Home  |  About us  |  Editorial board  |  Ahead of print  | Current issue  |  Archives  |  Submit article  |  Instructions |  Search  |   Subscribe  |  Advertise  |  Contacts  |  Login 
  Users Online: 857Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  

 Table of Contents      
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 163-168

Comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety of combination of metformin-vidagliptin versus metfromin-glimepiride in most frequently used doses in patients of type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequately controlled metformin monotherapy-A randomised open label study


1 Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India
2 Department of General Medicine, Government Medical College, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Date of Web Publication6-Jul-2015

Correspondence Address:
Vijay Khajuria
Department of Pharmacology, Government Medical College, Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2229-3485.159942

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Aim and Objective: The aim was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of combinations of metformin-vidagliptin (MF-VG) and metfromin-glimepiride (MF-GP) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. Materials and Methods: A comparative randomized open-label trial was conducted on patients with uncomplicated T2DM, on treatment with MF for 4 months out of which on maximum tolerated dose of MF (1000-2500 mg/day) for 4 weeks, glycosylated Haemoglobin [HbA1c]) ≥6.5%, fasting blood glucose (FBG) ≥126 mg/dl and post prandial glucose (PPG) ≥200 mg/dl were included in the study. Patients were randomized to receive MF (500 mg BD) + VG (50 mg BD) or MF (500 mg BD) + GP (2 mg BD). Results: Both the groups caused significant decline in blood glucose levels both FBG as well as PPG levels (P < 0.01). HbA1c was also reduced significantly in both groups at 12 weeks (P < 0.01). Total serum cholesterol, triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein and very low-density lipoprotein decreased significantly, whereas high-density lipoprotein levels increased significantly from baseline levels in both the groups (P < 0.01). Intergroup comparison failed to demonstrate any statistical difference on all of above parameters. Both weight and body mass index did not alter statistically from baseline in either of the groups as well as demonstrated no difference statistically on comparison (P > 0.05). At the end of the study, both liver functions tests and renal functions tests remained unaltered statistically and within normal clinical range in both the groups (P > 0.05). However, hypoglycemia and other adverse events were numerically more in MF + GP group. Conclusion: Both the regimens on comparison revealed similar efficacy and safety thereby failing to prove superiority over each other.

Keywords: Glimepiride, metformin, type-2 diabetes mellitus, vidagliptin


How to cite this article:
Gupta S, Khajuria V, Tandon VR, Mahajan A, Gillani ZH. Comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety of combination of metformin-vidagliptin versus metfromin-glimepiride in most frequently used doses in patients of type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequately controlled metformin monotherapy-A randomised open label study. Perspect Clin Res 2015;6:163-8

How to cite this URL:
Gupta S, Khajuria V, Tandon VR, Mahajan A, Gillani ZH. Comparative evaluation of efficacy and safety of combination of metformin-vidagliptin versus metfromin-glimepiride in most frequently used doses in patients of type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequately controlled metformin monotherapy-A randomised open label study. Perspect Clin Res [serial online] 2015 [cited 2019 Dec 9];6:163-8. Available from: http://www.picronline.org/text.asp?2015/6/3/163/159942


   Introduction Top


Diabetes is one of the most prevalent non-communicable diseases globally demanding continuous research. Approximately one-half or more of patients with type 2 diabetes do not obtain an glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level lower than 7% [1] and failure rate of 4% with metformin (MF) monotherapy has been recorded. [2] Hence, the patients on MF monotherapy with inadequate response require combination therapy. The combination of MF and sulfonylureas is most commonly used in India because of its low cost and can attain a greater reduction in HbA1c than either drug alone. [3] However, this combination therapy is prone to weight gain and severe hypoglycemia. VG is an oral and highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, which lacks these adverse event reports. [4]

There is a scarcity of research comparing the commonly used combinations of MF-glimepiride (MF-GP) and MF-vidagliptin (MF-VG) in clinical practice for management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, whatever data is available originates from the developed countries. Furthermore, a recent ban in some part of world regulatory and flip flops policy adopted by Indian Drug regulating authorities on pioglitazone is expected to increase the use of gliptins.

Therefore, the current study was undertaken to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of combinations of MF-VG and MF-GP in T2DM patients.


