The objective of this clinical practice guideline is to provide updated and new evidence-based recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, other health care professionals and stakeholders, and individuals with diabetes and their caregivers.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology selected a task force of medical experts and staff who updated and assessed clinical questions and recommendations from the prior 2015 version of this guideline and conducted literature searches for relevant scientific papers published from January 1, 2015, through May 15, 2022. Selected studies from results of literature searches composed the evidence base to update 2015 recommendations as well as to develop new recommendations based on review of clinical evidence, current practice, expertise, and consensus, according to established American Association of Clinical Endocrinology protocol for guideline development.

This guideline includes 170 updated and new evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for the comprehensive care of persons with diabetes. Recommendations are divided into four sections: (1) screening, diagnosis, glycemic targets, and glycemic monitoring; (2) comorbidities and complications, including obesity and management with lifestyle, nutrition, and bariatric surgery, hypertension, dyslipidemia, retinopathy, neuropathy, diabetic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease; (3) management of prediabetes, type 2 diabetes with antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy and glycemic targets, type 1 diabetes with insulin therapy, hypoglycemia, hospitalized persons, and women with diabetes in pregnancy; (4) education and new topics regarding diabetes and infertility, nutritional supplements, secondary diabetes, social determinants of health, and virtual care, as well as updated recommendations on cancer risk, nonpharmacologic components of pediatric care plans, depression, education and team approach, occupational risk, role of sleep medicine, and vaccinations in persons with diabetes.

This updated clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with person-centered, team-based clinical decision-making to improve the care of persons with diabetes mellitus.

This systematic review addresses the central research question, "what is known from the published, peer-reviewed literature about the impact of diabetes on the risk of bacterial urinary tract infections (UTI)?" We examine the results from laboratory studies where researchers have successfully adapted mouse models of diabetes to study the pathophysiology of ascending UTI. These studies have identified molecular and cellular effectors shaping immune defenses against infection of the diabetic urinary tract. In addition, we present evidence from clinical studies that in addition to diabetes, female gender, increased age, and diabetes-associated hyperglycemia, glycosuria, and immune impairment are important risk factors which further increase the risk of UTI in diabetic individuals. Clinical studies also show that the uropathogenic genera causing UTI are largely similar between diabetic and nondiabetic individuals, although diabetes significantly increases risk of UTI by drug-resistant uropathogenic bacteria.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding the once-weekly oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor omarigliptin to treatment of Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control on insulin monotherapy.

In a 52-week clinical trial, Japanese patients on insulin monotherapy were randomized to once-weekly omarigliptin 25 mg (N = 123) or placebo (N = 61) for a 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period. After Week 16, patients continued or switched to omarigliptin for a 36-week open-label period.

From a mean baseline of approximately 8.8%, the Week 16 least squares mean changes in HbA1c were -0.61% (omarigliptin) and 0.29% (placebo); the between-group difference was -0.90% (p < .001). At Week 52, the mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.57% in both the group on omarigliptin for 52 weeks and the group on omarigliptin for 36 weeks (switched from placebo at Week 16). During the first 16 weeks of treatment, the incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, drug-related AEs and discontinuation from trial medication because of an AE were similar in both groups. A slight increase in incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was observed in the omarigliptin group (n = 13 [10.6%]) compared with placebo (n = 4 [6.6%]). No severe hypoglycaemia was reported during the study. No new safety signals emerged with treatment beyond Week 16 through Week 52.

The addition of once-weekly omarigliptin to insulin therapy for up to 52 weeks was generally well tolerated and provided clinically meaningful improvement in glycaemic control throughout the trial period. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02906709.

The placebo response in patients with diabetes mellitus is very common. A systematic evaluation needs to be updated with the current evidence about the placebo response in diabetes mellitus and the associated factors in clinical trials of anti-diabetic medicine.

Literature research was conducted in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published between the date of inception and June 2019. Randomized placebo-controlled trials conducted in type 1and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM/T2DM) were included. Random-effects model and meta-regression analysis were accordingly used. This meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42014009373.

Significantly weight elevation (effect size (ES) = 0.33 kg, 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.61 kg) was observed in patients with placebo treatments in T1DM subgroup while significantly HbA1c reduction (ES = - 0.12%, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.07%) and weight reduction (ES = - 0.40 kg, 95% CI, - 0.50 to - 0.29 kg) were observed in patients with placebo treatments in T2DM subgroup. Greater HbA1c reduction was observed in patients with injectable placebo treatments (ES = - 0.22%, 95% CI, - 0.32 to - 0.11%) versus oral types (ES = - 0.09%, 95% CI, - 0.14 to - 0.04%) in T2DM (P = 0.03). Older age (β = - 0.01, 95% CI, - 0.02 to - 0.01, P < 0.01) and longer diabetes duration (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.03 to - 0.21 × 10^-2, P = 0.03) was significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T1DM. However, younger age (β = 0.02, 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.03, P = 0.01), lower male percentage (β = 0.01, 95% CI, 0.22 × 10^-2, 0.01, P < 0.01), higher baseline BMI (β = - 0.02, 95% CI, - 0.04 to - 0.26 × 10^-2, P = 0.02), and higher baseline HbA1c (β = - 0.09, 95% CI, - 0.16 to - 0.01, P = 0.02) were significantly associated with more HbA1c reduction by placebo in T2DM. Shorter diabetes duration (β = 0.06, 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.10, P < 0.01) was significantly associated with more weight reduction by placebo in T2DM. However, the associations between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response were insignificant after the adjusted analyses.

