6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and the Reporting of Infections: A Disproportionality Analysis in the World Health Organization VigiBase

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          OBJECTIVE

          Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a new class of antidiabetic drugs. They inactivate incretin hormones but also have many other effects throughout the body, among which are effects on the immune system. This might result in an increased infection risk. This study assessed the association between use of DPP-4 inhibitors and the reporting of infections.

          RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

          A nested case-control was conducted using VigiBase, the World Health Organization-Adverse Drug Reactions (WHO-ADR) database. The base cohort consisted of ADRs for antidiabetic drugs (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code A10). Cases were defined as ADRs of infection according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) classification system. All other ADRs were considered controls. Reporting odds ratios (RORs) were calculated to estimate the strength of the association between different classes of antidiabetic drugs and the reporting of infections.

          RESULTS

          We identified 305,415 suspected ADRs involving antidiabetic drugs in 106,469 case reports, of which 8,083 involved DPP-4 inhibitors monotherapy. Overall, the reporting of infections was higher for patients using DPP-4 inhibitors compared with users of biguanides (ROR 2.3 [95% CI 1.9–2.7]). Reporting of upper respiratory tract infections (ROR 12.3 [95% CI 8.6–17.5]) was significantly associated with use of DPP-4 inhibitors.

          CONCLUSIONS

          This study indicates an increased reporting of infections, in particular upper respiratory tract infections, for users of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with users of other antidiabetic drugs. However, the limitations of spontaneous reporting systems (e.g., underreporting, the Weber-effect, reporting bias) should be taken into account. Therefore, further research is needed to evaluate this suspicion and the underlying mechanism.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Glycemic control with diet, sulfonylurea, metformin, or insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: progressive requirement for multiple therapies (UKPDS 49). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group.

          Treatment with diet alone, insulin, sulfonylurea, or metformin is known to improve glycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but which treatment most frequently attains target fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentration of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) or glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) below 7% is unknown. To assess how often each therapy can achieve the glycemic control target levels set by the American Diabetes Association. Randomized controlled trial conducted between 1977 and 1997. Patients were recruited between 1977 and 1991 and were followed up every 3 months for 3, 6, and 9 years after enrollment. Outpatient diabetes clinics in 15 UK hospitals. A total of 4075 patients newly diagnosed as having type 2 diabetes ranged in age between 25 and 65 years and had a median (interquartile range) FPG concentration of 11.5 (9.0-14.4) mmol/L [207 (162-259) mg/dL], HbA1c levels of 9.1% (7.5%-10.7%), and a mean (SD) body mass index of 29 (6) kg/m2. After 3 months on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate, high-fiber diet, patients were randomized to therapy with diet alone, insulin, sulfonylurea, or metformin. Fasting plasma glucose and HbA1c levels, and the proportion of patients who achieved target levels below 7% HbA1c or less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) FPG at 3, 6, or 9 years following diagnosis. The proportion of patients who maintained target glycemic levels declined markedly over 9 years of follow-up. After 9 years of monotherapy with diet, insulin, or sulfonylurea, 8%, 42%, and 24%, respectively, achieved FPG levels of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) and 9%, 28%, and 24% achieved HbA1c levels below 7%. In obese patients randomized to metformin, 18% attained FPG levels of less than 7.8 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) and 13% attained HbA1c levels below 7%. Patients less likely to achieve target levels were younger, more obese, or more hyperglycemic than other patients. Each therapeutic agent, as monotherapy, increased 2- to 3-fold the proportion of patients who attained HbA1c below 7% compared with diet alone. However, the progressive deterioration of diabetes control was such that after 3 years approximately 50% of patients could attain this goal with monotherapy, and by 9 years this declined to approximately 25%. The majority of patients need multiple therapies to attain these glycemic target levels in the longer term.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Infections in patients with diabetes mellitus.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Statement by an American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology Consensus Panel on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An Algorithm for Glycemic Control

              This report presents an algorithm to assist primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and others in the management of adult, nonpregnant patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In order to minimize the risk of diabetes-related complications, the goal of therapy is to achieve a hemoglobin A1c (A1C) of 6.5% or less, with recognition of the need for individualization to minimize the risks of hypoglycemia. We provide therapeutic pathways stratified on the basis of current levels of A1C, whether the patient is receiving treatment or is drug naïve. We consider monotherapy, dual therapy, and triple therapy, including 8 major classes of medications (biguanides, dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors, incretin mimetics, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, and bile acid sequestrants) and insulin therapy (basal, premixed, and multiple daily injections), with or without orally administered medications. We prioritize choices of medications according to safety, risk of hypoglycemia, efficacy, simplicity, anticipated degree of patient adherence, and cost of medications. We recommend only combinations of medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration that provide complementary mechanisms of action. It is essential to monitor therapy with A1C and self-monitoring of blood glucose and to adjust or advance therapy frequently (every 2 to 3 months) if the appropriate goal for each patient has not been achieved. We provide a flow-chart and table summarizing the major considerations. This algorithm represents a consensus of 14 highly experienced clinicians, clinical researchers, practitioners, and academicians and is based on the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology Diabetes Guidelines and the recent medical literature.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Diabetes Care
                diacare
                dcare
                Diabetes Care
                Diabetes Care
                American Diabetes Association
                0149-5992
                1935-5548
                February 2011
                20 January 2011
                : 34
                : 2
                : 369-374
                Affiliations
                1Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS), Faculty of Science, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                2Medicines Evaluation Board, The Hague, the Netherlands
                3Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
                4WHO Collaborating Centre for International Drug Monitoring, Uppsala Monitoring Centre, Uppsala, Sweden
                5Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse, a.k.mantel@ 123456uu.nl .
                Article
                1771
                10.2337/dc10-1771
                3024351
                21270195
                © 2011 by the American Diabetes Association.

                Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.

                Product
                Categories
                Original Research
                Epidemiology/Health Services Research

                Endocrinology & Diabetes

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Similar content 169

                Cited by 26

                Most referenced authors 869