   Materials and methods Top


A comparative randomized open-label trial was conducted for a period of 1 year commencing from November, 2012. A total of 110 patients from medical outpatient department diagnosed with T2DM were screened for this study. Ninety patients were included after evaluating for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and finally, 84 completed the study as six patients were lost to follow-up. A written informed consent was obtained. The study was approved by Institutional Ethical Committee Vide ref. no. Pharma/2012/2753 dated 07-11-2012.

Patients with uncomplicated T2DM with or without stable co-morbid conditions, on treatment with MF for 4 months out of which on maximum tolerated dose of MF (1000-2500 mg/day) for 4 weeks, HbA1c ≥ 6.5%, Blood glucose: Fasting ≥ 126 mg/dl and post prandial (PP) ≥200 mg/dl were included in the study. [5]

Pregnancy/lactation, allergy, intolerance, any acute or chronic complication of diabetes mellitus, acute left ventricular failure and myocardial infarction, unstable angina, bypass surgery, liver disease, renal disease, abnormal micral test and patients on drug grossly affecting blood glucose level were excluded from the current study.

Patients were randomized to receive either of two drugs combinations:

  • Group 1: MF (500 mg BD) + VG (50 mg BD)
  • Group 2: MF (500 mg BD) + GP (2 mg BD).
Primary end points - At 6 weeks - Blood sugar (Fasting and PP): At 12 weeks - Blood sugar (Fasting and PP) and HbA1c. Number and Percent of patients achieving primary target end points were noted.

Target end points: Fasting blood glucose (FBG) ≤126 mg/dl. [5] PP Blood Glucose ≤ 180 mg/dl. [5] HbA1c ≤ 6.5%. [5]

Secondary end points - At 6 weeks - Weight, any adverse drug reaction. At 12 weeks - Weight, body mass index (BMI), lipid profile, liver functions tests (LFTs), renal functions tests (RFTs) and any adverse drug reaction.

Statistical analysis

Data was analysed using computer Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 17.0 for windows. Mean ± standard error of the mean were calculated for quantitative variables for both the groups. Statistical significance between both groups was assessed by use of independent-t test for equality of means. Intra-group comparison from baseline to 6 and 12 weeks was done using Paired sample t-test. P < 0.05 was considered as statistical significant. Chi-square test was used to evaluate statistical significance in the occurrence of adverse events. All analysis were carried out by employing intention to treat principle.


   Results Top


Both the groups caused a significant decline in blood glucose levels both fasting as well as PP blood glucose levels (P < 0.01). On the comparison both the groups demonstrated no difference statistically. HbA1c was also reduced significantly in both the groups at 12 weeks (P < 0.01). Intergroup comparison failed to demonstrate any statistical difference [Figure 1] [Figure 2] [Figure 3].
Figure 1: Intra and Inter group comparison of fasting blood glucose levels **Significant: P < 0.01 versus baseline (using Paired t-test), ?#245;Non significant: P > 0.05 versus other group (using Unpaired t-test)

Click here to view
Figure 2: Intra and Inter group comparison of post prandial blood glucose levels **Significant: P < 0.01 versus baseline (using Paired t-test), ?#245;Non significant: P > 0.05 versus other group (using Unpaired t-test)

Click here to view
Figure 3: Mean glycosylated Haemoglobin (%) levels in Group 1 and Group 2 **Significant: P < 0.01 versus baseline (using Paired t-test) ?#245;Non significant: P > 0.05 versus other group (using Unpaired t-test)

Click here to view


Total serum cholesterol, triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) decreased significantly whereas high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels increased significantly from baseline levels in both the groups (P < 0.01). On the comparison, both the groups failed to elucidate any statistical significant difference in lipid profile [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Comparative evaluation of plasma lipids at 12 weeks in Group 1 and Group 2 õNon significant: P > 0.05 versus other group (using Unpaired t-test)

Click here to view


Both weight and BMI did not alter statistically from baseline in either of the groups as well as demonstrated no difference statistically on comparison (P > 0.05) [Table 1].
Table 1: Comparative evaluation of mean body weight and mean BMI at 6 and 12 weeks in Group 1 (MF+VG) and Group 2 (MF+GP)