The placebo response in diabetes mellitus was systematically outlined. Age, sex, disease severity (indirectly reflected by baseline BMI and baseline HbA1c), and disease duration were associated with placebo response in diabetes mellitus. The association between baseline BMI, baseline HbA1c, and placebo response may be the result of regression to the mean.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV) inhibitors when added to insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

PubMed, EMBASE, the Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the efficacy or safety of DPP-IV inhibitors in T2DM patients. The quality of the included RCTs was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. For outcomes, odds ratios or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs were calculated using both random- and fixed-effects models.

A total of 16 studies were included in the meta-analysis with 5418 participants. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was significantly decreased in the DPP-IV inhibitors with insulin (DPP-IVi/INS) group compared with the insulin-alone (with or without placebo) group (WMD = -0.62%; 95% CI: -0.74, -0.49; P < .05). Consistent with this finding, the fasting blood glucose (FBG)-lowering effect (WMD = -0.61 mmol/L; 95% CI: -0.77, -0.45; P < .05) and 2-hour postprandial glucose (2hPPG)-lowering efficacy (WMD = -2.39 mmol/L; 95% CI: -2.81, -1.97; P < .05) in the DPP-IVi/INS group were also significantly better than in the insulin-alone group. Regarding safety indicators, compared with the insulin-alone group, DPP-IVi/INS treatments had no association with the risk of adverse effects, including hypoglycemia, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs).

Compared with insulin treatment alone, treatment with DPP-IVi/INS improved HbA1c, FBG, and 2hPPG without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia, AEs, or SAEs.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i) used in combination with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through June 2018. Studies with at least a 12-week treatment period were included to compare the addition of DPP4i to insulin with insulin control therapy. Meanwhile, groups on a stable insulin dosage (insulin-stable subgroup) or titrating insulin dosage (insulin-flexible subgroup) were analyzed separately.

Twenty-one RCTs with 3697 patients randomized to a DPP4i/insulin treatment arm and 3538 to an insulin control arm were included. DPP4i, when added to insulin therapy, led to a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c (- 0.57%, 95% CI - 0.66, - 0.48) and provided significantly greater odds of achieving the HbA1c target < 7% (OR 3.45; 95% CI 2.58, 4.63). These effects were achieved in the context of a decrease in the daily insulin requirement, without increases in hypoglycemia risk and body weight, compared with the control treatment. Subgroup analysis showed control-adjusted reductions in HbA1c from baseline in the insulin-stable subgroup (-  0.64%; 95% CI - 0.74, - 0.53) and the insulin-flexible subgroup (- 0.43%; 95% CI - 0.56, - 0.30). Other results occurred similarly in both subgroups.

The addition of DPP4i to insulin is associated with a statistically significant reduction in glycemic control as measured by HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, and 2-h postprandial glucose, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain. These conclusions were also observed in both stable-dose and flexible-dose insulin subgroups.

Biodegradable nanoparticles (NPs) have been frequently used as insulin transdermal delivery vehicles due to their grand bioavailability, better encapsulation, controlled release and less toxic properties. However, the skin's barrier properties prevent insulin-loaded NP permeation at useful levels. Nowadays, microneedles have been spotlighted as novel transdermal delivery systems due to their advantages such as painlessness, efficient penetration and no hazardous residues. Herein, we introduce polymeric nanocarriers based on carboxymethyl chitosan (CMCS) for insulin delivery, combining with microneedle therapy systems, which can rapidly deliver insulin (INS) into the skin. The resulting CMCS-based nanocarriers are spherical nanoparticles with a mean size around 200 nm, which could generate supramolecular micelles to effectively encapsulate insulin (EE% = 83.78 ± 3.73%). A nanocrystalline microneedle array (6 × 6, 75/150 μm) was used to penetrate the stratum corneum (SC) for enhancing transdermal insulin delivery, while minimizing the pain sensation caused by intravenous injection. Compared with the transdermal rate of passive diffusion [2.77 ± 0.64 μg (cm-2 h-1)], the transdermal rate of the insulin-loaded NP combined with microneedle penetration shows a 4.2-fold increase [10.24 ± 1.06 μg (cm-2 h-1)] from permeation experiment in vitro. In vivo hypoglycemic experiments demonstrate the potential of using nanocarrier combination with microneedle arrays for painless insulin delivery through the skin in a clinical setting. Thus, the developed combination scheme of nanoparticles and microneedle arrays offers an effective, user-friendly, and low-toxicity option for diabetes patients requiring long-term and multiple treatments.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemigliptin added to a stable dose of insulin alone or of insulin in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. After a two-week run-in period, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive gemigliptin 50 mg or placebo once daily as add-on to background therapy with insulin or insulin plus metformin for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline at Week 24. Baseline characteristics were similar between the gemigliptin (n = 188) and placebo (n = 95) groups in terms of HbA1c (8.1%). At Week 24, the gemigliptin group showed a statistically significant reduction in mean HbA1c from baseline as compared with placebo (between-group mean difference, -0.7% [95% CI, -0.9% to -0.4%]; P-value < 0.0001). The incidence of overall adverse events and the number of hypoglycaemic adverse events were similar between the study groups. Gemigliptin added to insulin alone or to insulin in combination with metformin resulted in superior glycaemic control compared to that in the placebo group and was well tolerated for 24 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, without causing weight gain or increasing the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

To compare the effects of continuing versus discontinuing sitagliptin when initiating and intensively titrating insulin glargine.

Eligible patients had inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on metformin (≥1500 mg/d) in combination with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor and/or a sulphonylurea. Those on metformin + sitagliptin were directly randomized; all others were switched to metformin + sitagliptin (discontinuing other DPP-4 inhibitors and sulphonylureas) and stabilized during a run-in period. At randomization, patients were allocated to continuing sitagliptin or discontinuing sitagliptin, with both groups initiating insulin glargine and titrating to a target fasting glucose of 4.0 to 5.6 mmol/L.

