Association Between Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: An Observational Study

Comprehensive safety profile of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: a post-marketing study based on FAERS database using signal detection algorithms

BACKGROUND

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4 inhibitors) have acquired a foothold in managing type 2 diabetes mellitus, but few concerns have arisen regarding their overall safety profile. The aim of this study is to assess the potential risk of DPP-4 inhibitors by analyzing data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study which explored the FAERS database till March 2023 for the collection of safety reports. The disproportionality analysis was performed using signal detection algorithms (SDAs) incorporating frequentist-based data mining approach such as relative reporting ratio (RRR), reporting odds ratio (ROR) and proportional reporting ratio (PRR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 14,573 adverse event reports were reported in the FAERS public dashboard associated with all the included DPP-4 inhibitors. The computed PRR, ROR, and RRR indicated positive signals for DPP-4 inhibitors with cardiac failure, pancreatitis, pemphigoid, hypoglycemia, acute kidney injury and lactic acidosis. Saxagliptin showed a higher signal score for cardiac failure, while sitagliptin was more associated with pancreatitis. Moreover, alogliptin exhibited an elevated signal score associated with pancreatic carcinoma.

CONCLUSION

Several significant disproportionality signals were observed with DPP-4 inhibitors. However, clinicians have to consider the comorbidities and concomitant drugs while prescribing these drugs.

Taiwan Association for the Study of the Liver-Taiwan Society of Cardiology Taiwan position statement for the management of metabolic dysfunction- associated fatty liver disease and cardiovascular diseases

Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is an increasingly common liver disease worldwide. MAFLD is diagnosed based on the presence of steatosis on images, histological findings, or serum marker levels as well as the presence of at least one of the three metabolic features: overweight/obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and metabolic risk factors. MAFLD is not only a liver disease but also a factor contributing to or related to cardiovascular diseases (CVD), which is the major etiology responsible for morbidity and mortality in patients with MAFLD. Hence, understanding the association between MAFLD and CVD, surveillance and risk stratification of MAFLD in patients with CVD, and assessment of the current status of MAFLD management are urgent requirements for both hepatologists and cardiologists. This Taiwan position statement reviews the literature and provides suggestions regarding the epidemiology, etiology, risk factors, risk stratification, nonpharmacological interventions, and potential drug treatments of MAFLD, focusing on its association with CVD.

Comprehensive Management of Cardiovascular Risk Factors for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in patients with diabetes. Cardiovascular disease in diabetes is multifactorial, and control of the cardiovascular risk factors leads to substantial reductions in cardiovascular events. The 2015 American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association scientific statement, "Update on Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Light of Recent Evidence," highlighted the importance of modifying various risk factors responsible for cardiovascular disease in diabetes. At the time, there was limited evidence to suggest that glucose-lowering medications reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. At present, several large randomized controlled trials with newer antihyperglycemic agents have been completed, demonstrating cardiovascular safety and reduction in cardiovascular outcomes, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure. This AHA scientific statement update focuses on (1) the evidence and clinical utility of newer antihyperglycemic agents in improving glycemic control and reducing cardiovascular events in diabetes; (2) the impact of blood pressure control on cardiovascular events in diabetes; and (3) the role of newer lipid-lowering therapies in comprehensive cardiovascular risk management in adults with diabetes. This scientific statement addresses the continued importance of lifestyle interventions, pharmacological therapy, and surgical interventions to curb the epidemic of obesity and metabolic syndrome, important precursors of prediabetes, diabetes, and comorbid cardiovascular disease. Last, this scientific statement explores the critical importance of the social determinants of health and health equity in the continuum of care in diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Cardioprotective effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors versus sulfonylureas in addition to metformin: A nationwide cohort study of patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Cardiovascular effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) versus sulfonylureas (SU) remain controversial in observational studies. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of DPP4i on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, cardiogenic shock, malignant dysrhythmia, and revascularisation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a nationwide cohort study using claims data from the National Health Insurance in Taiwan from 2007 to 2013. We enrolled type 2 diabetes patients who received DPP4i or SU in addition to metformin. DPP4i users were matched to SU users using propensity scores at a ratio of 1:1. The study outcomes were hospitalisation for MACE, heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, coronary revascularisation, and hypoglycaemia.

RESULTS

There were 37,317 matched pairs of DPP4i and SU users with a mean follow-up of 2.1 years. Compared with SU users, DPP4i users showed a significantly lower risk of hospitalisation for MACE (HR 0.79 [95% CI 0.75-0.82]), heart failure (0.86 [0.79-0.93]), acute myocardial infarction (0.76 [0.68-0.92]), and cerebrovascular disease (0.72 [0.67-0.77]). Both sitagliptin (0.89 [0.85-0.94]) and vildagliptin ([0.77 [0.60-0.99]) showed a significantly lower risk of hospitalisation for MACE, but saxagliptin showed a borderline significantly higher risk of hospitalisation for heart failure (1.59 [1.00-2.55]).

CONCLUSIONS

DPP4i showed better cardioprotective effects than SU, especially among patients receiving sitagliptin or vildagliptin.

Decreased Mortality After Long-Term Treatment With Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors: A Retrospective Study of U.S. Veterans With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

The prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the United States is 13% of the general population. Among those with CKD, diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease. This is a retrospective study examining the effect of long-term use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors on all-cause mortality and progression of renal disease in the veteran population.

METHODS

Data was extracted using the Veterans Administration Informatics and Computing Infrastructure. A large cohort of veterans diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus were used to identify patients on DPP-4 inhibitors and without DPP-4 inhibitors. Groups were compared to determine the effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on the progression of CKD and all-cause mortality. Data were analyzed using SAS.

RESULTS

Subjects in the treatment group (n = 40 558) had baseline variables (age, body mass index, race) similar to the control group (n = 40 558). Diabetes control improved in the treatment group (HgbA1c, 8.3% [67 mmol/mol] to 7.8% [62 mmol/mol]; P < .001) but not in the control group (HgbA1c, 7.4% [57 mmol/mol] to 7.3% [56 mmol/mol]). New diagnoses of heart failure and coronary artery bypass grafts were clinically significant (odds ratios = 0.66 and 0.52). No change in progression of CKD was seen in either group. All-cause mortality was reduced by 59%.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that DPP-4 inhibitors are associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality independent of glucose control, albeit with no clear cause, including obtainable cardiovascular outcomes. Our data is consistent with prior trials in that DPP-4 inhibitors did not show a significant change in serum creatinine or microalbuminuria.