Click here to view


At the end of the study, both LFTs and RFTs remained unaltered statistically and within normal clinical range in both the groups (P > 0.05) [Table 2] and [Table 3].
Table 2: LFTs in Group 1 (MF+VG) and Group 2 (MF+GP)


Click here to view
Table 3: RFTs in Group 1 (MF+VG) and Group 2 (MF+GP)


Click here to view


Adverse events were observed in 19 (22.6%) patients out of 84. In Group 1 adverse events were observed in 8 (20%) out of 40 patients, whereas in Group 2, adverse events were reported in 11 (25%) out of 44 patients. The incidence of hypoglycemia was slightly more in Group 2 (three patients) when compared to one patient in Group 1. Intergroup comparison demonstrated no statistical difference in term of all the adverse events in both groups (P = 0.690) [Table 4].
Table 4: Adverse drug reactions in Group 1 (MF+VG) and Group 2 (MF+GP)


Click here to view



   Discussion Top


In the current study, the patients on MF and VG combination showed significant decline in mean FBG and PP blood glucose to the maximum tone of 75 mg/dl and 98 mg/dl at 12 weeks, respectively (P < 0.01). Our results are consistent with Bosi et al., 2007 [6] who demonstrated significant dose-related decrease in FBG and 2 h post prandial glucose (PPG) levels. Ved and Shah, 2012 [7] showed similar results in which combination of MF and VG was evaluated against VG monotherapy in patients on Insulin. Similarly, Pan et al., 2012 [8] like our study showed MF-VG combination to significantly reduce FBG levels (P < 0.001) at 24 weeks when compared with MF-Placebo. Chatterjee and Chatterjee, 2013 [9] in accordance with the results of present study showed significant reduction in FBG in both once daily and twice daily regime of MF and VG from baseline (P < 0.0001). The reduction in PPG level was also highly significant in both groups (P < 0.0001). Thus, the results underscores that DPP-4 inhibitor VG when added to MF monotherapy result in significant decrease in FBG and PPG.

Whereas patients on MF and GP combination also showed significant reduction in FBG and PP Glucose to the maximum tone of 62 mg/dl and 91 mg/dl at 12 weeks, respectively (P < 0.01). These results are similar to Charpentier et al., 2001 [10] who showed a significant reduction in FBG and PP blood glucose (P < 0.001) from baseline than either GP or MF alone.

Shimpi et al., 2009 [11] also recorded similar results. MF and GP combination showed a significant reduction in both FBG and PPG (P < 0.0001) as compared to MF and Glibenclamide combination.

Our results are in concurrence with Wang et al., 2011 [12] where FBG and PPG decreased significantly (P < 0.01) from baseline and Pareek et al., 2013 [13] as their results demonstrated a significant reduction in both FBG and PPG at 12 weeks (P < 0.001).

In controlling FBG and PP glucose on comparison both the groups demonstrated no difference (P > 0.05) which is similar to Ferrannini et al., 2009 [14] in which efficacy and safety of VG or GP as add on to MF inadequately controlled with MF alone was evaluated. FPG showed a similar reduction in both the groups and statistically there was no difference.

Our results are in concurrence with Jeon and Oh, 2011 [15] who conducted a comparative trial of MF-VG and MF-GP combination. A similar reduction in 2 h-PPG and FPG was demonstrated in both the groups.

In our study both the groups showed a significant reduction in mean HbA1c from baseline to the end of the study at 12 weeks (P < 0.01). Our results are in concurrence with Bosi et al., 2007, [6] Pan et al., 2012 [8] and Ved and Shah, 2012. [7]

In the current study, MF-GP combination also demonstrated a significant reduction in HbA1c at 12 weeks (P < 0.01). Similar results are shown in numerous studies by Charpentier et al., 2001, [10] Ingle and Talele, 2012. [16]

However, on comparison both the groups demonstrated no difference statistically. These results are consistent with Ferrannini et al., 2009, [14] Jeon and Oh, 2011. [15]

In the present study, patients on MF and VG combination demonstrated significant reduction in serum cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL and VLDL at 12 weeks (P < 0.01) while there was significant increase in HDL at 12 weeks (P < 0.01).