A total of 743 participants (mean glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 72.6 mmol/mol [8.8%], disease duration 10.8 years), were treated. After 30 weeks, the mean HbA1c and least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c were 51.4 mmol/mol (6.85%) and -20.5 mmol/mol (-1.88%) in the sitagliptin group and 56.4 mmol/mol (7.31%) and -15.5 mmol/mol (-1.42%) in the placebo group; the difference in LS mean changes from baseline HbA1c was -5.0 mmol/mol (-0.46%; P < 0.001). The percentage of participants with HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) was higher (54% vs. 35%) and the mean daily insulin dose was lower (53 vs. 61 units) in the sitagliptin group. Despite lower HbA1c, event rates and incidences of hypoglycaemia were not higher in the sitagliptin group. Adverse events overall and changes from baseline in body weight were similar between the two treatment groups.

When initiating insulin glargine therapy, continuation of sitagliptin, compared with discontinuation, resulted in a clinically meaningful greater reduction in HbA1c without an increase in hypoglycaemia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738879.

To improve understanding of the safety and efficacy of adding sitagliptin to treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes taking premixed insulin, data from patients using premixed insulin ± metformin (screening HbA1c ≥7.5% and ≤11%) in either of two clinical trials in which sitagliptin 100 mg once-daily or placebo was added to various formulations of insulin treatment, were analysed. In both trials, insulin doses were to remain stable throughout the 24-week trial period. At week 24, the between-group difference (sitagliptin - placebo) in the least squares mean (95% confidence intervals) change from baseline in HbA1c in patients using premixed insulin was -0.43% (-0.58, -0.28), P <0.001. Adverse events were generally similar between the treatment groups. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycaemia was slightly higher with sitagliptin, and the incidence of hypoglycaemia requiring medical attention was slightly higher with placebo; in both cases the difference was not statistically significant. The data from this pooled analysis confirm the utility of sitagliptin used in combination with premixed insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors could effectively reduce HbA_1C and postprandial hyperglycemia and could incur only minimal danger of hypoglycemia. Patients with uncontrolled diabetes might be treated by the complementary action of insulin plus DPP-4 inhibitors. Here, we compared the all-cause mortality risk between DPP-4 inhibitor users and nonusers with underlying insulin therapy.

Using the population-based National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan, we conducted an 11-year retrospective cohort study. A total of 3120 patients undergoing insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) during 2000-2010 were enrolled. The overall incidence rates for all-cause mortality of 1560 DPP-4 inhibitor users and 1560 matched DPP-4 inhibitor nonusers were compared.

No significant difference was found in the baseline demographic and clinical variables of the two groups of patients. Median follow-up period for the matched cohort was 1.67 years. All-cause mortality was observed in 93 (6.0%) of 1560 DPP-4 inhibitor nonusers and 36 (2.3%) of 1560 DPP-4 users. The incidence rate of mortality was 11.72 for DPP-4 inhibitor users and 38.16 per 1000 person-years for DPP-4 inhibitor nonusers. After multivariate adjustment, DPP-4 inhibitor users ran a reduced mortality risk (adjusted hazard ratio 0.32, 95% CI 0.22-0.47; p < 0.0001) than did the nonusers.

Risk of all-cause mortality may be reduced when using insulin plus DPP-4 inhibitors than when using insulin plus non-DPP-4 inhibitors.

In the 1990s it was discovered that the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inactivates the incretin hormones glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). DPP-4 inhibition results in raised levels of the two incretin hormones which in turn result in lowering of circulating glucose through stimulation of insulin secretion and inhibition of glucagon secretion. Since then, several small orally available molecules have been developed with DPP-4 inhibitory action. Early studies in the 1990s showed that the DPP-4 inhibitors improve glycemia in animals. Subsequent clinical studies during the 2000s showed a glucose-lowering action of DPP-4 inhibitors also in human subjects with type 2 diabetes. This action was seen when DPP-4 inhibitors were used both as monotherapy and as add-on to other therapies, i.e., metformin, sulfonylureas, tiazolidinediones or exogenous insulin. The DPP-4 inhibitors were also found to have a low risk of adverse events, including hypoglycemia. Five of the DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, vildagliptin, alogliptin, saxagliptin and linagliptin) were approved by regulatory authorities and entered the market between 2006 and 2013. DPP-4 inhibitors have thereafter undergone long-term cardiovascular outcome trials, showing non-inferiority for risk of major acute cardiovascular endpoints. Also the risk of other potential adverse events is low in these long-term studies. DPP-4 inhibitors are at present included in guidelines as a glucose-lowering concept both as monotherapy and in combination therapies. This article summarizes the development of the DPP-4 inhibition concept from its early stages in the 1990s. The article underscores that the development has its basis in scientific studies on pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes and the importance of targeting the islet dysfunction, that the development has been made possible through academic science in collaboration with the research-oriented pharmaceutical industry, and that the development of a novel concept takes time and requires focused efforts, persistence and long-term perserverance.

Addition of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may achieve better glycemic control. However, results of pilot randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are inconsistent. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of RCTs to evaluate efficacy and safety of DPP4 inhibitors compared with placebo/no treatment as add-on therapy to insulin in T2DM patients.

Relevant studies were identified via a search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. A fixed or random effect model was applied according to the heterogeneity.