Pharmacological Management of Glucose Dysregulation in Patients Treated with Second-Generation Antipsychotics

Fasting hyperglycemia, impaired glucose tolerance, prediabetes, and diabetes are frequently present in patients treated with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAPs) for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other severe mental illnesses. These drugs are known to produce weight gain, which may lead to insulin resistance, glucose intolerance, and metabolic syndrome, which constitute important risk factors for the emergence of diabetes. The aim of this review was to formulate therapeutic guidelines for the management of diabetes in patients treated with SGAPs, based on the association between SGAP-induced weight gain and glucose dysregulation. A  systematic search in PubMed from inception to March 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of diabetes or prediabetes in patients treated with SGAPs was performed. PubMed was also searched for the most recent clinical practice guidelines of interventions for co-morbid conditions associated with diabetes mellitus (DM) (arterial hypertension and dyslipidemia), lifestyle interventions and switching from high metabolic liability SGAPs to safer SGAPs. The search identified 14 RCTs in patients treated with SGAPs. Drug therapy using metformin as first-line therapy and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or perhaps sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors as add-on therapy, might be preferred in these patients as well, as they favorably influence glucose metabolism and body mass index, and provide cardio-renal benefits in general to the DM population, although for the SGLT-2 inhibitors there are no RCTs in this specific patient category so far. Metformin is also useful for treatment of prediabetes. Arterial hypertension should be treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers, and statins should be used for correction of dyslipidemia. The outcome of lifestyle-changing interventions has been disappointing. Switching from clozapine, olanzapine, or quetiapine to lower cardiometabolic-risk SGAPs, like aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, lurasidone, or ziprasidone, has been recommended.

Cardiovascular Safety and Benefits of Noninsulin Antihyperglycemic Drugs for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Part 2

Ideal drugs to improve outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are those with antiglycemic efficacy, as well as cardiovascular safety that has to be determined in appropriately designed cardiovascular outcome trials as mandated by regulatory agencies. The more recent antihyperglycemic medications have shown promise with regards to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction in T2DM patients at a high cardiovascular risk. Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are associated with better cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in T2DM patients than are dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitors, leading to the Food and Drug Administration's approval of empagliflozin to reduce mortality, and of liraglutide to reduce CVD risk in high-risk T2DM patients. For heart failure outcomes, sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are beneficial, while glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are neutral. Ongoing and planned randomized controlled trials of these newer drugs should clarify the possibility of class effects and of CVD risk reduction benefits in low-moderate cardiovascular risk patients. While we eagerly await the results on ongoing studies, these medications should be appropriately prescribed in T2DM patients with baseline CVD or those at a high CVD risk after carefully evaluating the elevated risk for adverse events like gastrointestinal disturbances, bladder cancer, genital infections, and amputations. Studies to understand the pleotropic and novel pathophysiological mechanisms demonstrated by the sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors will shed light on the effects of the modulation of microvascular, inflammatory, and thrombotic milieu for improving the CVD risk in T2DM patients. This is part 2 of the series on noninsulin antihyperglycemic drugs for the treatment of T2DM.

The effects of saxagliptin on cardiac structure and function using cardiac MRI (SCARF)

PURPOSE

A recent large cardiovascular outcome trial in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) demonstrated excess heart failure hospitalization with saxagliptin. We sought to evaluate the impact of saxagliptin on cardiac structure and function using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in patients with T2DM without pre-existing heart failure.

METHODS

In this prospective study, patients with T2DM without heart failure were prescribed saxagliptin as part of routine guideline-directed management. Clinical assessment, CMR imaging and biomarkers were assessed in a blinded fashion and compared following 6 months of continued treatment. The primary outcome was the change in left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) after 6 months of therapy. Key secondary outcomes included changes in LV and right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic volume, ventricular mass, LV global strain and cardiac biomarkers [N terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP)] over 6 months.

RESULTS

The cohort (n = 16) had a mean age of 59.9 years with 69% being male. The mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 8.3%. Mean baseline LVEF was 57% ± 3.4, with no significant change over 6 months (- 0.2%, 95% CI - 2.5, 2.1, p = 0.86). Detailed CMR analyses that included LV/RV volumes, LV mass, and feature tracking-derived strain showed no significant change (all p > 0.50). NT-proBNP and hsCRP levels did not significantly change (p > 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of stable ambulatory patients with T2DM without heart failure, saxagliptin treatment was not associated with adverse ventricular remodeling over 6 months as assessed using CMR and biomarkers.

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects on Cardiovascular Diseases With Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors Versus Sulfonylureas in Type 2 Diabetes Patients

This study explored heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) of the real-world use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) vs. sulfonylureas (SUs) on cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Utilizing Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, 19,853 propensity score-matched pairs of DPP-4i and SU stable users were identified. Classification and regression tree analyses and Cox models were applied to explore HTEs, according to various patient characteristics, on the composite CVDs, three-point major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and all-cause mortality. The absolute risk difference (ARD), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated for comparing treatment effects. CVD history, ischemic stroke, or transient ischemic attack (IS/TIA) history, and age at treatment initiation were significant treatment effect modifiers. Patients with prior IS/TIA but without any other prior CVDs benefited most in reduced risks of composite CVDs from using DPP-4i vs. SU (ARD -4.31%, 95% CI -7.48% to -1.14%, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 0.95), followed by those without prior IS/TIA and CVDs and initiated with DPP-4i at age < 69.3 years (ARD -0.90%, 95% CI -1.47% to -0.32%, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 ~ 0.97). Patients with prior IS/TIA benefited most in reduced risks of three-point MACE from using DPP-4i vs. SU (ARD -4.22%, 95% CV -6.66% to -1.78%, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 0.93), followed by those without prior IS/TIA and initiated with DPP-4i at age < 69.3 years (ARD -0.68%, 95% CI -1.08% to -0.29%, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 ~ 0.93). Consideration of CVD and IS/TIA histories and age could facilitate individualized diabetes management of using DPP-4i vs. SU. Future studies are warranted given the hypothesis-generating nature in this exploratory research.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes, without cardiovascular or renal disease

Background

Cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors (DPP-4i) in patients without cardiovascular or renal disease, a majority of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes often excluded from clinical trials on this association, is poorly understood. Thus, we investigate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) associated with DPP-4i in low-risk patients with diabetes

Methods

Using a new-user retrospective cohort derived from IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters (2010–2015), we identified patients aged 35–65 with type 2 diabetes, without cardiovascular or renal disease, initiating DPP-4i, sulfonylureas, or metformin. Primary composite outcome of time to first MACE was defined as the first of any of the following: myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, coronary artery bypass graft, coronary angioplasty, heart failure, and stroke. Secondary outcomes were time to first heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke. We compared outcomes for DPP-4i versus sulfonylurea and DPP-4i versus metformin using propensity score weighted Cox proportional hazards, adjusting for demographics, baseline comorbidities, concomitant medications, and cumulative exposure.

Results

Of 445,701 individuals, 236,431 (53.0%) were male, median age was 51 (interquartile range: [44, 57]), 30,267 (6.79%) initiated DPP-4i, 52,138 (11.70%) initiated sulfonylureas, and 367,908 (82.55%) initiated metformin. After adjustment, DPP-4i was associated with lower risk of MACE than sulfonylurea (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78–0.98), and similar risk to metformin (aHR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97–1.18). Risk for acute myocardial infarction (aHR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51–0.96), stroke (aHR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41–0.79), and heart failure (aHR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41–0.79) with DPP-4i was lower compared to sulfonylureas.

