[Efficacy and safety of vildagliptin as a second-line therapy vs other oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: Czech results within the worldwide prospective cohort EDGE study].

INTRODUCTION

Metformin monotherapy is recommended as initial treatment of type 2 diabetes. The selection of optimal second-line therapy that is often necessary due to the progressive nature of the disease is still a subject of ongoing discussions.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The aim of the international EDGE (Effectiveness of Diabetes control with vildaGliptin and vildagliptin/mEtformin) study was to prospectively compare the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin vs other oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled on monotherapy in a real-life clinical setting. In this paper, we present the data of patients participating in the EDGE study in the Czech Republic.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with type 2 diabetes not adequately controlled on monotherapy were enrolled into the study, and randomised into either the vildagliptin arm or control arm with another OAD at the discretion of the treating physician. Patients with the addition of other incretin-based medications were not enrolled into the study. The efficiency was evaluated as a proportion of patients reaching the combined endpoint of decreasing HbA1c> 3 mmol/mol without hypoglycaemia, peripheral oedema or treatment termination due to gastrointestinal side effects during the 12 months of treatment.

RESULTS

654 patients were enrolled into the study in the Czech Republic. The mean age of the patients when enrolled into the study (vildagliptin group vs control group) was 59.5 ± 10.6 vs 63.7 ± 8.5 years, mean body mass index was 32.4 ± 5.7 vs 31.7 ± 6.5 kg/m2, mean HbA1c was 62 ± 12 vs 64 ± 11 mmol/mol. The probability of reaching the combined primary endpoint (calculated using a binary logistic regression model to calculate the odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals) was higher for vildagliptin regardless of baseline HbA1c or type of medication added in the control group. Primary endpoint was reached by 60.6 % of patients in the vildagliptin group vs 51.3 % of patients in the control group, odds ratio 1.46 (1.06, 1.99); p< 0.019. The proportion of patients reaching secondary endpoint (HbA1c< 54 mmol/mol without hypoglycemic event or weight gain 3 % with baseline glycated hemoglobin > 54 mmol/mol was higher for vildagliptin 45.7 % vs 31.4 % in the control arm, odds ratio 1.84 (1.26, 2.68), p< 0.001. The rate of adverse events was comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In a real-life clinical set-ting, the percentage of patients reaching the combined endpoint of decreasing HbA1c> 3 mmol/mol, without hypoglycaemia, peripheral oedema or treatment termination due to gastrointestinal side effects was higher after the addition of vildagliptin as compared to other antidiabetic agents with comparable rate of side effects.