OBJECTIVETo evaluate the efficacy and long-term safety of linagliptin added to basal insulins in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin with or without oral agents.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA total of 1,261 patients (HbA1c ≥7.0% [53 mmol/mol] to ≤10.0% [86 mmol/mol]) on basal insulin alone or combined with metformin and/or pioglitazone were randomized (1:1) to double-blind treatment with linagliptin 5 mg once daily or placebo for ≥52 weeks. The basal insulin dose was kept unchanged for 24 weeks but could thereafter be titrated according to fasting plasma glucose levels at the investigators’ discretion. The primary end point was the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. The safety analysis incorporated data up to a maximum of 110 weeks.RESULTSAt week 24, HbA1c changed from a baseline of 8.3% (67 mmol/mol) by −0.6% (−6.6 mmol/mol) and by 0.1% (1.1 mmol/mol) with linagliptin and placebo, respectively (treatment difference −0.65% [95% CI −0.74 to −0.55] [−7.1 mmol/mol]; P < 0.0001). Despite the option to uptitrate basal insulin, it was adjusted only slightly upward (week 52, linagliptin 2.6 IU/day, placebo 4.2 IU/day; P < 0.003), resulting in no further HbA1c improvements. Frequencies of hypoglycemia (week 24, linagliptin 22.0%, placebo 23.2%; treatment end, linagliptin 31.4%, placebo 32.9%) and adverse events (linagliptin 78.4%, placebo 81.4%) were similar between groups. Mean body weight remained unchanged (week 52, linagliptin −0.30 kg, placebo −0.04 kg).CONCLUSIONSLinagliptin added to basal insulin therapy significantly improved glycemic control relative to placebo without increasing hypoglycemia or body weight.

AimsThe MARLINA‐T2D study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01792518) was designed to investigate the glycaemic and renal effects of linagliptin added to standard‐of‐care in individuals with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria.MethodsA total of 360 individuals with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c 6.5% to 10.0% (48–86 mmol/mol), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin‐to‐creatinine ratio (UACR) 30–3000 mg/g despite single agent renin‐angiotensin‐system blockade were randomized to double‐blind linagliptin (n = 182) or placebo (n = 178) for 24 weeks. The primary and key secondary endpoints were change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24 and time‐weighted average of percentage change from baseline in UACR over 24 weeks, respectively.ResultsBaseline mean HbA1c and geometric mean (gMean) UACR were 7.8% ± 0.9% (62.2 ± 9.6 mmol/mol) and 126 mg/g, respectively; 73.7% and 20.3% of participants had microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria, respectively. After 24 weeks, the placebo‐adjusted mean change in HbA1c from baseline was −0.60% (−6.6 mmol/mol) (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.78 to −0.43 [−8.5 to −4.7 mmol/mol]; P < .0001). The placebo‐adjusted gMean for time‐weighted average of percentage change in UACR from baseline was −6.0% (95% CI, −15.0 to 3.0; P = .1954). The adverse‐event profile, including renal safety and change in eGFR, was similar between the linagliptin and placebo groups.ConclusionsIn individuals at early stages of diabetic kidney disease, linagliptin significantly improved glycaemic control but did not significantly lower albuminuria. There was no significant change in placebo‐adjusted eGFR. Detection of clinically relevant renal effects of linagliptin may require longer treatment, as its main experimental effects in animal studies have been to reduce interstitial fibrosis rather than alter glomerular haemodynamics.

In T2DM patients for whom metformin was inappropriate, linagliptin improved glycaemic control and was well tolerated, with less hypoglycaemia and relative weight loss compared with glimepiride.

