Clinical pharmacology of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of oral antidiabetic drugs that improve glycaemic control without causing weight gain or increasing hypoglycaemic risk in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The eight available DPP-4 inhibitors, including alogliptin, anagliptin, gemigliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, teneligliptin, and vildagliptin, are small molecules used orally with identical mechanism of action and similar safety profiles in patients with T2DM. DPP-4 inhibitors may be used as monotherapy or in double or triple combination with other oral glucose-lowering agents such as metformin, thiazolidinediones, or sulfonylureas. Although DPP-4 inhibitors have the same mode of action, they differ by some important pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties that may be clinically relevant in some patients. The main differences between the eight gliptins include: potency, target selectivity, oral bioavailability, elimination half-life, binding to plasma proteins, metabolic pathways, formation of active metabolite(s), main excretion routes, dosage adjustment for renal and liver insufficiency, and potential drug-drug interactions. The off-target inhibition of selective DPP-4 inhibitors is responsible for multiorgan toxicities such as immune dysfunction, impaired healing, and skin reactions. As a drug class, the DPP-4 inhibitors have become accepted in clinical practice due to their excellent tolerability profile, with a low risk of hypoglycaemia, a neutral effect on body weight, and once-daily dosing. It is unknown if DPP-4 inhibitors can prevent disease progression. More clinical studies are needed to validate the optimal regimens of DPP-4 inhibitors for the management of T2DM when their potential toxicities are closely monitored.

An update on the clinical pharmacology of the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor alogliptin used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor that is a class of relatively new oral hypoglycaemic drugs used in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), can be used as monotherapy or in combination with other anti-diabetic agents, including metformin, pioglitazone, sulfonylureas and insulin with a considerable therapeutic effect. Alogliptin exhibits favorable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles in humans. Alogliptin is mainly metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP2D6) and CYP3A4. Dose reduction is recommended for patients with moderate or worse renal impairment. Side effects of alogliptin include nasopharyngitis, upper-respiratory tract infections and headache. Hypoglycaemia is seen in about 1.5% of the T2DM patients. Rare but severe adverse reactions such as acute pancreatitis, serious hypersensitivity including anaphylaxis, angioedema and severe cutaneous reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome have been reported from post-marketing monitoring. Pharmacokinetic interactions have not been observed between alogliptin and other drugs including glyburide, metformin, pioglitazone, insulin and warfarin. The present review aimed to update the clinical information on pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, adverse effects and drug interactions, and to discuss the future directions of alogliptin.

Clinical efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid in osteoporosis and Paget's disease

Osteoporosis and Paget’s bone disease are the most common diseases of the bone. In addition to glucocorticoid treatment, there are many other secondary causes of osteoporosis. Bisphosphonates are used to treat these bone conditions. Zoledronic acid is the most potent bisphosphonate at inhibiting bone resorption. In osteoporosis, zoledronic acid increases bone mineral density for at least 1 year following a single intravenous administration. The efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid in the treatment of osteoporosis and Paget’s bone disease are reviewed. This article also covers the studies of the effects of zoledronic acid in the bone loss associated with the secondary osteoporosis.

Clinical efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid in prostate and breast cancer

The anti-estrogen treatment for hormone-sensitive breast cancer and the androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer can lead to the development of osteoporosis and bone fractures. Metastases associated with prostate and breast cancer can also occur in bone. Bisphosphonates are used in these types of bone dysfunction. Zoledronic acid is the most potent bisphosphonate. In osteoporosis, zoledronic acid inhibits bone reabsorption and increases bone mineral density for at least a year after intravenous administration. The efficacy and safety of zoledronic acid in osteoporosis secondary to hormone-sensitive cancers (prostate and breast), and in the bone metastases associated with these cancers are reviewed.