Conclusion

Our findings show that for this cohort of low-risk patients newly treated for type 2 diabetes, DPP-4i exhibited 13% lower risk for MACE compared to sulfonylureas and similar risk for MACE compared to metformin, suggesting DPP-4i is a low cardiovascular risk option for low-risk patients initiating antihyperglycemic treatment.

The treament of hyperglycemia in acute ischemic stroke with incretin-based drugs

Stroke is a major cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Considerable experimental and clinical evidence suggests that both diabetes mellitus (DM) and post-stroke hyperglycemia are associated with increased mortality rate and worsened clinical conditions in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. Insulin treatment does not seem to provide convincing benefits for these patients, therefore prompting a change of strategy. The selective agonists of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptors (GLP-1Ras) and the Inhibitors of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-IV (DPP-IVIs, gliptins) are two newer classes of glucose-lowering drugs used for the treatment of DM. This review examines in detail the rationale for their development and the physicochemical, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and clinical activities. Emphasis will be placed on their neuroprotective effects at cellular and molecular levels in experimental models of acute cerebral ischemia. In perspective, an adequate basis does exist for a novel therapeutic approach to hyperglycemia in AIS patients through the additive treatment with GLP-1Ras plus DPP-IVIs.

Using Real-World Data to Predict Findings of an Ongoing Phase IV Cardiovascular Outcome Trial: Cardiovascular Safety of Linagliptin Versus Glimepiride

OBJECTIVE

Using real-world data (RWD) from three U.S. claims data sets, we aim to predict the findings of the CARdiovascular Outcome Trial of LINAgliptin Versus Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes (CAROLINA) comparing linagliptin versus glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at increased cardiovascular risk by using a novel framework that requires passing prespecified validity checks before analyzing the primary outcome.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Within Medicare and two commercial claims data sets (May 2011-September 2015), we identified a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort of T2D patients 40-85 years old at increased cardiovascular risk who initiated linagliptin or glimepiride by adapting eligibility criteria from CAROLINA. PSM was used to balance >120 confounders. Validity checks included the evaluation of expected power, covariate balance, and two control outcomes for which we expected a positive association and a null finding. We registered the protocol (NCT03648424, ClinicalTrials.gov) before evaluating the composite cardiovascular outcome based on CAROLINA's primary end point. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were estimated in each data source and pooled with a fixed-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 24,131 PSM pairs of linagliptin and glimepiride initiators with sufficient power for noninferiority (>98%). Exposure groups achieved excellent covariate balance, including key laboratory results, and expected associations between glimepiride and hypoglycemia (HR 2.38 [95% CI 1.79-3.13]) and between linagliptin and end-stage renal disease (HR 1.08 [0.66-1.79]) were replicated. Linagliptin was associated with a 9% decreased risk in the composite cardiovascular outcome with a CI including the null (HR 0.91 [0.79-1.05]), in line with noninferiority.

CONCLUSIONS

In a nonrandomized RWD study, we found that linagliptin has noninferior risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome compared with glimepiride.

Linagliptin plus insulin for hyperglycemia immediately after renal transplantation: A comparative study

AIMS

Post-renal-transplanted patients frequently present hyperglycemia immediately after the procedure. The goal of this work was to evaluate the effect of linagliptin + insulin in post-renal-transplanted patients with hyperglycemia.

METHODS

Retrospective comparative study in post-renal transplanted patients with hyperglycemia after transplantation who were treated with linagliptin 5 mg daily plus insulin vs insulin alone for 5 days after renal transplantation with hyperglycemia. Main outcomes were glucose levels, insulin dose and severity of hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

There were 14 patients treated with linagliptin + insulin and 14 patients treated only with insulin. Glucose levels and insulin doses were lower in the linagliptin + insulin group in comparison with the insulin alone group, 131.0 ± 15.1 vs 191.1 ± 22.5 mg/dl (7.27 ± 0.84 vs 10.61 ± 1.25 mmol/l) and 37.5 ± 6.3 vs 24.2 ± 6.6 U, respectively (p < 0.05). Hypoglycemia was less severe in the linagliptin + insulin group, 65.1 ± 2.2 vs 54.2 ± 3.3 mg/dl (3.61 ± 0.12 vs 3.00 ± 3.3 ± 0.18 mmol/l), p 0.036.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of linagliptin + insulin provided better glycemic control with a lower insulin dose and less severe hypoglycemia in comparison to insulin alone in patients with hyperglycemia immediately after renal transplantation.

Review of the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the clinical relevance of the CAROLINA trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) is a well-recognized complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and there is a clinical need for glucose-lowering therapies that do not further increase CV risk in this population. Although sulfonylureas (SUs) may be used as second-line therapy for patients requiring additional therapy after first-line metformin to improve glycemic control, their long-term effects on CV outcomes remain uncertain, and a wide range of alternative agents exist including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODS

Literature searches in PubMed (2013-2018) were conducted with terms for DPP-4 inhibitors combined with CV terms, with preference given to cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs). Reference lists from retrieved articles and diabetes guidelines were also considered.

RESULTS

This narrative review discusses current evidence for the CV safety of these agents, describes the long-term CV effects of DPP-4 inhibitors, including effects on CV events, mortality, the risk for heart failure hospitalization, and highlights the need for further research into the CV effects of SU therapy. Although SUs remain a treatment option for T2DM, the long-term effects of these agents on CV outcomes are unclear, and further long-term studies are required. For DPP-4 inhibitors, uncertainties have been raised about their long-term effect on hospitalization for heart failure in light of the results of SAVOR-TIMI 53, although the findings of other DPP-4 inhibitor CVOTs in T2DM and data analyses have suggested these agents do not increase the occurrence of adverse CV outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on recent CVOTs and guideline updates, the choice of add-on to metformin therapy for patients with T2DM and established CV disease should be a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist with proven CV benefit. Additional treatment options for those individuals who require therapy intensification, as well as in patients with T2DM and without established CVD include DPP-4 inhibitors and SUs. Since few head-to-head trials have compared the effects of different oral glucose-lowering agents on CV outcomes in T2DM, with most CVOTs using placebo as a comparator, the CAROLINA trial will provide important information on the comparative CV safety of a commonly prescribed SU and a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor compared with sulfonylurea in combination with metformin: cardiovascular and renal outcomes in a propensity-matched cohort study

Background

To determine the impact of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) on the risk of major cardiocerebrovascular and renal outcomes compared with sulfonylurea (SU) combined with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes from a population-based cohort.