Overall, 22 RCTs with 6,957 T2DM patients were included. Addition of DPP4 inhibitors to insulin was associated with significantly reduced HbA1c as compared with controls (weighed mean difference [WMD]: -0.54%, p<0.001). The benefits of DPP4 inhibitors as add-on therapy on HbA1c were independent of study design, follow-up duration, categories of DPP4 inhibitors used, and using of fixed/adjustable insulin doses as indicated by predefined subgroup analyses. Moreover, addition of DPP4 inhibitors to insulin was associated with significantly reduced fasting blood glucose (WMD: -0.47mmol/L, p<0.001), postprandial glucose at 2 hrs (WMD: -2.03 mmol/L, p<0.001), and daily dose of insulin (WMD: -2.73U/d, p<0.001), while body weight (WMD: 0.02 g, p=0.81) or risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia (risk ratio: 0.92, p=0.37) were not affected.

Addition of DPP4 inhibitors to insulin significantly improved the glycemic control in T2DM patients without further increasing the risk of weight gain and hypoglycemia.

The safety and efficacy of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors as monotherapy or in combination with other oral antidiabetic agents or basal insulin are well established. DPP4 inhibitors stimulate glucose-dependent insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon production. As monotherapy, they reduce the hemoglobin A1c level by about 0.6-0.8%. The addition of a DPP4 inhibitor to basal insulin is an attractive option, because they lower both postprandial and fasting plasma glucose concentrations without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain. The present review summarizes the extensive evidence on the combination therapy of DPP4 inhibitors and insulin-based regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes. We focus our discussion on challenging clinical scenarios including patients with chronic renal impairment, elderly persons and hospitalized patients. The evidence indicates that these drugs are highly effective and safe in the elderly and in the presence of mild, moderate and severe renal failure improving glycemic control with low risk of hypoglycemia. In addition, several randomized-controlled trials have shown that the use of DPP4 inhibitors in combination with basal insulin represents an alternative to the basal-bolus insulin regimen in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combining insulin therapy with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors compared with combining insulin therapy with a placebo or other antihyperglycemic agents.

A literature search was carried out via electronic databases. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing the addition of DPP-4 inhibitors to insulin with the addition of a placebo or other active hypoglycemic agents to insulin therapy, study duration of no less than 12 weeks carried out in type 2 diabetes patients and the availability of outcome data to evaluate a change in the glycated hemoglobin.

The glycated hemoglobin-lowering efficacy was significantly greater with DPP-4 inhibitor/insulin (DPP-4i/INS) than with placebo/insulin (weighted mean difference -0.53%, 95% confidence interval -0.63, -0.43, P < 0.01). The postprandial plasma glucose-lowering efficacies was also significantly greater with DPP-4i/INS than with placebo/insulin (weighted mean difference -1.65 mmol/L, 95% CI: -2.34, -0.96, P < 0.05). The risk of hypoglycemia or severe hypoglycemia was similar for DPP4i/INS and placebo/insulin treatments. There was no significant difference in the glycemia-lowering efficacy between DPP-4i/INS and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors/insulin, thiazolidinedione/insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist/insulin. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor/insulin treatment achieved better placebo-corrected efficacy in lowering postprandial plasma glucose, with less weight gain and no higher risk of hypoglycemia.

Treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors combined with insulin improved glycemic control without an increased risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain compared with insulin treatment alone.

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of saxagliptin for type 2 diabetes (T2D).

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and two Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing saxagliptin with placebo or active comparators was performed up to July 2017. A complementary search was done to cover literature until March 2018. For continuous data, estimates were pooled using inverse variance methodology to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs). Dichotomous data were presented as Mantel-Haenzel risk ratios (RRs).

Thirty-nine references of 30 RCTs involving 29,938 patients were analyzed. Compared with placebo, saxagliptin significantly reduced glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, WMD -0.52%, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.44) and fasting plasma glucose (WMD -13.78 mg/dL, 95% CI -15.31 to -12.25), and increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.53 to 1.75). When combined with submaximal-dose metformin, saxagliptin significantly increased the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7% compared with acarbose (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.83) and uptitrated metformin (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.63). Saxagliptin was similar to other DPP-4 inhibitors but inferior to liraglutide and dapagliflozin on glycemic control. Saxagliptin significantly decreased the incidences of overall adverse events compared with acarbose (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89) and liraglutide (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) when added to metformin. Weight gain and hypoglycemia with saxagliptin was slightly but significantly higher than placebo and lower than sulfonylureas. Saxagliptin did not increase the risk of arthralgia, heart failure, pancreatitis and other adverse events.

Generally, saxagliptin has similar efficacy compared with most oral antidiabetic drugs and may be more effective than acarbose, while having a better safety profile than both acarbose and sulfonylureas.

This prospective, multicentre, phase III study (NCT02104804) evaluated the efficacy and safety of saxagliptin add-on therapy in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin ± metformin. Patients with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5% to 10.5% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <15 mmol/L (270 mg/dL) on stable insulin therapy (20-150 U/d) were randomized (1:1) to saxagliptin 5 mg once daily (N = 232) or placebo (N = 230) for 24 weeks, stratified by metformin use. The primary efficacy measure was change in HbA1c. Saxagliptin treatment resulted in a greater adjusted mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 than placebo (-0.58%; P < .001), irrespective of metformin use, and a greater mean change in FPG (0.9 mmol/L [-15.9 mg/dL]; P < .001). More patients achieved HbA1c <7% with saxagliptin (11.4%) than with placebo (3.5%, P = .002). Adverse events and incidence of hypoglycaemia were similar in both groups. Overall, add-on saxagliptin 5 mg once daily significantly improved glycaemic control without increasing hypoglycaemia risk and was well tolerated in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by insulin (± metformin).

To assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly omarigliptin as monotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

People with T2DM not on glucose-lowering medications, or who were washed off monotherapy or low-dose dual therapy, were randomized double-blind to omarigliptin 25 mg (n=165) or matching omarigliptin placebo (n=164) for 24 weeks, followed by a 30-week period to assess continuing efficacy and safety longer-term of omarigliptin during which metformin was added to the placebo group and metformin placebo to the omarigliptin group.

From a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.0-8.1%, the least squares mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24 (primary endpoint) was -0.49% (-0.73, -0.24) in the omarigliptin group and -0.10% (-0.34, 0.14) in the placebo group, for a between-group difference of -0.39% (-0.59, -0.19) (p<.001). Protocol deviation in use of metformin by 38 of 252 (15%) people whose samples were available for evaluation probably attenuated glycemic efficacy results, as suggested by the LS mean difference -0.53% (-0.75, -0.32) after censoring of such participants. At 24 and 54 weeks, the incidences of adverse events (AEs) were similar in the omarigliptin and placebo groups. During 54 weeks there were no AEs of symptomatic hypoglycemia in the omarigliptin group and 5 AEs in the placebo group. Over 54 weeks, a majority of the omarigliptin treatment had a persistent reduction in HbA1c, remaining rescue-free.

In people with T2DM, omarigliptin monotherapy improved glycemic control over 54 weeks and was generally well tolerated with a low risk of hypoglycemia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01717313. EudraCT Number: 2012-003626-24.

We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), or thiazolidinedione (TZD) as an adjunctive treatment in patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on insulin therapy. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through April 2016. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed with covariate adjustment. The primary outcome was the change in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline. Fifty randomized controlled trials covering 15,494 patients were included. GLP-1RA showed the greatest HbA1c-lowering effect compared to the control (-0.84%; 95% credible interval, -1.00% to -0.69%), followed by TZD (-0.73%; -0.93 to -0.52%), SGLT2i (-0.66%; -0.84% to -0.48%), and DPP4i (-0.54%; -0.68% to -0.39%). SGLT2i showed the greatest fasting plasma glucose reduction. GLP-1RA and SGLT2i showed greater body weight reduction, whereas TZD increased body weight. TZD was ranked the highest in terms of insulin dose reduction. The risk of hypoglycemia was increased with TZD or GLP-1RA. The study provides the best available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of non-insulin anti-diabetic agents on top of pre-existing insulin therapy for inadequately controlled T2DM patients.

The first clinical study to investigate effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition was published in 2002, and since then, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that DPP-4 inhibitors are efficacious, safe and well-tolerated. This review will focus upon RCTs which have investigated DPP-4 inhibitors in patient groups which are often under-represented or excluded from typical phase 3 clinical trials. Large cardiovascular (CV) safety outcome trials in patients with established CV disease have confirmed that DPP-4 inhibitors are not associated with any additional CV risk in these already-at-high-risk individuals, while raising awareness of any uncommon adverse events, such as heart failure hospitalization seen in one of the trials. Studies in patients with kidney disease have shown DPP-4 inhibitors to be efficacious without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia, irrespective of the degree of renal impairment, while data from the large CV trials as well as smaller RCTs have even pointed towards potential renoprotective effects such individuals. The use of DPP-4 inhibitors with insulin when therapy requires intensification may be beneficial without affecting the incidence or severity of hypoglycaemia, with these effects also being replicated in patients with chronic kidney disease, for whom other agents may not be suitable. Attention is now turning towards exploring the potential utility of DPP-4 inhibitors in other circumstances, including for in-hospital management of hyperglycaemia and in other metabolic disorders. Together, these RCTs raise the possibility that in the future, DPP-4 inhibitors may have a broader use which may extend beyond glycaemic control in the typical type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patient seen in general practice and may encompass conditions other than T2DM.

A large number of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin do not reach their HbA1c goals and require additional therapy to address postprandial hyperglycemia. Guidelines from expert bodies have outlined several approaches to accomplish postprandial glucose (PPG) control, and recent literature suggests several more. This article provides strategies for primary care physicians caring for patients with T2D who do not achieve glycemic control with basal insulin alone. Current treatment guidelines and strategies for improving PPG control are reviewed, including the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rapid-acting insulin (RAI) analogs, premixed insulin, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and α-glucosidase inhibitors. Other approaches, such as combinations of newer basal insulin plus RAI and a fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA, are also described.

Saxagliptin is a potent, reversible inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 that is indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The DIAPAZON study was a multicenter observational study intended to document the effectiveness, safety and patterns of saxagliptin use in France, including the saxagliptin retention rate, over 2 years of follow-up.

A geographically representative sample of 304 French physicians (general practitioners and specialist endocrinologists or diabetologists) recruited 1131 adults with type 2 diabetes into an ambispective cohort; 1033 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All had started saxagliptin during the previous 6 months or at study inclusion, and follow-up was for 24 ± 3 months after starting saxagliptin.

The mean age of the study population when starting saxagliptin was 61 years, and the mean HbA1c level was 8.0%; 79% had an HbA1c level ≥7%. Prior to starting saxagliptin treatment, most participants (91%) were receiving treatment with oral glucose-lowering drugs alone. The most commonly prescribed regimen at starting saxagliptin (53% of participants) was a combination of saxagliptin and metformin. The overall saxagliptin retention rate at 2 years was 79%, as estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. The most common reasons for discontinuation were inadequate glycemic control (52%) and intolerance (22%). During the course of the study, the mean HbA1c level decreased to 7.0%, and the percentage of people with HbA1c <7% increased from 21% to 49%. The mean change in body weight was -1.8 kg. A total of 294 hypoglycemic episodes were reported in 70 participants (6.8%) during the follow-up period. Of these, 143 episodes in 41 participants (4.0%) occurred when saxagliptin was used in combination with agents associated with hypoglycemia, such as insulin, sulfonylureas or glinides.

Saxagliptin is efficacious and well tolerated in a real-world practice setting, with almost 80% of participants remaining on treatment after 2 years.

AstraZeneca, France.

The efficacy and safety of seven regimens based on metformin (placebo plus metformin, dapagliflozin plus metformin, vildagliptin plus metformin, saxagliptin plus metformin, empagliflozin plus metformin, exenatide plus metformin and sitagliptin plus metformin) on type 2 diabetes (T2D) were compared based on network meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were applied in the computer-based retrieval process. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which were related with the above seven regimens based on metformin in the treatment of T2D were included in this study. Network meta-analysis merged the direct and indirect comparison evidence for the estimation of the weighted mean difference (WMD), odd ratios (ORs) and surface under the cumulative sequencing ranking curve (SUCRA) values. Eight eligible RCTs were applied in this network meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that: in terms of efficacy, the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of T2D patients receiving vildagliptin plus metformin were relatively lower when compared with placebo plus metformin (WMD=-1.95, 95%CI=-3.70--0.23); in comparison with exenatide plus metformin, the triglyceride level in T2D patients taking vildagliptin plus metformin remained relatively lower (WMD=-1.36, 95%CI=-2.64--0.01). In terms of safety, the rate of adverse events in patients with T2D who received empagliflozin plus metformin was relatively lower when compared with saxagliptin plus metformin (OR=0.37, 95%CI=0.14-0.98). Furthermore, the SUCRA value of vildagliptin plus metformin was comparatively higher in efficacy, and that the SUCRA value of saxagliptin plus metformin was relatively lower in safety. The efficacy of vildagliptin plus metformin in patients with T2D is relatively better, while the safety of saxagliptin plus metformin in patients with T2D is relatively poorer.

This meta-analysis of data from 14 phase 2 and 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled 12- and 24-week studies (N = 4632) summarizes saxagliptin efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) across treatment regimens.

Patients received saxagliptin 5 mg/d or control as either monotherapy (n = 1196 vs placebo), add-on therapy (n = 2139 vs placebo and n = 514 vs uptitrated sulfonylurea), or initial combination therapy (n = 619 vs control monotherapy). Patients with renal impairment received saxagliptin 2.5 mg/d or placebo (n = 164).

Mean baseline glycated hemoglobin (A1C) ranged from 8.07% to 9.43% for the saxagliptin and control groups across treatment regimens. A1C reduction from baseline was greater with saxagliptin versus control for all studies combined (mean treatment difference [95% CI]: -0.55% [-0.63%, -0.47%]) and when used as monotherapy (-0.52% [-0.63, -0.40%]), add-on (-0.55% [-0.69%, -0.40%] vs placebo; -0.72% [-0.88%, -0.56%] vs uptitrated sulfonylurea), initial combination therapy (-0.54% [-0.73%, -0.35%] vs control monotherapy), and in patients with renal impairment (-0.42% [-0.75%, -0.09%]). Similar reductions in A1C versus control were noted for patients <65 years (-0.55% [-0.67%, -0.43%]) and ≥65 years (-0.54% [-0.69%, -0.38%]) and for men (-0.54% [-0.69%, -0.40%]) and women (-0.55% [-0.64%, -0.47%]) across treatment regimens. More patients achieved A1C <7% (39% vs 23%) and A1C ≤6.5% (24% vs 14%) with saxagliptin than with placebo or active-control treatment. Saxagliptin versus control was associated with a reduction in glucagon area under the curve (AUC) from baseline and increases in insulin AUC, C-peptide AUC, and the homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function.

Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate the consistency of saxagliptin efficacy in different subgroups of patients with T2D across treatment regimens.

AstraZeneca.

Large randomized trials have shown conflicting evidence regarding the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Systematic reviews have been limited by incomplete data and inclusion of observational studies. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared DPP-4 inhibitors versus placebo and reported cardiovascular outcomes. The main outcome assessed in this analysis was heart failure. Other outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were primarily constructed using Peto's model.

A total of 90 trials with 66,730 patients were included. Compared with placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a non-significant increased risk of heart failure [OR 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.25, P = 0.07] at a mean of 108 weeks. The risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12, P = 0.53), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.14, P = 0.72), myocardial infarction (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.09, P = 0.69), and ischemic stroke (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85-1.15, P = 0.92) was similar between both groups.

In patients with type 2 diabetes, the safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors is similar to placebo. As a class, there is only weak evidence for an increased risk of heart failure.

As type 2 diabetes mellitus progresses, most patients require treatment with basal insulin in combination with another agent to achieve recommended glycaemic targets. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the evidence supporting the use of the available add-on treatments [rapid-acting insulin (RAI), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors] to basal insulin.

MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBSCOhost were searched for English-language articles, and all those captured were original articles (case studies and narrative reviews were omitted). Data on study design, population demographics, interventions and outcomes were tabulated. The extracted outcome data included changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), as well as body weight and safety data.

A total of 88 publications were deemed relevant. All treatments reduced HbA_1c and FPG. The most pronounced reductions in PPG, an unmet need in patients not controlled by basal insulin, were seen following administration of RAIs and short-acting GLP-1 RAs, although data for this outcome are generally lacking. Body weight benefits were observed with GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2 inhibitors. However, as only articles in English were included, the result was a possible publication bias, while the diversity of study designs and drug combinations limited comparisons between studies.

The evidence supports effectiveness of the available add-on treatments to basal insulin. However, other factors, such as potential body-weight increases, convenience/compliance and adverse events, particularly hypoglycaemia, should be considered on a patient-by-patient basis to optimalize treatment outcomes.

Both sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors can be used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) that is inadequately controlled with insulin therapy, and yet there has been no direct comparison of these two inhibitors.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2015. Randomized controlled trials published in English that compare SGLT2 inhibitor plus insulin (SGLT2i/INS) with placebo plus insulin or DPP4 inhibitor plus insulin (DPP4i/INS) with placebo plus insulin in patients with T2DM were selected. Data on the study characteristics, efficacy and safety outcomes were extracted. We compared the efficacy and safety between SGLT2i/INS and DPP4i/INS indirectly with covariates adjustment. Risk of potential bias was assessed.

Fourteen eligible randomized controlled trials comprising 6980 patients were included (five SGLT2 inhibitor studies and nine DPP4 inhibitor studies). Covariate-adjusted indirect comparison using meta-regression analyses revealed that SGLT2i/INS achieved greater reduction in HbA_1c [weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.24%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.43 to -0.05%], fasting plasma glucose (WMD -18.0 mg/dL, 95% CI -28.5 to -7.6 mg/dL) and body weight (WMD -2.38 kg, 95% CI -3.18 to -1.58 kg) from baseline than DPP4i/INS without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia (relative risks 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.82).

Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors achieved better glycaemic control and greater weight reduction than DPP4 inhibitors without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia in patients with T2DM that is inadequately controlled with insulin. There has been no direct comparison of SGLT2 inhibitors and DPP4 inhibitors in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with insulin therapy. In this study, we performed indirect meta-analysis comparing SGLT2 inhibitors and DPP4 inhibitors added to insulin therapy. Without increasing hypoglycaemia, SGLT2 inhibitors showed better glycaemic control and greater weight reduction than DPP4 inhibitors in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with insulin. The results of the current study could serve as the best available evidence in selecting oral agents to improve glycaemic control in insulin-treated T2DM patients. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The aim of this article is to review the safety and efficacy data of dapagliflozin, saxagliptin, and their combination in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes. Evidence for the use of the single-tablet combination formulation is also presented.

A nonsystematic literature review was performed using the Ovid, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases.

The addition of dapagliflozin/saxagliptin to metformin can lower mean hemoglobin A1c by as much as 1.47% and lead to weight loss of 0.5-2.0 kg. The risk of genital infections with combination therapy is lower than observed with dapagliflozin alone, suggestive of a protective effect. Adverse event risk at 52-week follow-up was not increased beyond that seen with either monotherapy.

Dapagliflozin/saxagliptin combination is generally well tolerated and is an effective tool in helping patients with diabetes improve glycemic control.

The present study aims to evaluate the risk of pancreatic cancer with incretin-based therapy among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible studies published up to March 06 2016. This meta-analysis includes all studies reporting adverse events of pancreatic cancer with use of incretin-based therapies compared with placebo or non-incretin anti-diabetic drugs in patients with T2DM. We used fixed-effect model to compare pooled relative risk (RR) with related 95% confidence intervals (CI).

A total of 159 randomized trials were identified. Out of these, 135 studies were excluded as pancreatic cancer occurrence had not been included as an end point. The remaining 24 trials enrolling 47,904 participants were further assessed. Overall, no increased risk of pancreatic cancer were detected in association with incretin-based treatment (RR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.37-1.05). The incidence of pancreatic neoplasm was even lower among incretin-based groups than controls (RR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87) in trials with duration more than 104 weeks. There was even decreased risk of pancreatic cancer within groups paralleled by incretin-matched placebos (RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.93) than by non-incretin anti-diabetic drugs. Neither monotherapy (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.38-1.01) nor combination regimen (RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.45-1.90) of incretin mimetics increased the risk of pancreatic cancer.

This meta-analysis shows that incretin-based therapies are not associated with increase in the risk of pancreatic cancer. Interestingly, subgroup analyses suggested lower risk of pancreatic cancer in incretin groups than placebo in long-term studies (>104 weeks). Considering the inconsistent results among randomized trials and previous epidemiological investigations, more such studies should be conducted to clarify the existence or non-existence of this association.

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 81270476 and 81470830).

Progressive impairment of insulin secretion in people with type 2 diabetes leads to blood glucose concentrations worsening over time, often resulting in escalation of blood glucose lowering therapy.¹ In 2015/2016, more money was spent on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors ('gliptins') than on any other class of antidiabetic drug except for insulins.² In 2008, we reviewed sitagliptin and vildagliptin.³ Here, we briefly review three other DPP-4 inhibitors, saxagliptin (Onglyza-AstraZeneca), linagliptin (Trajenta-Boehringer Ingelheim) and ▼alogliptin (Vipidia-Takeda), and consider data from recent cardiovascular outcomes studies.

To determine if reduction in serum insulin with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin or dapagliflozin add-on to metformin contributed to increased insulin clearance and to assess the effects of these treatments on β-cell function.

Patients (glycated hemoglobin, 8 to 12%; 64 to 108 mmol/mol) were randomized to 24-week, double-blind treatment with saxagliptin 5 mg/day plus dapagliflozin 10 mg/day (n = 179), saxagliptin 5 mg/day plus placebo (n = 176), or dapagliflozin 10 mg/day plus placebo (n = 179) added to metformin. C-peptide to insulin ratio was used as an index of insulin clearance during a meal tolerance test, and β-cell function was evaluated by Homeostasis Model Assessment 2.

At 24 weeks, compared with baseline, saxagliptin + dapagliflozin and saxagliptin + placebo increased mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) C-peptide area under the curve (AUC_{0-180 min}) (40.2 [9.2 to 71.3] ng/mL and 95.4 [63.4 to 127.4] ng/mL, respectively); no change was noted with dapagliflozin + placebo (14.5 [-17.6 to 46.8] ng/mL). Insulin AUC was reduced from baseline with saxagliptin + dapagliflozin (-1,120.4 [-1,633.9 to -606.9] μU/mL) and dapagliflozin + placebo (-1,018.6 [-1550.5 to -486.8] μU/mL) but increased with saxagliptin + placebo (661.2 [131.1 to 1,191.3] μU/mL). C-peptide to insulin ratio did not change versus baseline with saxagliptin + placebo but increased after saxagliptin + dapagliflozin and dapagliflozin + placebo, largely due to decreased insulin AUC with dapagliflozin. All treatments improved β-cell function (mean change [95% CI] from baseline, saxagliptin+dapagliflozin: 20.6% [16.5% to 24.8%]; dapagliflozin + placebo: 17.0% [12.7% to 21.4%]; saxagliptin + placebo: 11.0% [6.6% to 15.5%]).

Increased C-peptide to insulin ratio with saxagliptin + dapagliflozin and dapagliflozin + placebo add-on to metformin compared with saxagliptin + placebo add-on to metformin suggests that dapagliflozin increases insulin clearance and may contribute to lower circulating insulin. All treatments improved β-cell function, with the greatest improvements with saxagliptin + dapagliflozin and dapagliflozin + placebo.

A1c = glycated hemoglobin AUC_{0-180 min} = area under the curve from 0 to 180 minutes HOMA-2β = homeostasis model assessment-2 β-cell function SGLT-2 = sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Combining insulin with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors as glucose-lowering therapy for type 2 diabetes is a promising strategy that has gained considerable interest over the past few years. One advantage of this combination is the complementary mechanistic actions of insulin and GLP-1. Insulin increases glucose utilization and retards hepatic glucose production through direct actions in muscle, adipose tissue and the liver. On the other hand, GLP-1 stimulates insulin secretion, inhibits glucagon secretion and retards gastric emptying. Combining these effects results in powerful reductions in both fasting and postprandial glucose through diminished glucose entry into the bloodstream after food consumption, reduced hepatic production of glucose and increased glucose utilization. In addition, GLP-1 receptor agonists induce satiety, leading to decreases in food intakes and body weight, thereby preventing the weight gain often seen with insulin therapy. Clinical trials have verified that these physiological effects as a result of combining insulin with GLP-1 receptor agonists or DPP-4 inhibitors can indeed result in improved glycaemia, with limited risks of hypoglycaemia and weight gain.

Type 2 diabetes is a complex, chronic, and progressive condition that often necessitates the use of multiple medications to achieve glycemic goals. Clinical guidelines generally recommend intensifying pharmacotherapy if glycemic goals are not achieved after 3 months of treatment. However, for many patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment intensification is delayed or does not occur. Initiating combination therapy early in the disease course has the potential to delay disease progression and improve patient outcomes. Guidelines generally provide a list of agents that may be used in combination regimens and emphasize individualization of treatment. The purpose of this review is to discuss the rationale for combination therapy, considering treatment effects on pathophysiologic aspects of type 2 diabetes and individual drug profiles. The combination of newer antidiabetes therapies with complementary mechanisms of action provides the opportunity to target multiple sites of tissue, organ, and cellular dysfunction.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a new class of oral antidiabetic agent for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. They increase endogenous levels of incretin hormones, which stimulate glucose-dependent insulin secretion, decrease glucagon secretion, and contribute to reducing postprandial hyperglycemia. Although DPP-4 inhibitors have similar benefits, they can be differentiated in terms of their chemical structure, pharmacology, efficacy and safety profiles, and clinical considerations. Gemigliptin (brand name: Zemiglo), developed by LG Life Sciences, is a potent, selective, competitive, and long acting DPP-4 inhibitor. Various studies have shown that gemigliptin is an optimized DPP-4 inhibitor in terms of efficacy, safety, and patient compliance for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. In this review, we summarize the characteristics of gemigliptin and discuss its potential benefits in clinical practice.

To investigate whether saxagliptin add-on therapy to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) further improve blood glycemic control than CSII therapy in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D).

This was a single-center, randomized, control, open-labeled trial. Newly diagnosed T2D patients were recruited between February 2014 and December 2015. Subjects were divided into saxagliptin add-on therapy to CSII group (n = 31) and CSII therapy group (n = 38). The treatment was maintained for 4 weeks. Oral glucose tolerance test was performed at baseline. Serum samples were obtained before and 30 and 120 minutes after oral administration for glucose, insulin, and C-peptide determination. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) was performed before and endpoint.

A total of 69 subjects were admitted. After 4-week therapy, CGM data showed that patients with saxagliptin add-on therapy exhibited further improvement of mean amplitude glycemic excursion (MAGE), the incremental area under curve of plasma glucose >7.8 and 10 mmol/L compared with that of control group. In addition, the hourly mean blood glucose concentrations, especially between 0000 and 0600 in patient with saxagliptin add-on therapy, were significantly lower compared with that of the control patients. Furthermore, patients in saxagliptin add-on group needed lower insulin dose to maintain euglycemic control. In addition, severe hypoglycemic episode was not observed from any group.

Saxagliptin add-on therapy to insulin had the ability of further improve blood glycemic controlling, with lower insulin dose required by patients with T2D to maintain euglycemic controlling.