Good clinical endpoints with denosumab in osteoporosis and cancer

Background: Bone loss associated with low oestrogen levels in postmenopausal women, and with androgen deprivation therapy in men with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, result in an increased incidence of fractures. Denosumab has been shown to increase bone mineral density in these two conditions. Objectives/methods: The objective of this evaluation is to review the clinical trials that have studied clinical endpoints in these conditions. Results: FREEDOM (Fracture Reduction Evaluation of Denosumab in Osteoporosis Every 6 Months) was an International Phase III clinical trial that measured the clinical endpoints with denosumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. At 36 months, new vertebral fractures had occurred in 7.2% of subjects in the placebo group and this was lowered to 2.3% of subjects treated with denosumab. HALT (Denosumab Hormone Ablation Bone Loss Trial) studied the clinical endpoints in men with non-metastatic prostate cancer receiving androgen-deprivation therapy. The incidence of vertebral fractures was significantly lower in the denosumab group (1.5%) than in the placebo group (3.9%). The incidence of adverse effects with denosumab in both clinical trials was low. Conclusions: Denosumab reduces the incidence of fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and in men with non-metastatic prostate cancer receiving androgen-deprivation therapy. Denosumab is well tolerated.

Do nursing students have the recall of bioscience necessary to study pharmacology?

Background: For medical and allied health students, bioscience knowledge underpins the successful scaffolding of learning in their developmental and advanced level units. Many of these students complete theory-based Bioscience units, followed by a unit in Pharmacology, which specifically requires knowledge of anatomy, physiology and microbiology. In general, studies of recall report relatively large losses over short retention intervals (months), which accumulate, but level off, for longer retention intervals (years) (Custers, 2010). However, there are no studies that specifically test the recall of bioscience knowledge by allied health students. Methods: We are tracking the recall of bioscience in nursing students prior to, and during, their Pharmacology unit. In each semester, students complete short, basic, knowledge-based MCQ quizzes on concepts from (i) the gastrointestinal system and (ii) fundamental microbiology. Students were given 5 days warning about the microbiology quizzes but were given no warning prior to the gastrointestinal system quiz. Performance in these quizzes was compared to individual student’s results in the final examination on these topics in the first semester of their degree. Results: At the start of the study, the nursing students performed better in the exam MCQs on the gastrointestinal system than on microbiology. In the exam, the students’ mean marks for the gastrointestinal system ranged from 69–83%, and this was successively reduced to 63%, 53% and 49% after 4, 9 and 16 months, respectively. The mean exam marks for microbiology was 48–58%, and this did not change significantly after 4 (63%), 9 (59%) or 16 months (47%). This suggests that warning the nursing students that they were to be quizzed on microbiology may have helped their recall. However, after 16 months regardless of the subject, the nursing students undertaking the Pharmacology unit recalled less than half of the bioscience quiz answers. Conclusions: Nursing students may not have the recall of bioscience necessary to study pharmacology, and this may limit their success in pharmacology. Reference: Custers, E. J. F. M. (2010). Long-term retention of basic science knowledge: a review study. Advances in Health Science Education, 15, 109–128.

Australia’s first Allied Health Prescribing Program – exploring participants' understanding and confidence in clinical therapy choices for patient management

BACKGROUND Globally there are emerging trends for non-medical health professionals to expand their scope of practice into prescribing. The NPS Prescribing Competencies Framework and the Health Professionals Prescribing Pathway Program are recent initiatives to assist with implementation of prescribing for allied health professionals (AHPs). For AHPs to become prescribers, training programmes must be designed to extend their knowledge of medicines information and medicine management principles with the aim of optimising medicines related outcomes for patients. AIM To explore the understanding and confidence in clinical therapeutic choices for patient management of those AHPs enrolled in the Allied Health Prescribing Training Program Module One: Introduction to clinical therapeutics for prescribers, delivered by Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. METHOD A pre-post survey was developed to explore key themes around understanding and confidence in selecting therapeutic choices for patients with varying complexities of conditions. Data were collected from participants in week one and 13 of the module via an online survey using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Agree (SA) to 5 = Strongly Disagree (SD)). RESULTS In the pre-Module survey the AHPs had a limited degree (D/SD) of understanding and confidence regarding the safe and effective use of medicines and appropriate therapeutic choices for managing patients, particularly with complex patients. This improved significantly in the post Module survey (A/SA).

