Sitagliptin Versus Ipragliflozin for Type 2 Diabetes in Clinical Practice

Ikuro Matsuba, Kotaro Iemitsu, Takehiro Kawata, Takashi Iizuka, Masahiro Takihata, Masahiko Takai, Shigeru Nakajima, Nobuaki Minami, Shinichi Umezawa, Akira Kanamori, Hiroshi Takeda, Shogo Ito, Taisuke Kikuchi, Hikaru Amemiya, Mizuki Kaneshiro, Atsuko Mokubo, Tetsuro Takuma, Hideo Machimura, Keiji Tanaka, Taro Asakura, Akira Kubota, Sachio Aoyagi, Kazuhiko Hoshino, Masashi Ishikawa, Mitsuo Obana, Nobuo Sasai, Hideaki Kaneshige, Masaaki Miyakawa, Yasushi Tanaka, Yasuo Terauchi


Background: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are frequently used to treat type 2 diabetes. However, there have been no direct comparisons of these antidiabetic drugs in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods: We retrospectively assessed the effects of treatment with sitagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor) for 24 weeks in the ASSET-K study or treatment with ipragliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor) for 24 weeks in the ASSIGN-K study. In both studies, patients with poor glycemic control received the study drug in addition to standard care with/without other antidiabetic medications or were switched to the study drug. The effects of each drug on metabolic risk factors (body weight, blood glucose, and lipids), blood pressure, and renal function were compared.

Results: After 4 weeks of treatment, hemoglobin A1c was significantly lower in patients receiving ipragliflozin than in those receiving sitagliptin, but the difference was not significant at 12 or 24 weeks. Body mass index showed a significantly larger decrease with ipragliflozin treatment than sitagliptin treatment throughout most of the study period (P < 0.001 at 24 weeks). The mean blood pressure also showed a significantly larger decrease with ipragliflozin treatment than sitagliptin treatment throughout most of the study period (P = 0.007 at 24 weeks). In contrast, the decrease of the estimated glomerular filtration rate after 24 weeks was significantly larger in patients treated with sitagliptin than those receiving ipragliflozin (P = 0.012).

Conclusions: Ipragliflozin may be more effective than sitagliptin for Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes who have hypertension, obesity, and/or renal dysfunction.

J Endocrinol Metab. 2019;9(5):151-158


Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor; Ipragliflozin; Sitagliptin; Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor; Type 2 diabetes

Full Text: HTML PDF

Browse  Journals  


Journal of Clinical Medicine Research

Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics


World Journal of Oncology

Gastroenterology Research

Journal of Hematology


Journal of Medical Cases

Journal of Current Surgery

Clinical Infection and Immunity


Cardiology Research

World Journal of Nephrology and Urology

Cellular and Molecular Medicine Research


Journal of Neurology Research

International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics



Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, bimonthly, ISSN 1923-2861 (print), 1923-287X (online), published by Elmer Press Inc.                     
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
This is an open-access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted
non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Creative Commons Attribution license (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International CC-BY-NC 4.0)

This journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals,
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

website:   editorial contact:
Address: 9225 Leslie Street, Suite 201, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H6, Canada

© Elmer Press Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the published articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the editors and Elmer Press Inc. This website is provided for medical research and informational purposes only and does not constitute any medical advice or professional services. The information provided in this journal should not be used for diagnosis and treatment, those seeking medical advice should always consult with a licensed physician.