis Pharma SAS, Rueil-Malmaison, France Abstract: A large proportion of Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) elect to fast during the holy month of Ramadan. For these patients hypo- and hyperglycemia constitute two major complications associated with the profound changes in food pattern during the Ramadan fast, and efficacious treatment options with a low risk of hypoglycemia are therefore needed to manage their T2DM as effectively and safely as possible. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors modulate insulin and glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner, and consequently a low propensity of hypoglycemia has consistently been reported across different patient populations with these agents. Promising data with DPP-4 inhibitors have now also started to emerge in patients with T2DM fasting during Ramadan. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the currently available evidence and potential role of DPP-4 inhibitors in the management of patients with T2DM fasting during Ramadan whose diabetes is treated with oral antidiabetic drugs, and to discuss the mechanistic basis for their beneficial effects in this setting. Keywords: dipeptidyl peptidase-4, incretin, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypoglycemia

Sylvie Dejager,1 Anja Schweizer,2 James E Foley31Novartis Pharma SAS, Rueil Malmaison, France; 2Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 3Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USAAbstract: The efficacy and safety of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, vildagliptin, as monotherapy have been widely confirmed in a large body of clinical studies of up to 2 years’ duration in various populations with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This paper reviews the data supporting the use of vildagliptin in monotherapy. Consideration based on baseline glycated hemoglobin levels and age is given to patient segments where metformin is not appropriate. In addition, although prediabetes is not an indication, this manuscript briefly reviews some of the existing data showing that the mechanisms at work in diabetic populations are active in patients currently classified as prediabetic, with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose. Finally, the rationale for vildagliptin dosing frequency in monotherapy is discussed. In summary, this review aims to define where in community practice the use of vildagliptin as monotherapy is most desirable, focusing on segments of the population with type 2 diabetes mellitus that might receive the greatest benefit from vildagliptin in the management of their disease.Keywords: vildagliptin, type 2 diabetes, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, monotherapy, elderly

Anja Schweizer1, Sylvie Dejager2, James E Foley3, Wolfgang Kothny31Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland; 2Novartis Pharma SAS, Rueil-Malmaison, France; 3Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USAAim: Analyzing safety aspects of a drug from individual studies can lead to difficult-to-interpret results. The aim of this paper is therefore to assess the general safety and tolerability, including incidences of the most common adverse events (AEs), of vildagliptin based on a large pooled database of Phase II and III clinical trials.Methods: Safety data were pooled from 38 studies of ≥12 to ≥104 weeks' duration. AE profiles of vildagliptin (50 mg bid; N = 6116) were evaluated relative to a pool of comparators (placebo and active comparators; N = 6210). Absolute incidence rates were calculated for all AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuations due to AEs, and deaths.Results: Overall AEs, SAEs, discontinuations due to AEs, and deaths were all reported with a similar frequency in patients receiving vildagliptin (69.1%, 8.9%, 5.7%, and 0.4%, respectively) and patients receiving comparators (69.0%, 9.0%, 6.4%, and 0.4%, respectively), whereas drug-related AEs were seen with a lower frequency in vildagliptin-treated patients (15.7% vs 21.7% with comparators). The incidences of the most commonly reported specific AEs were also similar between vildagliptin and comparators, except for increased incidences of hypoglycemia, tremor, and hyperhidrosis in the comparator group related to the use of sulfonylureas.Conclusions: The present pooled analysis shows that vildagliptin was overall well tolerated in clinical trials of up to >2 years in duration. The data further emphasize the value of a pooled analysis from a large safety database versus assessing safety and tolerability from individual studies.Keywords: type 2 diabetes, dipeptidyl peptidase-4, edema, safety, vildagliptin

A large proportion of Muslim patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) elect to fast during the holy month of Ramadan. For these patients hypo- and hyperglycemia constitute two major complications associated with the profound changes in food pattern during the Ramadan fast, and efficacious treatment options with a low risk of hypoglycemia are therefore needed to manage their T2DM as effectively and safely as possible. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors modulate insulin and glucagon secretion in a glucose-dependent manner, and consequently a low propensity of hypoglycemia has consistently been reported across different patient populations with these agents. Promising data with DPP-4 inhibitors have now also started to emerge in patients with T2DM fasting during Ramadan. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the currently available evidence and potential role of DPP-4 inhibitors in the management of patients with T2DM fasting during Ramadan whose diabetes is treated with oral antidiabetic drugs, and to discuss the mechanistic basis for their beneficial effects in this setting.

Vildagliptin is a potent and selective inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4), orally active, that improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) primarily by enhancing pancreatic (alpha and beta) islet function. Thus vildagliptin has been shown both to improve insulin secretion and to suppress the inappropriate glucagon secretion seen in patients with T2DM. Vildagliptin reduces HbA(1c) when given as monotherapy, without weight gain and with minimal hypoglycemia, or in combination with the most commonly prescribed classes of oral hypoglycemic drugs: metformin, a sulfonylurea, a thiazolidinedione, or insulin. Metformin, with a different mode of action not addressing beta-cell dysfunction, has been used for about 50 years and still represents the universal first line therapy of all guidelines. However, given the multiple pathophysiological abnormalities in T2DM and the progressive nature of the disease, intensification of therapy with combinations is typically required over time. Recent guidelines imply that patients will require pharmacologic combinations much earlier to attain and sustain the increasingly stringent glycemic targets, with careful drug selection to avoid unwanted adverse events, especially hypoglycemia. The combination of metformin and vildagliptin offers advantages when compared to currently used combinations with additive efficacy and complimentary mechanisms of action, since it does not increase the risk of hypoglycemia and does not promote weight gain. Therefore, by specifically combining these agents in a single tablet, there is considerable potential to achieve better blood glucose control and to improve compliance to therapy.