Our results are consistent with Bolli et al., 2008 [17] in which MF-VG combination demonstrated a significant reduction in total cholesterol, LDL and VLDL (P < 0.001) than MF-Pioglitazone Triglycerides decreased slightly with MF-VG when compared to MF-Pioglitazone (P = 0.004), while HDL increased with both the combinations (P < 0.001).

Similar results are shown by Bosi et al., 2007 [6] who demonstrated significant reduction in total cholesterol, LDL, VLDL and increase in HDL from baseline to 24 weeks with MF and VG compared with MF and placebo but triglycerides showed minimal increase with VG and MF (P = 0.014 and P = 0.052).

Patients on MF and GP also demonstrated a significant decrease in total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL and VLDL (P < 0.001), while there was an increase in HDL at the end of the study (P < 0.01).

Similar results are shown by Shimpi et al., 2009 [11] in which significant reduction in the total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL and VLDL was found in the MF and GP (P < 0.0001) as compared to MF and Glibenclamide group. The HDL concentration was increased significantly (P: 0.0190) in the MF-GP group. However there was no change found in the values of HDL cholesterol in MF-Glibenclamide group. Ingle and Talele, 2012 [16] demonstrated results concurrent to our study. There was a significant reduction in total cholesterol, triglycerides and LDL from to 26 weeks. HDL increased from baseline to 26 weeks in MF-GP combination when compared with MF and Glibenclamide.

In the present study, patients on MF and VG combination showed no significant change in weight (P > 0.05) at both 6 and 12 weeks and in BMI (P > 0.05) at 12 weeks.

Our results concur with Bosi et al., 2007 [6] who demonstrated that the body weight did not change significantly after 24 weeks of treatment with 50 mg or 100 mg VG daily along with MF. While in patients receiving placebo and continuing MF monotherapy, body weight decreased by 1.0 ± 0.3 kg (P < 0.001 vs. baseline).

Similar results are observed in the study by Bolli et al., 2008 [17] where body weight remained stable throughout the 24-week treatment with a combination of MF and VG. In patients receiving MF and Pioglitazone, body weight increased progressively from 4 to 24 weeks (P < 0.001).

The results of the present study are in contrast with Ved and Shah, 2012 [7] where significant reduction in mean weight by VG and MF from baseline to end of treatment at 3 months was shown (P < 0.001). Filozof et al., 2010 [18] also demonstrated a significant reduction in body weight in both MF-VG combination and MF alone (P < 0.001). However, reduction in MF group was more compared with the combination group (P < 0.001).This difference from our study could be due to shorter duration and smaller sample size of our study.

Patients on MF and GP also demonstrated no change in body weight at the end of 6 weeks as well as 12 weeks (P > 0.05) and BMI at 12 weeks (P > 0.05) similar to Charpentier et al., 2001 [10] in which combination treatment with MF and GP resulted in no change in BMI than either GP or MF alone (P < 0.001).

Concurrent results are shown by Ingle and Talele, 2012 [16] where combination of MF and GP demonstrated no significant reduction in BMI from the baseline value to the end of 6 months of study.

Scan of literature revealed three similar studies to our study. Ferrannini et al., 2009 [14] documented that VG when added to MF provided efficacy comparable to that of GP when added to MF after 52 weeks and displayed a favorable adverse event profile with no weight gain and a significant reduction in hypoglycemia compared with MF + GP.

Matthews et al., 2010 [19] also compared MF and VG with MF and GP. Their results showed that VG add-on to MF has similar efficacy to GP add-on after 2 years of treatment but with markedly reduced hypoglycemic risk and no weight gain.

Jeon and Oh, 2011 [15] demonstrated MF-VG combination provided glucose control efficacy comparable to MF GP combination and resulted in better adverse event profile with low risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain.

In the present study, LFTs and RFTs were also evaluated at baseline and at 12 weeks. They demonstrated no statistical difference and remained within normal clinical range thereby indicating both the groups to be safe as per Liver and Renal functions is concerned. Moreover, we failed to cite any study looking into these important safety aspects. The combination of MF and VG showed little better adverse event profile than MF and GP though it did not reach statistical significance.

Limitations

It was a short duration study of 12 weeks only with less sample size. Patients were not given maximum dose of MF. Insulin levels, pancreatic beta cell functions and C-peptides were not a part of the study that might have otherwise collaborated the observations. No causality assessment was done for adverse events.