Comparator clinical trials of surrogate endpoints with albiglutide are in HARMONY

Introduction: Agonists of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptors are used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Albiglutide is a new long acting GLP-1 receptor agonist being developed for once-weekly use. Areas covered: This evaluation is of 2 clinical trials in the HARMONY clinical trials series. HARMONY 3 compares albiglutide to sitagliptin and glimepiride in subjects with type 2 diabetes poorly controlled with metformin, and HARMONY 6 compares albiglutide to insulin lispro in subjects poorly controlled with slow/medium release preparations of insulin. Expert opinion: Both studies showed that albiglutide lowered HbA1c, and had advantages over its comparator drugs. However, questions remain about the safety of albiglutide. Albiglutide is not being used in subjects with a history of thyroid cancer, as it is not known whether this is a rare adverse effect with albiglutide. Also, the safety of albiglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk is unknown.

After 10 years of clinical trials with liraglutide, do we know whether it is beneficial in diabetes?

Type 2 diabetes remains an escalating world-wide problem, despite a range of treatments. The revelation that insulin secretion is under the control of a gut hormone, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), led to a new paradigm in the management of type 2 diabetes. Liraglutide is a long acting GLP-1 receptor agonist used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The review considers the clinical trials with liraglutide. There are many comparator trials between liraglutide and other medicines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and these trials have shown that liraglutide lowers HbA1c and body weight, and is well tolerated. A large cardiovascular safety trial with liraglutide is presently being undertaken. After 10 years of clinical trials with liraglutide, we do not know whether liraglutide has cardiovascular safety in subjects with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk. Although this is not a requirement for registration by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in my opinion, they should reconsider this. We also do not presently know whether liraglutide has any beneficial effects on clinical cardiovascular outcomes.

The Pharmacology of Oxycodone : Studies In Vitro, In Vivo and In Humans

The antinociceptive properties of oxycodone and its metabolites were studied in models of thermal and mechanical nociception and in the spinal nerve ligation (SNL) model of neuropathic pain in rats. Oxycodone induced potent antinociception after subcutaneous (s.c.) administration in all models of nociception used in rats compared with morphine, methadone and its enantiomers. In the SNL model of neuropathic pain in rats, oxycodone produced dose dependent antinociception after s.c. administration. The antinociceptive effects of s.c. oxycodone were antagonized by naloxone but not by nor-binaltorphimine (Nor-BNI) a selective κ-opioid receptor antagonist indicating that the antinociceptive properties of oxycodone are predominantly μ-opioid receptor-mediated. The antinociceptive activity of oxymorphone, noroxycodone, and noroxymorphone, oxidative metabolites of oxycodone, were studied to determine their role in the oxycodone-induced antinociception in the rat. Of the metabolites of oxycodone s.c. administration of oxymorphone produced potent thermal and mechanical antinociception. Noroxycodone had a poor antinociceptive effect and noroxymorphone was inactive. Oxycodone produced naloxone-reversible antinociception after intrathecal (i.t) administration with a poor potency compared with morphine and oxymorphone. This seems to be related to the low efficacy and potency of oxycodone to stimulate μ-opioid receptor activation in the spinal cord in μ-opioid receptor agonist-stimulated (GTP)γ[S] autoradiography, compared with morphine and oxymorphone. All metabolites studied were more potent than oxycodone after i.t. administration. I.t. noroxymorphone induced a significantly longer lasting antinociceptive effect compared with the other drugs studied. The role of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6-mediated metabolites on the analgesic activity of oxycodone in humans was studied by blocking the CYP2D6-mediated metabolism of oxycodone with paroxetine. Paroxetine co-administration had no effect on the analgesic effect of oxycodone compared with placebo in chronic pain patients, indicating that oxycodone-induced analgesia and adverse-effects are not dependent of the CYP2D6-mediated metabolism in humans. Although oxycodone has many pharmacologically active metabolites, they seem to have an insignificant role in oxycodone-induced antinociception in humans and rats.