Aims:To evaluate glucose-lowering treatment strategies with linagliptin and metformin in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia, a prevalent population for which few dedicated studies of oral antidiabetes drugs have been conducted. Methods:A total of 316 patients, with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for ≤12 months and with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration in the range 8.5-12.0%, were randomized 1:1 to double-blind, free-combination treatment with linagliptin 5 mg once daily and metformin twice daily (uptitrated to 2000 mg/day maximum) or to linagliptin monotherapy. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c concentration from baseline at week 24 (per-protocol completers' cohort: n = 245). Results:The mean (standard deviation) age and HbA1c at baseline were 48.8 (11.0) years and 9.8 (1.1)%, respectively. At week 24, the mean ± standard error (s.e.) HbA1c decreased from baseline by -2.8 ± 0.1% with linagliptin/metformin and -2.0 ± 0.1% with linagliptin; a treatment difference of -0.8% (95% confidence interval -1.1 to -0.5; p <0.0001). Similar results were observed in a sensitivity analysis based on intent-to-treat principles: adjusted mean ± s.e. changes in HbA1c of -2.7 ± 0.1% and -1.8 ± 0.1%, respectively; treatment difference of -0.9% (95% CI -1.3 to -0.6; p <0.0001). A treatment response of HbA1c <7.0% was achieved by 61 and 40% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively. Few patients experienced drug-related adverse events (8.8 and 5.7% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 1.9 and 3.2% of patients in the linagliptin/metformin and linagliptin groups, respectively (no severe episodes). Body weight decreased significantly with the combination therapy (-1.3 kg between-group difference; p =0.0033). Conclusions:Linagliptin in initial combination with metformin in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and marked hyperglycaemia, an understudied group, elicited significant improvements in glycaemic control with a low incidence of hypoglycaemia, weight gain or other adverse effects. These results support early combination treatment strategies and suggest that newly diagnosed patients with marked hyperglycaemia may be effectively managed with oral, non-insulin therapy.

BackgroundStudies of dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors report heterogeneous effects on endothelial function in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study assessed the effects of the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin versus the sulphonylurea glimepiride and placebo on measures of macro- and microvascular endothelial function in patients with T2D who represented a primary cardiovascular disease prevention population.MethodsThis crossover study randomised T2D patients (n = 42) with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤7.5%, no diagnosed macro- or microvascular disease and on stable metformin background to linagliptin 5 mg qd, glimepiride 1–4 mg qd or placebo for 28 days. Fasting and postprandial macrovascular endothelial function, measured using brachial flow-mediated vasodilation, and microvascular function, measured using laser-Doppler on the dorsal thenar site of the right hand, were analysed after 28 days.ResultsBaseline mean (standard deviation) age, body mass index and HbA1c were 60.3 (6.0) years, 30.3 (3.0) kg/m2 and 7.41 (0.61)%, respectively. After 28 days, changes in fasting flow-mediated vasodilation were similar between the three study arms (treatment ratio, gMean [90% confidence interval]: linagliptin vs glimepiride, 0.884 [0.633–1.235]; linagliptin vs placebo, 0.884 [0.632–1.235]; glimepiride vs placebo, 1.000 [0.715–1.397]; P = not significant for all comparisons). Similarly, no differences were seen in postprandial flow-mediated vasodilation. However, under fasting conditions, linagliptin significantly improved microvascular function as shown by a 34% increase in hyperaemia area (P = 0.045 vs glimepiride), a 34% increase in resting blow flow (P = 0.011 vs glimepiride, P = 0.003 vs placebo), and a 25% increase in peak blood flow (P = 0.009 vs glimepiride, P = 0.003 vs placebo). There were no significant differences between treatments in postprandial changes. Linagliptin had no effect on heart rate or blood pressure. Rates of overall adverse events with linagliptin, glimepiride and placebo were 27.5, 61.0 and 35.0%, respectively. Fewer hypoglycaemic events were seen with linagliptin (5.0%) and placebo (2.5%) than with glimepiride (39.0%).ConclusionsLinagliptin had no effect on macrovascular function in T2D, but significantly improved microvascular function in the fasting state. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier—NCT01703286; registered October 1, 2012Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12933-016-0493-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.