Skip to main content
Log in

Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin-based versus comparative dual therapy in type 2 diabetes

Results of the Austrian subpopulation of the EDGE study

Effizienz und Verträglichkeit von Vildagliptin basierter versus DPP-4 Hemmer freier oraler Dualtherapie

Ergebnisse der österreichischen Subpopulation der EDGE Studie

  • original article
  • Published:
Wiener klinische Wochenschrift Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Background

The aim of this post hoc analysis of data from the Austrian subpopulation of the EDGE study was the evaluation of the effectiveness and tolerability of vildagliptin as an add-on to an existing oral antidiabetic (OAD) monotherapy versus a combination therapy with two OADs without vildagliptin in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.

Patients and methods

In Austria, 422 patients were included. In the framework of regular visits (at baseline, about once per quarter, and at the study end, after 12 months), adverse events (AEs), courses, and changes of therapy were recorded. In addition to the primary end point defined in the primary study, i.e., a reduction of HbA1c by > 0.3 % without hypoglycemia, weight gain ≥ 5 %, peripheral edema, or discontinuation due to gastrointestinal events, the most clinically relevant secondary end point, i.e., HbA1c reduction < 7 % without hypoglycemia or ≥ 3 % increase in body weight after 12 months was used for the analysis of the Austrian data.

Results

The initial HbA1c of all enrolled patients was 8.3 ± 1.4 %. The mean reduction of HbA1c was − 1.1 % in the vildagliptin cohort and − 1.0 % in the comparator cohort. In the vildagliptin cohort, 56.4 % of patients, and in the comparator cohort, 45.9 % of patients, reached the primary end point (odds ratio: 1.53, p = 0.04). In the vildagliptin cohort, 18.7 % of patients, and in the comparator cohort, 16.9 % of patients, reached the secondary end point (odds ratio: 1.13, p = 0.68). The incidence of hypoglycemic events (two in each cohort), AEs (approximately 15 % in each cohort), and serious AEs (approximately 2 % in each cohort) was comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

In a “real-life” setting, the effectiveness of vildagliptin as second-line treatment is superior to comparator OADs with regard to a reduction in HbA1c of greater than 0.3 % from baseline without well-recognized side effects in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (mean baseline HbA1c: 8.5 % (vildagliptin cohort) vs. 8.1 % (comparator cohort)).

Zusammenfassung

Grundlagen

Ziel dieser post hoc Analyse der Daten der österreichischen Subpopulation der EDGE Studie war es, bei Patienten mit insuffizient eingestelltem Typ 2 Diabetes Effektivität und Verträglichkeit von zwei Therapiestrategien zu vergleichen: Vildagliptin als add-on zu existierender oraler antidiabetischer Monotherapie oder eine duale orale antidiabetische Therapie ohne DPP-4 Hemmer.

Patienten und Methoden

In Österreich wurden 422 Patienten inkludiert. Im Rahmen von Routinevisiten (zu Beginn, einmal pro Quartal und zu Studienende nach 12 Monaten) wurden Nebenwirkungen, Verlauf und Änderungen der antidiabetischen Therapie dokumentiert. Der primäre Endpunkt wurde, wie in der Hauptstudie, als eine Reduktion des HbA1c-Wertes von > 0,3 % innerhalb von 12 Monaten, ohne Hypoglykämie, Gewichtszunahme ≥ 5 %, peripheren Ödemen oder Therapieabbruch wegen gastrointestinalen Nebenwirkungen definiert. Zusätzlich wurde der klinisch relevanteste sekundäre Endpunkt, eine Reduktion des HbA1c auf < 7 %, ohne Hypoglykämie oder Zunahme des Körpergewichtes ≥ 3 % für die Analyse der österreichischen Daten verwendet.

Ergebnisse

Der initiale HbA1c Wert aller eingeschlossenen Patienten war 8,3 ± 1,4 %. Die mittlere Reduktion des HbA1c betrug 1,1 % in der Vildagliptin- und 1,0 % in der Vergleichsgruppe.

In der Vildagliptingruppe erreichten 56,4 % den primären Endpunkt, in der Vergleichsgruppe 45,9 % (odds ratio 1,53, p = 0,04). Der sekundäre Endpunkt wurde von 18,7 % der Vildagliptin- und 16,9 % der Vergleichsgruppe erreicht (odds ratio 1,13, p = 0,68).