Methods

From a nationwide cohort in Korea (2008–2013), 23,674 patients with type 2 diabetes treated with DPP4i plus metformin or SU plus metformin were selected and matched by propensity score. Composite cardiocerebrovascular events including incident ischemic heart disease (IHD), ischemic stroke (IS), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and cardiocerebrovascular death, as well as renal events including incident end-stage renal disease or initiation of renal-replacement therapy were assessed by Cox proportional-hazards models.

Results

During a median follow-up of 19.6 months (interquartile range 7.2–36.4), 762 composite cardiocerebrovascular events and 17 end-stage renal events occurred. There was no significant difference in the risk of IHD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI 0.81–1.23), IS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI 0.74–1.23), or cardiocerebrovascular death (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.46–1.18) in the DPP4i group compared to that in the SU group. Likewise, DPP4i therapy was not associated with the risk of end-stage renal outcomes (HR, 1.23; 95% CI 0.41–3.62). However, the risk of HHF was significantly higher in the DPP4i group than in the SU group (HR, 1.47; 95% CI 1.07–2.04).

Conclusions

This real-world database analysis showed that DPP4i therapy did not increase the overall risk of major cardiovascular and renal outcomes compared to SU therapy. However, the DPP4i-associated risk of HHF remained significant.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12933-019-0835-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

DPP-4 inhibitors and heart failure: a potential role for pharmacogenomics

There remains an ongoing controversy regarding the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the risk of developing heart failure (HF). In addition, none of the animal studies suggested a mechanism for the DPP-4 inhibitors and HF risk. To date, advances in pharmacogenomics have enabled the identification of genetic variants in DPP-4 gene. Studies have shown that genetic polymorphisms in the gene encoding DPP-4 may be associated with potential pathways involved in HF risk. This review discusses the contradictory findings of DPP-4 inhibitors and HF and a potential role for pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics of DPP-4 inhibitors is promising, and genetic information from randomized control trials is urgently needed to gain a full understanding of the safety of DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of HF.

Second-line glucose-lowering drugs added to metformin and the risk of hospitalization for heart failure: A nationwide cohort study

AIM

To compare the risks of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) associated with sulfonylurea (SU), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i), and thiazolidinedione (TZD) as add-on medications to metformin (MET) therapy using the data of Korean adults with type-2 diabetes from the Korean National Health Insurance database.

METHODS

We identified 98,383 people who received SU (n = 42,683), DPP-4i (n = 50,310), or TZD (n = 5,390) added to initial treatment of MET monotherapy in patients with type-2 diabetes. The main outcome was the hospitalization for HHF. Hazard ratios for HHF by type of second-line glucose-lowering medication were estimated by Cox-proportional hazard models. Sex, age, duration of MET monotherapy, Charlson Comorbidity Index and additional comorbidities, and calendar year were controlled as potential confounders.

RESULTS

The observed numbers (rate per 100,000 person-years) of HHF events were 1,129 (658) for MET+SU users, 710 (455) for MET+DPP-4i users, and 110 (570) for MET+TZD users. Compared to that for MET+SU users (reference group), the adjusted hazard ratios for HHF events were 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.69-0.84) for MET+DPP-4i users and 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.79-1.17) for MET+TZD users.

CONCLUSION

DPP-4i as an add-on therapy to MET may lower the risks of HHF compared with SU.

Heart Failure Hospitalization with DPP-4 Inhibitors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Heart failure hospitalization (hHF) with dipeptyl-dipeptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4Is) remains at the center stage since the publication of Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus - Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (SAVOR-TIMI) in 2013 showing significant increase with saxagliptin, compared to placebo. This outcome led to additional label of hHF to both saxagliptin and alogliptin in April 2016 and eventual labelling of hHF to all the four approved DPP-4Is in United States in August 2017, by US Food Drug Administration. To note, neither Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS), nor Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study with Linagliptin (CARMELINA), showed any signals of hHF with these two agents. These developments have seriously generated an uncertainty among clinicians with regards to hHF effect of DPP-4Is in type 2 diabetic patients with high risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

We systematically searched the database of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International conference presentation from the inception up to October 25, 2018 using MeSH and specific key words. We retrieved all those studies that explicitly looked for hHF as a prespecified end point and were conducted for ≥52 weeks. Subsequently, we conducted the meta-analysis using comprehensive meta-analysis software Version 3, using different sensitivity analysis to study the effect of DPP-4Is on hHF in both dedicated CV outcome trials as well as randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis of four exclusive dedicated CV outcome trials (N = 43,522) did not find significant increase in hHF with DPP-4 inhibitors (Fixed model Relative Risk [RR] 1.06; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.96-1.17; P = 0.25; I²: 53.95%, tau²: 0.012, P = 0.089). Meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials that explicitly looked for hHF for ≥52 weeks (N = 48,199) also did not show any significant increase in hHF (fixed model peto odds ratio 1.05; 95% CI 0.95-1.15, P = 0.36; I²: 43.74%, tau²: 0.016, P = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests no significant increase in hHF with DPP-4 inhibitors, although a nonsignificant heterogeneity across the trials might limit this observation.

Cardiovascular Mortality of Oral Antidiabetic Drugs Approved Before and After the 2008 US FDA Guidance for Industry: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Both diabetes and antidiabetic drugs (ADDs) increase the risk for cardiovascular (CV) diseases. Due to the increasing concern about CV safety associated with ADDs, the US FDA revised regulatory guidelines in 2008 to include CV safety as an endpoint.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the current study was to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to compare CV mortality of oral ADDs approved before and after the FDA's 2008 guidance.

METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and the Clinical Trial Registry) were searched to retrieve studies published up to 24 February 2017. Randomized clinical trials were included in this study if they (1) were published in the English language; (2) included adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus with or without CV risk factors, who were taking at least one oral antidiabetic drug; and (3) had at least one study outcome as CV mortality. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Small-study effects were accessed using funnel plot symmetry. The primary outcome was CV mortality.

RESULTS

We found that there was no significant increase in CV mortality for drugs approved before and after 2008. The overall odds ratio (OR) and the upper bound of the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for all drugs approved after 2008 (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52-1.07) were lower than the overall OR for all drugs approved before 2008 (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.19). In addition, the upper bounds of the two-sided 95% CI for both groups of drugs before and after 2008 were below 1.3. Empagliflozin, which was approved after the guidance, was significantly associated with a reduction in CV mortality.

CONCLUSION

The 2008 FDA guidance appears to have a positive impact on CV risk assessment of recently marketed drugs for the management of diabetes.

A Review on Cardiovascular Outcome Studies of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a guidance for pharmaceutical industry defining preapproval and postapproval requirements for the demonstration of cardiovascular (CV) safety for all new medications developed for glycemic management in type 2 diabetes. However, results published from the studies of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are conflicting with regard to different CV endpoints. Upcoming CV outcome studies perhaps will be able to provide additional insights related to diabetes management and help to provide the answers to some of these concerns. This article provides a brief overview regarding how various CV safety evidence of DPP-4 inhibitor evolved over time that highlights possible implication in clinical practice and translates them into effective diabetes management.

