Preferential prescribing of linagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients in an expanded post‐marketing surveillance study in Japan. Issue 5 (1st March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fazeli Farsani, Soulmaz; Taniguchi, Atsushi; Ikeda, Rie; Brodovicz, Kimberly G; Bartels, Dorothee B
• Is Part Of: Journal of diabetes investigation. Volume 10:Issue 5(2019)
• Page Start: 1246
• Page End: 1253
• Publication Date: 2019-03-01
• Subjects: Japan -- Linagliptin -- Type 2 diabetes; Diabetes -- Periodicals; Diabetes -- Research -- Periodicals; Diabetes Mellitus -- Periodicals; 616.462005
• DOI: 10.1111/jdi.13012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2040-1116

Abstract

Abstract: Aims/Introduction: To evaluate linagliptin prescribing in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with different comorbidities, an expanded Japanese post‐marketing surveillance also collected baseline data for patients initiating other glucose‐lowering drugs. Materials and Methods: Patients initiating linagliptin monotherapy were enrolled, then the next patient starting monotherapy with another glucose‐lowering drug was enrolled (2012–2014). Baseline data were collected and analyzed by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities system organ class. Analyses were descriptive, and meaningful differences defined as absolute standardized difference >10%. Results: Over 4, 200 type 2 diabetes mellitus patients were enrolled. Most system‐organ class comorbidities were more common in patients initiating linagliptin versus other glucose‐lowering drugs, with meaningful differences observed for metabolism/nutritional (50.5 vs 45.5%, respectively), cardiac (12.2 vs 8.6%, respectively), vascular (56.4 vs 51.3%, respectively) and renal/urinary disorders (9.9 vs 5.7%, respectively). Conclusions: Expanding the linagliptin Japanese post‐marketing surveillance revealed linagliptin prescribing to a type 2 diabetes mellitus population with more comorbidities versus other glucose‐lowering drugs. Although such preferential prescribing might be expected, as linagliptin requires no dose adjustment or monitoring in renally or hepatically impaired patients, this innovative post‐marketing surveillance approach generated important evidence that could only be shown in such a non‐randomized comparative study. These data generated insights important for the design and interpretation of observational studies and spontaneous reports, which are key for public health.