Comparative safety of imeglimin versus sitagliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A pharmacy-based retrospective cohort study

Clinical evidence supports the safety and efficacy of imeglimin, a new oral antidiabetic medication that increases insulin secretion and reduces insulin resistance. However, comparative real-world safety data with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, widely used in Japan, remain limited. This retrospective, pharmacy-based cohort study compared the incidence of adverse events (gastrointestinal events and hypoglycemia) among patients newly prescribed imeglimin or sitagliptin in real-world settings. Using a new-user design, we analyzed the 2022–2024 community pharmacy data across Japan, including 1,140 and 990 new imeglimin and sitagliptin users, respectively. Primary outcome (incidence of treatment-related events classified using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terminology) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models. Unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for events during a 4-month follow-up were estimated. At least one adverse event was reported among 31% of imeglimin users versus 22% of sitagliptin users. Hypoglycemia risk differed non-significantly between groups (aHR: 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20–2.22). However, imeglimin was associated with substantially higher risks of gastrointestinal events than sitagliptin (aHR: 5.44; 95% CI: 3.44–8.61), particularly nausea (aHR: 15.34; 95% CI: 3.50–67.23), diarrhea (aHR: 7.90; 95% CI: 2.54–24.62), and abdominal discomfort (aHR: 6.02; 95% CI: 1.47–24.58). Sensitivity analyses in patients receiving monotherapy yielded increased risk (hazard ratio (HR): 5.36; 95% CI: 2.63–10.92). Imeglimin use was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal events than sitagliptin in Japanese clinical practice, closely approaching our prespecified threshold for clinical significance. Conversely, no significant difference was observed in hypoglycemia risk, although this finding should be interpreted with caution owing to the limited number of events. Involving community pharmacists allowed for active monitoring and identification of events that are often underreported in large-scale claims databases. Clinicians should prioritize gastrointestinal monitoring during initial stages of imeglimin therapy, particularly in older patients with complex treatment regimens.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2026-10-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0359960
Primary Topic
Diabetes Treatment and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative safety of imeglimin versus sitagliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A pharmacy-based retrospective cohort study

Michiyo Kawana, Daiki Watanabe, Nobuhiro Ooba, Hajime Hashiba et al.
PLoS ONE
Diabetes Treatment and Management
article

Comparative safety of imeglimin versus sitagliptin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A pharmacy-based retrospective cohort study

Michiyo Kawana, Daiki Watanabe, Nobuhiro Ooba, Hajime Hashiba, 奈緒 鈴木, Kasumi Takabatake, Rie Nakajima, Eiji Kawakami, Masahiro Saita
article en

Abstract

Clinical evidence supports the safety and efficacy of imeglimin, a new oral antidiabetic medication that increases insulin secretion and reduces insulin resistance. However, comparative real-world safety data with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, widely used in Japan, remain limited. This retrospective, pharmacy-based cohort study compared the incidence of adverse events (gastrointestinal events and hypoglycemia) among patients newly prescribed imeglimin or sitagliptin in real-world settings. Using a new-user design, we analyzed the 2022–2024 community pharmacy data across Japan, including 1,140 and 990 new imeglimin and sitagliptin users, respectively. Primary outcome (incidence of treatment-related events classified using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terminology) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models. Unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for events during a 4-month follow-up were estimated. At least one adverse event was reported among 31% of imeglimin users versus 22% of sitagliptin users. Hypoglycemia risk differed non-significantly between groups (aHR: 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20–2.22). However, imeglimin was associated with substantially higher risks of gastrointestinal events than sitagliptin (aHR: 5.44; 95% CI: 3.44–8.61), particularly nausea (aHR: 15.34; 95% CI: 3.50–67.23), diarrhea (aHR: 7.90; 95% CI: 2.54–24.62), and abdominal discomfort (aHR: 6.02; 95% CI: 1.47–24.58). Sensitivity analyses in patients receiving monotherapy yielded increased risk (hazard ratio (HR): 5.36; 95% CI: 2.63–10.92). Imeglimin use was associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal events than sitagliptin in Japanese clinical practice, closely approaching our prespecified threshold for clinical significance. Conversely, no significant difference was observed in hypoglycemia risk, although this finding should be interpreted with caution owing to the limited number of events. Involving community pharmacists allowed for active monitoring and identification of events that are often underreported in large-scale claims databases. Clinicians should prioritize gastrointestinal monitoring during initial stages of imeglimin therapy, particularly in older patients with complex treatment regimens.

PLoS ONEVol. 21(10)
Nihon University (JP), Teikyo University of Science (JP), Teikyo University (JP)
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Diabetes Treatment and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.