Risk of heart failure hospitalization among users of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

Background

Incretin-based therapies including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are novel medications for type 2 diabetes management. Several studies have found cardioprotective effects of incretin-based therapies; however, it remains unclear whether there is any difference in heart failure (HF) risk between the two incretin-based therapies (DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists). We aimed to assess the risk of hospitalization due to HF with the use of DPP-4 inhibitors compared to GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Methods

Using Truven Health Marketscan data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with type 2 diabetes, who were newly initiated on DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Follow-up continued from drug initiation until the first occurrence of: HF hospitalization (primary outcome), discontinuation of therapy (i.e. no fill for 7 days), switch to the comparator, end of enrollment, or end of study (December 2013). Cox proportional hazards models with propensity-score-matching were used to compare the risk of HF hospitalization between DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists.

Results

A total of 321,606 propensity score-matched patients were included in the analysis (n = 160,803 for DPP-4 inhibitors; n = 160,803 for GLP-1 agonists). After adjusting for baseline characteristics and disease risk factors, the use of DPP-4 inhibitors was associated with a 14% decreased risk of HF hospitalization compared to GLP-1 agonists use [hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 0.90]. The results were consistent in patients without baseline HF (HR, 0.85; 95% CI 0.82, 0.89), but the association was not statistically significant for patients with baseline HF (HR, 0.90; 95% CI 0.74, 1.07).

Conclusion

In this retrospective matched cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes, the use of DPP-4 inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of HF hospitalization compared to GLP-1 agonists. However, the association was not statistically significant in patients who had HF prior to the use of DPP-4 inhibitors.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12933-018-0746-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes of Newer Anti-Diabetic Medications in High-Risk Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review the cardiovascular and renal outcomes and safety of newer anti-diabetic medications in high-risk patients. We examine the outcomes of the IRIS, EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, LEADER, SAVOR-TIMI 53, and EXAMINE trials demonstrating the cardiovascular and renal benefits of thiazolidinediones, SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and DPP-4 inhibitors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Diabetes mellitus is a leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease with rising prevalence and disease burden. The microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes are well-recognized and include increased risk of cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Newer diabetes medications have demonstrated significant cerebrovascular, cardiovascular, renal, and mortality benefits in high risk patients with diabetes. In addition to their glucose-lowering effects, the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone, SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonist, and DPP-4 inhibitors have demonstrated significant cerebrovascular, cardiovascular, renal, and mortality effects. The outcomes and safety data of newer diabetes medications from recent trials demonstrate cardiovascular and mortality effects with significant implications for clinical practice.

When metformin is not enough: Pros and cons of SGLT2 and DPP-4 inhibitors as a second line therapy

The newer oral therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, have advantages over older agents. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are weight neutral and have few adverse effects. Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have additional benefits: weight loss, blood pressure reduction, cardiovascular risk reduction, and renoprotective effects. Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have increased risk of urogenital infections and possible risk of "euglycaemic" diabetic ketoacidosis. It is important to balance the benefits over the older-oral therapies as these agents are more expensive; yet some analyses suggest that they are within the limits of what is considered cost-effective in health care. We discuss the relative merits and drawbacks of these 2 classes and consider their roles in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. We suggest a number of patient profiles where early use of these agents could be used. We favour the use of SGLT2 inhibitors over DPP-4 inhibitors as add on therapy to metformin when glycaemic targets have not been achieved given their similar glycaemic efficacy and the additional benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors. We particularly favour SGLT2 inhibitors in those where additional weight loss and blood pressure reductions are desired, and in patients with heart failure or cardiovascular disease. Care should be taken to warn patients about genital fungal infections and to avoid use in people with risk factors for SGLT2 associated ketoacidosis. We favour DPP-4 inhibitors in those where side effects of other agents are of concern, the frail elderly population, and those with renal disease precluding SGTL2 inhibitor use.

The safety of gliptins : updated data in 2018

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) are generally considered as glucose-lowering agents with a safe profile in type 2 diabetes.

AREAS COVERED

An updated review of recent safety data from randomised controlled trials, observational studies, meta-analyses, pharmacovigilance reports regarding alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin, with a special focus on risks of hypoglycemia, pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, major cardiovascular events, hospitalisation for heart failure and other new safety issues, such as bone fractures and arthralgia. The safety of DPP-4i use in special populations, elderly patients, patients with renal impairment, liver disease or heart failure, will also be discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The good tolerance/safety profile of DPP-4is has been largely confirmed, including in more fragile populations, with no gastrointestinal adverse effects and a minimal risk of hypoglycemia. DPP-4is appear to be associated with a small increased incidence of acute pancreatitis in placebo-controlled trials, although most observational studies are reassuring. Most recent studies with DPP-4is do not confirm the increased risk of hospitalisation for heart failure reported with saxagliptin in SAVOR-TIMI 53, but further post-marketing surveillance is still recommended. New adverse events have been reported such as arthralgia, yet a causal relationship remains unclear.

[Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly patients]

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) increases markedly with age. Antidiabetic treatment and the objectives of glycaemic control in elderly patients with DM2 should be individualised according to their biopsychosocial characteristics. In elderly patients for whom the benefits of intensive antidiabetic treatment are limited, the basic objectives should be to improve the quality of life, preserve functionality and avoid adverse effects, especially hypoglycaemia. Treatment of DM2 in the elderly was the subject of a consensus document published in 2012 and endorsed by several Spanish scientific societies. Since then, new therapeutic groups and evidence have emerged that warrant an update to this consensus document. The present document focuses on the therapeutic aspects of DM2 in elderly patients, understood as being older than 75 years or frail.

Comparative Cardiovascular Risks of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors: Analyses of Real-world Data in Korea

Background and Objectives

To compare cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk associated with 5 different dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) in people with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

We identified 534,327 people who were newly prescribed sitagliptin (n=167,157), vildagliptin (n=67,412), saxagliptin (n=29,479), linagliptin (n=220,672), or gemigliptin (n=49,607) between January 2013 and June 2015 using the claims database of the Korean National Health Insurance System. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for major CVD events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or death) among users of different DPP-4is. The model was adjusted for sex, age, duration of DPP-4i use, use of other glucose-lowering drugs, use of antiplatelet agents, hypertension, dyslipidemia, atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, microvascular complications of diabetes, Charlson comorbidity index, and the calendar index year as potential confounders.

Results

Compared to sitagliptin users, the fully adjusted HRs for CVD events were 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94–1.01; p=0.163) for vildagliptin, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71–0.81; p<0.001) for saxagliptin, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92–0.98; p<0.001) for linagliptin, and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80–0.88; p<0.001) for gemigliptin.

Conclusions

Compared to sitagliptin therapy, saxagliptin, linagliptin, and gemigliptin therapies were all associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in elderly patients

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) increases markedly with age. Antidiabetic treatment and the objectives of glycaemic control in elderly patients with DM2 should be individualised according to their biopsychosocial characteristics. In elderly patients for whom the benefits of intensive antidiabetic treatment are limited, the basic objectives should be to improve the quality of life, preserve functionality and avoid adverse effects, especially hypoglycaemia. Treatment of DM2 in the elderly was the subject of a consensus document published in 2012 and endorsed by several Spanish scientific societies. Since then, new therapeutic groups and evidence have emerged that warrant an update to this consensus document. The present document focuses on the therapeutic aspects of DM2 in elderly patients, understood as being older than 75 years or frail.

Cardiovascular mortality and oral antidiabetic drugs: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality among individuals with diabetes. Despite the beneficial effects of antidiabetic drugs (ADDs) in terms of lowering haemoglobin A1c, several ADDs have been shown to increase the risk of cardiovascular events. Given the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease among individuals with diabetes, it is important to weigh the benefits of ADDs against their cardiovascular safety. Therefore, the objective of the current study is to conduct a systematic review with network meta-analysis to compare the effects of different oral pharmacological classes of ADDs on cardiovascular safety.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies published in English up to 31 January 2017, and which include direct and/or indirect evidence, will be included. Studies will be retrieved by searching four electronic databases and cross-referencing. Dual selection and abstraction of data will occur. The primary outcome will be cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes will include all-cause mortality, new event of acute myocardial infarction, stroke (haemorrhagic and ischaemic), hospitalisation for acute coronary syndrome and urgent revascularisation procedures. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment instrument for RCTs and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology instrument for observational studies. Network meta-analysis will be performed using multivariate random-effects meta-regression models. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be used to provide a hierarchy of ADDs that increase cardiovascular mortality.

DISSEMINATION

The results of this study will be presented at a professional conference and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017051220.

Effect of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors on Heart Failure: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses evaluating the effectiveness of individual dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors on the risk of heart failure (HF) were limited because of the small number of trials with direct comparisons between two treatments.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of HF in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus. The primary outcome was the occurrence of HF or hospital admission for HF.

RESULTS

Fifty randomized controlled trials were identified. Relative to placebo, no increased risk of HF events was seen for vildagliptin (risk ratio [RR] 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-1.68), sitagliptin (RR 0.86; CI 0.43-1.57), or saxagliptin (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.33-1.61), but alogliptin was associated with a higher risk of HF (RR 2.13; 95% CI 1.06-6.26). Vildagliptin and sitagliptin were associated with a significantly decreased risk of HF compared with alogliptin. Vildagliptin had the highest probability to be the safest option with regard to the risk of HF (49.18%), followed by saxagliptin (26.56%), sitagliptin (20.76%), linagliptin (0.25%), and alogliptin (0.12%). A statistically significant inconsistency was noted in some comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of HF needs to be taken into account when prescribing DPP-4 inhibitors. Evidence suggests that vildagliptin may be the least harmful agent with regard to the risk of HF. However, a statistically significant inconsistency was identified in the Bayesian network meta-analysis. Therefore, further studies are warranted to evaluate the cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors.

Intraclass differences in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor or a sulphonylurea: Results from the OsMed Health-DB registry

AIMS

To re-analyse data from a previous retrospective study on 127 555 patients, in which we showed that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor therapy was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization for HF (HHF) than sulphonylurea (SU) therapy, in order to evaluate intraclass differences among DPP-4 inhibitors and SUs.

METHODS

We included patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating DPP-4 inhibitor or SU therapy, alone or in combination with metformin. Patients undergoing intraclass switch, those with a previous HHF, those receiving insulin treatment, and those with <6 months observation were excluded. We calculated the incidence of first and total HHF events/1000 person-years. Cox proportional hazard and Poisson multiple regression models, as well as propensity-score matching, were used to account for baseline confounders.

RESULTS

The analysis included 17 615 DPP-4 inhibitor users (60.1% sitagliptin; 27.0% vildagliptin; 12.9% saxagliptin) and 86 734 SU users (37.5% glibenclamide; 34.6% glimepiride; 27.9% gliclazide). No intraclass difference in the incidence rate of first and total HHF events was noted among the 3 DPP-4 inhibitors or among the 3 SUs. Multivariable adjustments for baseline confounders or propensity-score matching did not change the results. In addition, no intraclass difference in HHF risk was observed in patients at high compared with low cardiovascular risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of patients with T2D taken from approximately one-third of the Italian population, no intraclass difference was noted for DPP-4 inhibitor and SU therapy with regard to HHF risk.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and Risk of Heart Failure in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The association between dipeptidyl-peptidase IV inhibitors (DPP-4i) and heart failure (HF) remains unclear. In 1 randomized controlled trial and some observational studies, DPP-4i reportedly increased the risk of HF, but 2 other randomized controlled trials and observational studies have shown no such risk. Here, we evaluated the risk of HF and cardiovascular outcomes of DPP-4i compared with sulfonylureas.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A population-based retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2015. Incident users of sulfonylurea and DPP-4i who were not prescribed the comparator drug in the year before treatment initiation were included. DPP-4i-treated and sulfonylurea-treated patients were matched on propensity score, calculated with >40 variables. The risk of hospitalization for HF was evaluated with a Cox proportional hazards model in 255 691 matched pairs. Analyses were conducted in the total patient population and in both strata divided by the presence of cardiovascular disease during the baseline period. The hazard ratios (HRs) of hospitalization for HF for DPP-4i-treated patients were 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.86) in all of the patients, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79) in patients with baseline cardiovascular disease, and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.56-0.90) in patients without baseline cardiovascular disease compared with HRs for sulfonylurea-treated patients. Sitagliptin and linagliptin showed statistically lower risk for hospitalization for HF (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86 for sitagliptin-prescribed patients; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.92 for linagliptin-prescribed patients) than for sulfonylurea. The HRs for hospitalization for myocardial infarction and stroke with the use of a DPP-4i versus sulfonylurea were HR, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and HR, 0.63 (95% CI, 0.60-0.67), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that DPP-4i use did not increase the risk of HF compared with sulfonylurea. In addition, the risks for cardiovascular outcomes were not elevated in DPP-4i-treated patients compared with sulfonylurea-treated patients.

Nonclinical and clinical pharmacology evidence for cardiovascular safety of saxagliptin

BACKGROUND

In the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (SAVOR) trial in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) at high risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, saxagliptin did not increase the risk for major CV adverse events. However, there was an unexpected imbalance in events of hospitalization for heart failure (hHF), one of six components of the secondary CV composite endpoint, with a greater number of events observed with saxagliptin. Here, we examined findings from nonclinical safety and clinical pharmacology studies of saxagliptin with the aim of identifying any potential signals of myocardial injury.

METHODS

In vitro and in vivo (rat, dog, monkey) safety pharmacology and toxicology studies evaluating the potential effects of saxagliptin and its major active metabolite, 5-hydroxy saxagliptin, on the CV system are reviewed. In addition, results from saxagliptin clinical studies are discussed: one randomized, 2-period, double-blind, placebo-controlled single-ascending-dose study (up to 100 mg); one randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential, multiple-ascending-high-dose study (up to 400 mg/day for 14 days); and one randomized, double-blind, 4-period, 4-treatment, cross-over thorough QTc study (up to 40 mg/day for 4 days) in healthy volunteers; as well as one randomized, placebo-controlled, sequential multiple-ascending-dose study in patients with T2D (up to 50 mg/day for 14 days).

RESULTS

Neither saxagliptin nor 5-hydroxy saxagliptin affected ligand binding to receptors and ion channels (e.g. potassium channels) or action potential duration in in vitro studies. In animal toxicology studies, no changes in the cardiac conduction system, blood pressure, heart rate, contractility, heart weight, or heart histopathology were observed. In healthy participants and patients with T2D, there were no findings suggestive of myocyte injury or fluid overload. Serum chemistry abnormalities indicative of cardiac injury, nonspecific muscle damage, or fluid homeostasis changes were infrequent and balanced across treatment groups. There were no QTc changes associated with saxagliptin. No treatment-emergent adverse events suggestive of heart failure or myocardial damage were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The saxagliptin nonclinical and clinical pharmacology programs did not identify evidence of myocardial injury and/or CV harm that may have predicted or may explain the unexpected imbalance in the rate of hHF observed in SAVOR.

Heart failure hospitalization risk associated with use of two classes of oral antidiabetic medications: an observational, real-world analysis

BACKGROUND

Newer oral antidiabetic drug classes are expanding treatment options for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, concerns remain. The objective was to assess relative risk of heart failure hospitalization of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors in T2DM patients.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study used a national commercially insured claims database. Adults (>18 years) with T2DM newly starting SGLT2 or DPP4 medication between April 2013 and December 2014 were included. Depending on their index fill, patients were grouped into either SGLT2 or DPP4 medication class cohorts. The primary outcome was hospitalization for heart failure and the risk was assessed using Cox regression models. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) was used to adjust for potential confounders. Analyses were also stratified by the presence of baseline diabetes complication and age (<65 vs 65+).

RESULTS

The matched cohort included 4899 SGLT2 and 9798 DPP4 users. The risk of heart failure hospitalization was lower among SGLT2 users in comparison with matched DPP4 users (2.0% SGLT2 vs 3.1% DPP4; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.86; p = .001). However, the stratified analyses revealed no risk difference among the majority of the analyzed patients, i.e., those aged <65, which comprised 85% of the matched cohort (aHR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.57-1.05; p = .09), and those without prior complication, which comprised 69% of matched cohort (aHR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.54-1.27; p = 0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-life analysis, the rate of hospitalizations for heart failure was significantly lower for patients initiating an SGLT2 compared with a DPP4 medication, specifically among older patients and those with diabetes complication.

No increased risk of cardiovascular events in older adults initiating dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors vs therapeutic alternatives

AIM

To compare the cardiovascular (CV) risk associated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors relative to sulphonylureas (SUs) and thiazolidinediones (TZDs).

METHODS

During 2007 to 2013, using Medicare data for beneficiaries aged >65 years, we identified the following 2 cohorts of new-users, who had not been exposed to the drugs being compared in the 6 months before initiation: (1) DPP-4 inhibitor vs SU initiators and (2) DPP-4 inhibitor vs TZD initiators. Using propensity-score-adjusted Cox models accounting for competing risk by death, we estimated the hazard ratios (HRs), risk differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HF), and a combined outcome (MI, stroke, all-cause mortality).

RESULTS

In the DPP-4 inhibitor vs SU comparison, there were 30 130 DPP-4 inhibitor initiators and 68 382 SU initiators. Their mean age was 75 years, 41% were men and 55% had a baseline CV condition. The HR for the composite outcome was 0.75 (95% CI 0.72-0.79) over a median treatment duration of 1 year, but the 1-year risks of MI were 1.00 (95% CI 0.89-1.12) and 1.47 (95% CI 1.38-1.56) per 100 patients for DPP-4 inhibitors and SUs, respectively, and the corresponding stroke risks were 0.98 (95% CI 0.87-1.10) and 1.09 (95% CI 1.01-1.17). For the DPP-4 inhibitor vs TZD comparison, there were 20 596 DPP-4 inhibitor initiators and 13 526 TZD initiators without previous HF. Their mean age was 74 years, 42% were men and 30% had a baseline CV event. The composite outcome HR was 0.94 (95% CI 0.86-1.02) over a median treatment duration of 1 year. The 1-year risk for MI was ~0.90 and for stroke it was ~0.80 per 100 patients in both DPP-4 inhibitor and TZD initiators.

CONCLUSION

Although limited by the short treatment period, the present study suggests there is no increased short-term risk of MI, stroke or HF with DPP-4 inhibitors vs SUs/TZDs.

So Many Antihyperglycemics: How to Choose? A Practical Approach

Guidelines from around the world have stressed the importance of glycemic control in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) to reduce the risk of developing complications. To achieve this goal, both lifestyle and pharmacologic therapies are available. There are 9 classes of antihyperglycemic therapies available in Canada and each class provides a different mechanism of action to address the pathophysiology of T2DM. Metformin remains the first choice for pharmacologic therapy. Thereafter, individualization is essential. If there is significant hyperglycemia at diagnosis, initial combination therapy should be considered. The choice of therapy after metformin depends on a number of factors with the first consideration being the presence or absence of cardiovascular disease. If present, an agent with proven cardiovascular benefit should be added. Otherwise, individualization should be based on desired glycemic lowering, risk of hypoglycemia, effect on weight, cardiovascular effects, other side effects and accessibility.

Comparative safety for cardiovascular outcomes of DPP-4 inhibitors versus glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study

Concerns about the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors persist. This study sought to determine whether there is a differential risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) between DPP-4 inhibitors and glimepiride.We conducted this retrospective cohort study by using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database from December 1, 2008, to December 31, 2013. The study subjects were new users of DPP-4 inhibitors or glimepiride for type 2 diabetes. Outcome was defined as hospitalization for CVDs, including angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, transient cerebral ischemic attack, heart failure, or cerebrovascular disease or any procedure involving coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention. We used a Cox proportional hazard model to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), to assess the risk of CVDs associated with the use of DPP-4 inhibitors compared with glimepiride.The cohort consisted of 1,045,975 patients, with 6504 in the DPP-4 inhibitors group and 13,447 in the glimepiride group. No significant increased risk of total CVDs was found (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.01) in the DPP-4 inhibitors versus glimepiride group. A decreased risk of hospitalization for CVDs was found among patients with a history of visit for CVDs (aHR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.97) or with >2.5 years' duration of type 2 diabetes (aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91) in the DPP-4 inhibitors versus glimepiride group.DPP-4 inhibitors did not increase cardiovascular risk compared with glimepiride regardless of CVD history and diabetes duration.

Novel oral glucose-lowering drugs are associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and severe hypoglycaemia compared with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To investigate the association of novel oral glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs), compared with that of insulin, with risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and severe hypoglycaemia.

METHODS

During 2013 to 2014 all patients with type 2 diabetes in Sweden identified as new users of novel oral GLDs, either dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (only dapagliflozin available in Sweden during the study period), with those initiating insulin as a comparison group, in the Prescribed Drug Register were included and followed in the Patient and Cause of Death Registers. The novel GLD group and insulin group were matched 1:1 using propensity score. Cox regression models were used to estimate risks.

RESULTS

Of 37 603 patients, 21 758 were matched 1:1 to novel GLD vs insulin groups, with median follow-up times of 1.51 years (16 304 patient-years) and 1.53 years (16 306 patient-years), respectively. Treatment with novel GLDs was associated with a 44% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.49-0.64]), 15% (HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.73-0.99]) and 74% (0.26 [95% CI 0.12-0.57]) lower risk of all-cause mortality, CVD and hypoglycaemia, respectively, compared with insulin treatment. In separate analyses for the two novel GLDs, dapagliflozin was associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality and CVD (56% [HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.70] and 49% [HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.86], respectively), while DPP-4 inhibitor treatment was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (41% [HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51-0.67]), but not with CVD (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-1.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Novel oral GLD treatment was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, CVD and severe hypoglycaemia compared with insulin treatment. Dapagliflozin was associated with a lower risk of both all-cause mortality and CVD, whereas DPP-4 inhibitor treatment was only associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality.

Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Induces Aortic Valve Calcification by Inhibiting Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 Signaling in Valvular Interstitial Cells

Background:

Calcification of the aortic valve leads to increased leaflet stiffness and consequently to the development of calcific aortic valve disease. However, the underlying molecular and cellular mechanisms of calcification remain unclear. Here, we identified that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4, also known as CD26) increases valvular calcification and promotes calcific aortic valve disease progression.

Methods:

We obtained the aortic valve tissues from humans and murine models (wild-type and endothelial nitric oxide synthase-deficient-mice) and cultured the valvular interstitial cells (VICs) and valvular endothelial cells from the cusps. We induced osteogenic differentiation in the primary cultured VICs and examined the effects of the DPP-4 inhibitor on the osteogenic changes in vitro and aortic valve calcification in endothelial nitric oxide synthase-deficient-mice. We also induced calcific aortic stenosis in male New Zealand rabbits (weight, 2.5–3.0 kg) by a cholesterol-enriched diet+vitamin D2 (25 000 IU, daily). Echocardiography was performed to assess the aortic valve area and the maximal and mean transaortic pressure gradients at baseline and 3-week intervals thereafter. After 12 weeks, we harvested the heart and evaluated the aortic valve tissue using immunohistochemistry.

Results:

We found that nitric oxide depletion in human valvular endothelial cells activates NF-κB in human VICs. Consequently, the NF-κB promotes DPP-4 expression, which then induces the osteogenic differentiation of VICs by limiting autocrine insulin-like growth factor-1 signaling. The inhibition of DPP-4 enzymatic activity blocked the osteogenic changes in VICs in vitro and reduced the aortic valve calcification in vivo in a mouse model. Sitagliptin administration in a rabbit calcific aortic valve disease model led to significant improvements in the rate of change in aortic valve area, transaortic peak velocity, and maximal and mean pressure gradients over 12 weeks. Immunohistochemistry staining confirmed the therapeutic effect of Sitagliptin in terms of reducing the calcium deposits in the rabbit aortic valve cusps. In rabbits receiving Sitagliptin, the plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 levels were significantly increased, in line with DPP-4 inhibition.

Conclusions:

DPP-4-dependent insulin-like growth factor-1 inhibition in VICs contributes to aortic valve calcification, suggesting that DPP-4 could serve as a potential therapeutic target to inhibit calcific aortic valve disease progression.

Sulfonylureas and the Risks of Cardiovascular Events and Death: A Methodological Meta-Regression Analysis of the Observational Studies

Recent randomized trials have compared the newer antidiabetic agents to treatments involving sulfonylureas, drugs associated with increased cardiovascular risks and mortality in some observational studies with conflicting results. We reviewed the methodology of these observational studies by searching MEDLINE from inception to December 2015 for all studies of the association between sulfonylureas and cardiovascular events or mortality. Each study was appraised with respect to the comparator, the outcome, and study design-related sources of bias. A meta-regression analysis was used to evaluate heterogeneity. A total of 19 studies were identified, of which six had no major design-related biases. Sulfonylureas were associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in five of these studies (relative risks 1.16-1.55). Overall, the 19 studies resulted in 36 relative risks as some studies assessed multiple outcomes or comparators. Of the 36 analyses, metformin was the comparator in 27 (75%) and death was the outcome in 24 (67%). The relative risk was higher by 13% when the comparator was metformin, by 20% when death was the outcome, and by 7% when the studies had design-related biases. The lowest predicted relative risk was for studies with no major bias, comparator other than metformin, and cardiovascular outcome (1.06 [95% CI 0.92-1.23]), whereas the highest was for studies with bias, metformin comparator, and mortality outcome (1.53 [95% CI 1.43-1.65]). In summary, sulfonylureas were associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in the majority of studies with no major design-related biases. Among studies with important biases, the association varied significantly with respect to the comparator, the outcome, and the type of bias. With the introduction of new antidiabetic drugs, the use of appropriate design and analytical tools will provide their more accurate cardiovascular safety assessment in the real-world setting.

Should Side Effects Influence the Selection of Antidiabetic Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There are currently over 40 different drugs in 12 distinct classes approved in the USA to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This review summarizes our current knowledge about potential side effects of antidiabetic therapy and attempts to apply it to a clinical practice setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Given the heterogeneity of both the patients and the disease, it is mathematically impossible to test every available drug combination in long-term outcome, prospective, randomized blinded fashion before a clinician decides which agent(s) to prescribe to a specific patient in a given situation. To complicate the clinician's dilemma, there is lack of available tests to predict an individual's response or propensity to side effects. Further, the data available are derived from small, short-term registration trials and typically focus on relative rather than absolute risks of any given drug and do not address the potential adverse outcomes if a patient's diabetes remains untreated. Clinicians have to personalize their choice of antidiabetic therapy based both on the specific characteristics of the patient in front of them (stage of diabetes and its complications, overall health status, socioeconomic situation, other medications present, desire to improve control of diabetes, etc.) and the current knowledge about the relative and absolute balance of benefits and risks of any individual medication in that specific patient. It has to be recognized that this requires constant re-evaluation as database of our experience with antidiabetic therapy expands.