Die Inzidenz von Hypoglykämien (2 in jeder Gruppe), Nebenwirkungen (ca.15 % in jeder Gruppe) und schweren Nebenwirkungen (ca. 2 % in jeder Gruppe) war zwischen den beiden Kohorten vergleichbar.

Schlussfolgerung

In einer „real-life“ Studiensituation ist die Therapie mit Vildagliptin als zweitem oralen Antidiabetikum einer DPP-4 Hemmer freien oralen Dualtherapie bezüglich einer Reduktion des HbA1c von mehr als 0,3 % ohne klassische Nebenwirkungen überlegen (mittlerer Ausgangs-HbA1c in der Vildagliptingruppe: 8,5 %, in der Vergleichsgruppe 8,1 %).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clodi M, Abrahamian HE, Drexel H, Fasching P, Hoppichler F, Kautzky-Willer A, et al. Antihyperglycemic treatment guidelines for diabetes mellitus type 2. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2012;124(Suppl):10–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998;352(9131):837–53.

  3. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet. 1998;352(9131):854–65.

  4. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HAW. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(15):1577–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ludvik B, Schernthaner G. Diabetes Care Austria 2009: registry for type 2 diabetic patients in general practitioners’ ordinations in Austria. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2012;124(3–4):69–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Inzucchi SE, Bergenstal RM, Buse JB, Diamant M, Ferrannini E, Nauck M, et al. Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach: position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Diabetes Care. 2012;35(6):1364–79.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Treweek S, Zwarenstein M. Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials. 2009;10(1):37.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mathieu C, Barnett AH, Brath H, Conget I, de Castro JJ, Göke R, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of second-line therapy with vildagliptin vs. other oral agents in type 2 diabetes: a real-life worldwide observational study (EDGE). Int J Clin Pract. 2013;67(10):947–56.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Davies HT. When can odds ratios mislead? BMJ. 1998;316(7136):989–91.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Blonde L, Dagogo-Jack S, Banerji MA, Pratley RE, Marcellari A, Braceras R, et al. Comparison of vildagliptin and thiazolidinedione as add-on therapy in patients inadequately controlled with metformin: results of the GALIANT trial—a primary care, type 2 diabetes study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009;11(10):978–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bolli G, Dotta F, Colin L, Minic B, Goodman M. Comparison of vildagliptin and pioglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2009;11(6):589–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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(2):157–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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(9):780–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Filozof C, Gautier J-F. A comparison of efficacy and safety of vildagliptin and gliclazide in combination with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin alone: a 52-week, randomized study. Diabet Med. 2010;27(3):318–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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(4):890–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ware JH, Hamel MB. Pragmatic trials—guides to better patient care? N Engl J Med. 2011;364(18):1685–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

In particular, we thank all 422 patients who were willing to share their medical data. We also thank all participating medical offices and outpatient clinics, represented by the responsible investigators Dr. Christoph Bialek, Dr. Gerald Bode, Dr. Helmut Brath, Prof. Dr. Edmund Cauza, Univ. Prof. Dr. Christoph F. Ebenbichler, Dr. Ursula Hanusch, Dr. Christian Hess, Dr. Ernst Hessenberger, Dr. Sabine Hörist-Kollmann, Dr. Peter Ilsinger, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Susanne Kaser, Dr. Marcus Peter Kufner, Univ. Prof. Dr. Anton Luger, Dr. Anita Luiskandl, Univ. Prof. Dr. Rudolf Prager, Dr. Andreas Raml, Dr. Peter Scheibner, Dr. Hans-Robert Schönherr, Dr. Günter Sokol, Dr. Felix Stockenhuber, Dr. Wolfgang Unterberger, Dr. Robert Wegmann, and Prof. Dr. Raimund Weitgasser.

Conflict of interest

Helmut Brath has received honoraria for lectures and advisory boards from all major diabetes companies, including Novartis, but has no specific conflict of interest relevant to the study; Christoph Bialek has received speaker honoraria from Novartis, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda; Ewald Gingl is and Michaela Ratzinger was employee of Novartis; Michael Resl has received speaker honoraria from MSD, Roche, Medtronic; Rudof Prager has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Cilag, Medtronic, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helmut Brath MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brath, H., Bialek, C., Gingl, E. et al. Efficacy and tolerability of vildagliptin-based versus comparative dual therapy in type 2 diabetes. Wien Klin Wochenschr 127, 250–255 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-014-0646-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-014-0646-x

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Navigation