   Conclusion Top


Current study demonstrated the effectiveness of both the combinations (MF + VG and MF + GP) in T2DM patients who were inadequately controlled with MF monotherapy. Both the regimens on comparison revealed similar efficacy thereby failing to prove the superiority over each other. However, the incidence of hypoglycemia and other adverse events were numerically more in MF + GP group. This suggests that combination of MF and VG to be a promising option in patients inadequately controlled with MF monotherapy. But further studies are required to establish superiority of VG over most commonly used sulfonylurea, that is, GP as anadd on therapy to MF.

 
   References Top

1.
Esposito K, Bellastella G, Giugliano D. When metformin fails in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:365-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Kahn SE, Haffner SM, Heise MA, Herman WH, Holman RR, Jones NP, et al. Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide monotherapy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2427-43.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Charbonnel B, Schernthaner G, Brunetti P, Matthews DR, Urquhart R, Tan MH, et al. Long-term efficacy and tolerability of add-on pioglitazone therapy to failing monotherapy compared with addition of gliclazide or metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2005;48:1093-104.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Pan C, Wang X. Profile of vildagliptin in type 2 diabetes: Efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2013;9:247-57.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes - 2012. Diabetes Care 2012;35 Suppl 1:S11-63.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Bosi E, Camisasca RP, Collober C, Rochotte E, Garber AJ. Effects of vildagliptin on glucose control over 24 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. Diabetes Care 2007;30:890-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Ved P, Shah S. Evaluation of vildagliptin and fixed dose combination of vildagliptin and metformin on glycemic control and insulin dose over 3 months in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2012;16 Suppl 1:S110-3.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Pan C, Xing X, Han P, Zheng S, Ma J, Liu J, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to metformin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Obes Metab 2012;14:737-44.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Chatterjee S, Chatterjee S. Glycemic effects of vildagliptin and metformin combination therapy in Indian patients with type 2 diabetes: An observational study. J Diabetes 2014;6:237-42.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Charpentier G, Fleury F, Kabir M, Vaur L, Halimi S. Improved glycaemic control by addition of glimepiride to metformin monotherapy in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabet Med 2001;18:828-34.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Shimpi RD, Patil PH, Kuchake VG, Ingle PV, Surana SJ, Dighore PN. Comparison of effect of metformin in combination with glimepiride and glibenclamide on glycaemic control in patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int J Pharm Tech Res 2009;1:50-61.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Wang M, Gao F, Xue YM, Han YJ, Fu XJ, He FY. Effect of short-term intensive therapy with glimepiride and metformin in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 2011;31:564-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Pareek A, Chandurkar NB, Salkar HR, Borkar MS, Tiwari D. Evaluation of efficacy and tolerability of glimepiride and metformin combination: A multicentric study in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus, uncontrolled on monotherapy with sulfonylurea or metformin. Am J Ther 2013;20:41-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Ferrannini E, Fonseca V, Zinman B, Matthews D, Ahrén B, Byiers S, et al. Fifty-two-week efficacy and safety of vildagliptin vs. glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. Diabetes Obes Metab 2009;11:157-66.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Jeon HJ, Oh TK. Comparison of vildagliptin-metformin and glimepiride-metformin treatments in type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes Metab J 2011;35:529-35.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Ingle PV, Talele GS. Adverse effects of metformin in combination with glimepiride and glibenclamide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2012;5 Suppl 1:108-10.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Bolli G, Dotta F, Rochotte E, Cohen SE. Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin vs. pioglitazone when added to metformin: A 24-week, randomized, double-blind study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2008;10:82-90.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Filozof C, Schwartz S, Foley JE. Effect of vildagliptin as add-on therapy to a low-dose metformin. World J Diabetes 2010;1:19-26.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Matthews DR, Dejager S, Ahren B, Fonseca V, Ferrannini E, Couturier A, et al. Vildagliptin add-on to metformin produces similar efficacy and reduced hypoglycaemic risk compared with glimepiride, with no weight gain: Results from a 2-year study. Diabetes Obes Metab 2010;12:780-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2662    
    Printed25    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded517    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal