Risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes newly treated with DPP-4 inhibitors or other oral glucose-lowering medications: a retrospective registry study on 127,555 patients from the Nationwide OsMed Health-DB Database

Integration of recent evidence into management of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes

Cardiovascular outcome trials of antihyperglycaemic drugs and non-statin LDL-cholesterol-lowering drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes who have, or who are at high risk of, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease have provided new evidence that has substantially affected the management of cardiovascular risk in these patients. On the basis of proven cardiovascular and renal benefit, the antihyperglycaemic drugs empagliflozin, liraglutide, and semaglutide-the latter being under review for approval by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency-should be preferentially used as second-line treatments in these patient populations, typically in addition to metformin. Further treatment differentiation among the remainder of the antihyperglycaemic drugs should be made on the basis of evidence regarding cardiovascular safety, which is available for lixisenatide, alogliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and insulin glargine. The risk of heart failure, stroke, or retinopathy, or prevalent fasting versus postprandial hyperglycaemia, could also be considered in treatment decision making. Finally, emerging evidence of cardiovascular benefit for ezetimibe, alirocumab, and evolocumab positions these drugs as add-ons to maximally tolerated statin therapy or for those with statin intolerance.

Cardiovascular Safety of Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors: A Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Large randomized trials have shown conflicting evidence regarding the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Systematic reviews have been limited by incomplete data and inclusion of observational studies. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared DPP-4 inhibitors versus placebo and reported cardiovascular outcomes. The main outcome assessed in this analysis was heart failure. Other outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were primarily constructed using Peto's model.

RESULTS

A total of 90 trials with 66,730 patients were included. Compared with placebo, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a non-significant increased risk of heart failure [OR 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.25, P = 0.07] at a mean of 108 weeks. The risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94-1.12, P = 0.53), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.14, P = 0.72), myocardial infarction (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.09, P = 0.69), and ischemic stroke (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85-1.15, P = 0.92) was similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with type 2 diabetes, the safety profile of DPP-4 inhibitors is similar to placebo. As a class, there is only weak evidence for an increased risk of heart failure.

Monitoring safety and use of old and new treatment options for type 2 diabetic patients: a two-year (2013-2016) analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare patients' and physicians' perceptions regarding effectiveness and tolerability of non-insulin hypoglycemic drugs in a cohort of type 2 diabetic patients; to verify whether a possible tridimensional link between effectiveness, tolerability, and adherence affects long-term therapeutic outcomes.

METHODS

A two-year observational study was performed in 1389 Type 2 diabetic patients by involving general practitioner clinics and Diabetes Centers. A decimal scale and the Morisky questionnaire were used, respectively, to assess effectiveness and tolerability perceptions, and medication adherence.

RESULTS

Physicians perceived therapy as more efficacious compared to their patients: perceived effectiveness was steady for physicians during the study whereas patients' perception not significantly decreased (mean score from >8 to 7.84 ± 1.69). Physicians assigned higher tolerability scores compared to patients but only at the beginning of the study; interestingly, physicians' tolerability perception was poorer than patients' perception at last follow-up (mean score = 7.57 ± 1.40 vs. 7.88 ± 1.84). Favorable (score >7) patients' perceptions about treatment effectiveness and tolerability were associated with higher adherence. Patients showed medium adherence across the study.

CONCLUSIONS

A mutual relationship between clinical effectiveness, adverse drug reactions, and adherence has been established, significantly impacting the clinical management of diabetic patients. A careful monitoring of this link by clinicians appears therefore necessary.

Perspectives on cardiovascular effects of incretin-based drugs: From bedside to bench, return trip

Recently, cardiovascular outcome trials with glucose-lowering drugs used in type 2 diabetes mellitus, namely glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA), liraglutide and semaglutide, showed a reduction in cardiovascular events, which had not been observed in trials with other incretin-based drugs, such as lixisenatide or with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i). Mechanisms underlying the observed cardiovascular differences between DPP4i and GLP1-RA, and across individual GLP1-RA are poorly understood. This review is aimed at collecting and summarizing available evidence from experimental and mechanistic studies on the action of GLP1-RA and DPP4i on the cardiovascular system, both deriving from clinical and pre-clinical sources. The results of cardiovascular outcome trials are interpreted on the basis of the experimental preclinical data available, paying particular attention to the heart failure results, and suggesting some novel intriguing hypotheses to explain some of the unexpected findings of cardioprotection of incretin-based drugs. In particular, we discuss the possible contribution to the incretin cardiovascular effects of a direct cardiac action of GLP-1 metabolites through GLP-1 receptor-independent pathways, and of DPP4 substrates other than GLP-1.

Comparative cardiovascular risks of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors with other second- and third-line antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4is) are suggested as a second- and third-line antidiabetic treatment for type 2 diabetes. Previous studies assessed only the cardiovascular effects of DPP4is as a second-line treatment, included sulphonylurea as the only comparator, and yielded inconclusive results on the risk of heart failure. The present study therefore evaluated the comparative cardiovascular risks of DPP4is with other second- and third-line antidiabetic drugs.

METHODS

Based on a large nationwide diabetic cohort, 113 051 patients with type 2 diabetes newly on metformin-based dual or triple therapy were identified in 2009-2011 and followed until 2013, or death if this occurred sooner. Primary interest targeted hospitalizations for ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure. Secondary outcomes were hypoglycaemia and all-cause mortality. Cox proportional hazards models were performed to assess time-to-event hazard ratio between propensity score-matched antidiabetic treatment groups.

RESULTS

DPP4is as a second-line add-on to metformin had a significantly lower stroke risk [hazard ratio (HR) 0.817 (95% confidence interval 0.687, 0.971)] and all-cause mortality [HR 0.825 (0.687, 0.992)] than those for sulphonylurea. DPP4is as a third-line add-on to metformin and sulphonylurea combined dual therapy had a significantly lower risk for stroke [HR 0.826 (0.740, 0.923)] and all-cause mortality [HR 0.784 (0.701, 0.878)] than those for acarbose, and significantly lower risks for stroke [HR 0.653 (0.542, 0.786)], heart failure [HR 0.721 (0.568, 0.917)] and all-cause mortality [HR 0.689 (0.594, 0.703)] than those for meglitinide.

CONCLUSIONS

DPP4is as a second- or third-line add-on treatment provided cardiovascular benefits and posed no increased risks for heart failure, hypoglycaemia or death.

DPP-4 inhibition has no acute effect on BNP and its N-terminal pro-hormone measured by commercial immune-assays. A randomized cross-over trial in patients with type 2 diabetes

Background

Use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-i) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has been associated with a possible increase in the risk for heart failure (HF). B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), which is both a biomarker of HF and a hemodynamically active hormone, is a substrate of DPP-4. We herein tested the acute effects of the DPP-4i linagliptin on BNP and NT-proBNP in a cross-over placebo-controlled trial in patients with T2D with and without chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Methods

B-type natriuretic peptide and NT-proBNP were measured using commercially available clinical-grade immune-assays at baseline and at the end of a 4-day treatment with placebo and linagliptin. Changes from baseline during each treatment arm, as well as placebo-subtracted effects of linagliptin on BNP and NT-proBNP were calculated.

Results

46 patients completed the study, 18 of whom were affected by CKD. Baseline BNP and NT-proBNP levels increased with age, were elevated in CKD patients, and inversely correlated with estimated glomerular filtration rate. No significant change was detected in BNP and NT-proBNP levels after treatment with linagliptin or placebo in patients with or without CKD. Only in CKD patients the placebo-subtracted effect of linagliptin indicated a significant reduction in NT-proBNP levels, but this finding was not statistically robust.

Conclusions

Acute treatment with a DPP-4i exerts no clinically-meaningful effects on BNP and NT-proBNP. As routinely used immunoassays do not discriminate between intact/active and cleaved BNP, these data cannot rule out an effect of DPP-4i on HF pathophysiology.

Trial registration NCT01617824

Vascular KATP channels mitigate severe muscle O2 delivery-utilization mismatch during contractions in chronic heart failure rats

The vascular ATP-sensitive K⁺ (K_ATP) channel is a mediator of skeletal muscle microvascular oxygenation (PO₂mv) during contractions in health. We tested the hypothesis that K_ATP channel function is preserved in chronic heart failure (CHF) and therefore its inhibition would reduce PO₂mv and exacerbate the time taken to reach the PO₂mv steady-state during contractions of the spinotrapezius muscle. Moreover, we hypothesized that subsequent K_ATP channel activation would oppose the effects of this inhibition. Muscle PO₂mv (phosphorescence quenching) was measured during 180s of 1-Hz twitch contractions (∼6V) under control, glibenclamide (GLI, K_ATP channel antagonist; 5mg/kg) and pinacidil (PIN, K_ATP channel agonist; 5mg/kg) conditions in 16 male Sprague-Dawley rats with CHF induced via myocardial infarction (coronary artery ligation, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure: 18±1mmHg). GLI reduced baseline PO₂mv (control: 28.3±0.9, GLI: 24.8±1.0mmHg, p<0.05), lowered mean PO₂mv (average PO₂mv during the overall time taken to reach the steady-state; control: 20.6±0.6, GLI: 17.6±0.3mmHg, p<0.05), and slowed the attainment of steady-state PO₂mv (overall mean response time; control: 66.1±10.2, GLI: 93.6±7.8s, p<0.05). PIN opposed these effects on the baseline PO₂mv, mean PO₂mv and time to reach the steady-state PO₂mv (p<0.05 for all vs. GLI). Inhibition of K_ATP channels exacerbates the transient mismatch between muscle O₂ delivery and utilization in CHF rats and this effect is opposed by PIN. These data reveal that the K_ATP channel constitutes one of the select few well-preserved mechanisms of skeletal muscle microvascular oxygenation control in CHF.

Heart Failure in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes and heart failure are closely related: patients with diabetes have an increased risk of developing heart failure and those with heart failure are at higher risk of developing diabetes. Furthermore, antidiabetic medications increase the risk of mortality and hospitalisation for heart failure in patients with and without pre-existing heart failure. When the two diseases are considered individually, heart failure has a much poorer prognosis than diabetes mellitus; therefore heart failure has to be a priority for treatment in patients presenting with the two conditions, and the diabetic patient with heart failure should be managed by the heart failure team. No specific randomised clinical trials have been conducted to test the effect of cardiovascular drugs in diabetic patients with heart failure, but a wealth of evidence suggests that all interventions effective at improving prognosis in patients with heart failure are equally beneficial in patients with and without diabetes. The negative effect of glucose-lowering agents in patients with heart failure or at increased risk of heart failure has become evident after the withdrawal of rosiglitazone, a thiazolidinedione, from the EU market due to evidence of increased risk of cardiovascular events and hospitalisations for heart failure. An important issue that remains unresolved is the optimal target level of glycated haemoglobin, as recent studies have demonstrated significant reductions in total mortality, morbidity and risk of heart failure despite achieving HbA1c levels similar to those observed in the UKPDS study conducted some decades ago. Meta-analyses showed that intensive glucose lowering is not associated with any significant reduction in cardiovascular risk but conversely results in a significant increase in heart failure risk. Different medications have different risk: benefit ratios in diabetic patients with heart failure; therefore, the heart failure team must judge the required intensity of glycaemic control, the type and dose of glucose lowering agents and any change in glucose-lowering therapy, according to the clinical conditions present.

Cardiovascular safety of therapies for type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogs and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are relatively new therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Given the high prevalence of cardiovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent concerns questioning CV safety of newer antidiabetic medications, cardiovascular safety of these medications requires evaluation. Areas covered: Cardiovascular effects of these drug classes from preclinical and clinical data as well as non-cardiovascular safety issues are delineated from literature searches covering the last decade and up to June 2016. Major clinical trials assessing the cardiovascular safety of GLP-1 agonists (ELIXA and LEADER), DPP-4 inhibitors (SAVOR-TIMI 53, EXAMINE, and TECOS) and SGLT2 inhibitors (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) are reviewed and interpreted. Expert opinion: Based on review of the present evidence, these 3 classes of antihyperglycemic therapies have acceptably safe CV safety profiles for patients with type 2 diabetes. The latest evidence from LEADER and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials indicate that liraglutide and empagliflozin have cardiovascular benefits that may prove to be of clinical importance in the management of type 2 DM.

Alogliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a drug safety evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors such as alogliptin are becoming more widely established as treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) because of their ability to improve glycemic control without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain. New therapies with improved safety profiles are needed, especially because of the chronic and progressive nature of T2DM.

AREAS COVERED

In this article, the overall safety and tolerability of alogliptin are evaluated based upon a review of the literature. In particular, adverse events (AEs) that have been of interest for the DPP-4 class of drugs, such as the risk of major cardiovascular (CV) events and acute pancreatitis, will be investigated in detail.

EXPERT OPINION

Alogliptin is generally well-tolerated in a broad range of patient populations including different ethnic groups and the elderly. In the pivotal EXAMINE clinical trial, alogliptin was found not to be associated with an increased risk of major CV events or acute pancreatitis/pancreatic cancer.

Cardiometabolic Syndrome and Increased Risk of Heart Failure

Approximately 50 % of patients with heart failure have diastolic heart failure (HFPEF) with the major predisposing risk factors age, inactivity, obesity, insulin resistance (IR), type-2 diabetes, and hypertension. The prognosis of HFPEF is comparable to that of systolic heart failure, but without any specific or effective treatment. This review presents a biomathematically corrected diagnostic approach for quantification of diastolic dysfunction (DD) via the age dependency of diastolic function. Pathophysiological mechanisms for DD in the cardiometabolic syndrome (CMS) are mainly based on downstream effects of IR including insufficient myocardial energy supply. The second section discusses therapeutic strategies for the control and therapy of CMS, IR, and the associated DD/HFPEF with a focus on dietary therapy that is independent of weight loss but improves all manifestations of the CMS and reduces cardiovascular risk.

Pioglitazone Prevents Diabetes in Patients With Insulin Resistance and Cerebrovascular Disease

OBJECTIVE

The Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) trial recently found that pioglitazone reduced risk for stroke and myocardial infarction in patients with insulin resistance but without diabetes who had had a recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). This report provides detailed results on the metabolic effects of pioglitazone and the trial's prespecified secondary aim of diabetes prevention.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 3,876 patients with recent ischemic stroke or TIA, no history of diabetes, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) <126 mg/dL, and insulin resistance by homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) score >3.0 were randomly assigned to pioglitazone or placebo. Surveillance for diabetes onset during the trial was accomplished by periodic interviews and annual FPG testing.

RESULTS

At baseline, the mean FPG, HbA1c, insulin, and HOMA-IR were 98.2 mg/dL (5.46 mmol/L), 5.8% (40 mmol/mol), 22.4 μIU/mL, and 5.4, respectively. After 1 year, mean HOMA-IR and FPG decreased to 4.1 and 95.1 mg/dL (5.28 mmol/L) in the pioglitazone group and rose to 5.7 and 99.7 mg/dL (5.54 mmol/L), in the placebo group (all P < 0.0001). Over a median follow-up of 4.8 years, diabetes developed in 73 (3.8%) participants assigned to pioglitazone compared with 149 (7.7%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48 [95% CI 0.33-0.69]; P < 0.0001). This effect was predominately driven by those with initial impaired fasting glucose (FPG >100 mg/dL [5.6 mmol/L]; HR 0.41 [95% CI 0.30-0.57]) or elevated HbA1c (>5.7% [39 mmol/mol]; HR 0.46 [0.34-0.62]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with insulin resistance but without diabetes who had had a recent ischemic stroke or TIA, pioglitazone decreased the risk of diabetes while also reducing the risk of subsequent ischemic events. Pioglitazone is the first medication shown to prevent both progression to diabetes and major cardiovascular events as prespecified outcomes in a single trial.

Incretin-Based Therapy for Diabetes: What a Cardiologist Needs to Know

Incretin-based therapies are effective glucose-lowering drugs that have an increasing role in the treatment of type 2 diabetes because of their efficacy, safety, and ease of use. Both glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are commonly used for glycemic control as adjuncts to metformin, other oral antiglycemic agents, or insulin. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists may have additional effects, such as weight loss, that may be advantageous in obese patients. There is a large body of evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials supporting the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and some glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, at least in the short term. However, concerns have been raised, particularly regarding their safety in patients with heart failure. In this review, the authors provide a brief but practical evidence-based analysis of the use of incretin-based agents in patients with diabetes, their efficacy, and cardiovascular safety.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and cardiovascular risks in patients with pre-existing heart failure

BACKGROUND

Although recent clinical trials raised concerns about the risk for heart failure (HF) in dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use, data on the cardiovascular risks in the patients with pre-existing HF are still lacking.

METHODS

We used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database to identify 196 986 patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had previous history of HF between 2009 and 2013. This population included 30 204 DPP-4 inhibitor users and 166 782 propensity score-matched DPP-4 inhibitor non-users. The outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, combination of myocardial infarction (MI) and ischaemic stroke, and hospitalisation for HF.

RESULTS

The incidence in DPP-4 users compared with non-users was 67.02 vs 102.85 per 1000 person-years for all-cause mortality, 37.89 vs 47.54 per 1000 person-years for the combination of MI and ischaemic stroke, 12.70 vs 16.18 per 1000 person-years for MI and 26.37 vs 32.46 per 1000 person-years for ischaemic stroke. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower in DPP-4 inhibitor users (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.70), combination of MI and stroke (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.87), MI (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89) and ischaemic stroke (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.89) than in non-users. Notably, the risk of hospitalisation for HF did not differ significantly between groups. The results were similar after accounting for death as a competing risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationwide T2DM cohort, the risks of mortality and the combination of MI and ischaemic stroke were lower for patients receiving DPP-4 inhibitors than for those who did not receive such treatment. DPP-4 inhibitor use was not associated with a higher risk of hospitalisation for HF even in patients with pre-existing HF.

Comparative risk for cardiovascular diseases of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors vs. sulfonylureas in combination with metformin: Results of a two-phase study

AIMS

The aim was to assess whether the use of additional data from the Disease Management Program (DMP) diabetes mellitus type 2 to minimize the potential for residual confounding will alter the estimated risk of either myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke or heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes using sulfonylureas compared to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in addition to metformin based on routine health care data.

METHODS

We conducted a nested two-phase case-control study using claims data of one German health insurance from 2004 to 2013 (phase 1) and data of the DMP from 2010 to 2013 (phase 2). Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for the combined cardiovascular event myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke or heart failure were calculated using a two-phase logistic regression.

RESULTS

Phase 1 comprised 3179 patients (289 cases; 2890 controls) and phase 2 comprised 1968 patients (168 cases; 1800 controls). We observed an adjusted OR of 0.83 for the combined cardiovascular event (95% CI: 0.61-1.13).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a non-significantly reduced risk for cardiovascular diseases in patients using DPP-4 inhibitors compared to sulfonylureas in addition to metformin. This finding was not altered by the inclusion of additional information of the DMP in the analysis. However, due to the low power of this study, further studies are needed to reproduce our findings.

Continued efforts to translate diabetes cardiovascular outcome trials into clinical practice

Diabetic patients suffer from a high rate of cardiovascular events and such risk increases with HbA1c. However, lowering HbA1c does not appear to yield the same benefit on macrovascular endpoints, as observed for microvascular endpoints. As the number of glucose-lowering medications increases, clinicians have to consider several open questions in the management of type 2 diabetes, one of which is the cardiovascular risk profile of each regimen. Recent placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have responded to some of these questions, but careful interpretation is needed. After general disappointment around CVOTs assessing safety of DPP-4 inhibitors (SAVOR, TECOS, EXAMINE) and the GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide (ELIXA), the EMPA-REG Outcome trial and the LEADER trial have shown superiority of the SGLT2-I empagliflozin and the GLP-1RA liraglutide, respectively, on the 3-point MACE outcome (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke) and cardiovascular, as well as all-cause mortality. While available mechanistic studies largely support a cardioprotective effect of GLP-1, the ability of SGLT2 inhibitor(s) to prevent cardiovascular death was unexpected and deserves future investigation. We herein review the results of completed CVOTs of glucose-lowering medications and suggest a possible treatment algorithm based on cardiac and renal co-morbidities to translate CVOT findings into clinical practice.

Perivascular Mast Cells Govern Shear Stress-Induced Arteriogenesis by Orchestrating Leukocyte Function

The body has the capacity to compensate for an occluded artery by creating a natural bypass upon increased fluid shear stress. How this mechanical force is translated into collateral artery growth (arteriogenesis) is unresolved. We show that extravasation of neutrophils mediated by the platelet receptor GPIbα and uPA results in Nox2-derived reactive oxygen radicals, which activate perivascular mast cells. These c-kit(+)/CXCR-4(+) cells stimulate arteriogenesis by recruiting additional neutrophils as well as growth-promoting monocytes and T cells. Additionally, mast cells may directly contribute to vascular remodeling and vascular cell proliferation through increased MMP activity and by supplying growth-promoting factors. Boosting mast cell recruitment and activation effectively promotes arteriogenesis, thereby protecting tissue from severe ischemic damage. We thus find that perivascular mast cells are central regulators of shear stress-induced arteriogenesis by orchestrating leukocyte function and growth factor/cytokine release, thus providing a therapeutic target for treatment of vascular occlusive diseases.

Lessons learned from cardiovascular outcome clinical trials with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors

Previous trials of glucose-lowering strategies in subjects with type 2 diabetes have demonstrated a beneficial effect of intensive glycemic control on microvascular complications but failed to show a clear benefit on cardiovascular complications. The findings of meta-analyses of rosiglitazone trials suggesting that rosiglitazone might increase the risk of myocardial infarction have cast doubt on the cardiovascular safety of glucose-lowering drugs. In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration has implemented rigorous criteria to approve new glucose-lowering drugs, requiring proof of cardiovascular safety. These regulatory requirements have led to a considerable increase in the number of cardiovascular outcome trials in type 2 diabetes to ensure that newer glucose-lowering drugs are not associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Incretin-based therapies including dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and injectable glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are novel treatment options for patients with inadequate glucose control. Although DPP-4 inhibitors have shown neutral effects on risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, it remains unclear whether treatment with these new glucose-lowering agents might be associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events. The results of the three cardiovascular outcome trials comparing DPP-4 inhibitors treatment to placebo in addition to other glucose-lowering drugs have been published. All the three DPP-4 inhibitor cardiovascular outcome trials have shown non-inferiority with regard to cardiovascular safety, compared with placebo, when added to usual care. In this review, we summarize cardiovascular outcome trials of DPP-4 inhibitors, and provide an overview of these trials and their limitations.

PERS&O (PERsistent Sitagliptin treatment & Outcomes): observational retrospective study on cardiovascular risk evolution in patients with type 2 diabetes on persistent sitagliptin treatment

OBJECTIVES

The UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Risk Engine (RE) provides the best risk estimates available for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), so it was applied to patients on persistent sitagliptin treatment.

DESIGN

A 'real-world' retrospective, observational, single-center study.

SETTING

The study was performed in a general hospital in Northern Italy in order: (1) to validate UKPDS RE in a cohort of Italian participants with T2D without prespecified diabetes duration, with/without cardiovascular (CV) disease, treated with sitagliptin; (2) to confirm CV risk gender difference; (3) to evaluate the effect on metabolic control and on CV risk evolution obtained by 'add-on' persistent sitagliptin treatment.

PARTICIPANTS

Sitagliptin 100 mg once a day was taken by 462 participants with T2D: 170 of them (males: 106; age: 63.6±8.8; T2D duration: 11.58±7.33; females: 64; age: 65.6±7.95; T2D duration 13.5±7.9) were treated for 48 months with the same dosage.

INTERVENTIONS

An analysis of normality was performed both for continuous, and for groups variables on UKPDS RE percentage values, defining the requirement of a base log10 transformation to normalize risk factor values for analysis validation.

RESULTS

The evaluation of CV risk evolution by gender (t-test) confirmed the expected statistical difference (p<0.0001). Sitagliptin obtained significant results after 12 months, and at the end of the observation, both on metabolic control (expressed by glycated hemoglobin) and on UKPDS RE. Analysis of variance test revealed a significant effect on CV risk after 12 months (p=0.003), and after 48 months (p=0.04). A bivariate correlation analysis revealed a correlation index (r)=0.2 between the two variables (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

These 'real-world' data obtained applying UKPDS RE may reflect patients' and clinicians' interest in realizing individual CV risk, and its evolution. Sitagliptin-persistent treatment for a medium-long period obtained an improvement on metabolic control, as well as a reduction on CV risk.

No increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure for patients treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Saxagliptin has been reported to be associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HF). The objective of this study was to test whether the increased risk is drug specific or a class effect for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODS

Diabetic patients prescribed sitagliptin, saxagliptin, and vildagliptin between 2011 and 2013 were identified from Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) claims database. The outcome of interest was the first hospitalization for HF. The patients were followed for one year from drug initiation to outcome occurrence, death, or study termination (December 31, 2013). A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to calculate the hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals, using sitagliptin as the reference group.

RESULTS

A total of 239,669 patients, including 159,330 sitagliptin, 38,561 saxagliptin, and 41,778 vildagliptin initiators, were included in the analysis. With a follow-up period ranging from 269days (vildagliptin) to 313days (sitagliptin), the crude incidence rate of HF was 2.77, 2.63, and 1.91 per 100 person-years for sitagliptin, saxagliptin, and vildagliptin, respectively. Saxagliptin had a similar risk (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91-1.06) to sitagliptin, while vildagliptin was associated with a lower risk of HF (HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.78-0.93). Auxiliary analyses using acarbose (n=130,800) as a reference group consistently showed no increased risk of HF associated with DDP-4 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Three DPP-4 inhibitors studied seem to be safe regarding the risk of HF, while the reduced risk of vildagliptin might be a spurious association or a chance finding.

The EMPA-REG outcome study: critical appraisal and potential clinical implications

Diabetes health care professionals have to face a study with results of incomparable success in secondary and tertiary cardiovascular disease prevention. In the past, no studies in patients with type 2 diabetes resulted to be successful in inducing an improvement of cardiovascular prognosis, no matter whether they were focused on a target, on life-style or on pharmacological intervention. On a clinical perspective, should the diabetologist's way to think about the anti-diabetic therapy of patients on secondary cardiovascular prevention change based on the results of Empa-Reg outcome? Due to the complexity of the clinical picture of patients with type 2 diabetes, a tailored therapy based on targets, complications, co-morbidity, familial and social environment, personal and cultural features must be conceived and applied in starting pharmacological therapy; however, the question whether should we consider empagliflozin as first choice therapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes exposed to high cardiovascular risk, the Empa-Reg outcome-like patient, awaits now for an answer. Waiting for data confirming the results of the Empa-Reg outcome study, this report goes through the good reasons in support of this way of thinking, but at the same time explores the many unanswered questions raising potential concerns about this clinical choice.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and heart failure: Analysis of spontaneous reports submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We tested the possible association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4-I) use and heart failure (HF) occurrence by assessing the publicly available US-FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

METHODS

FAERS data reporting HF and DPP-4-Is use in the period from the fourth quarter of 2006 through 2013 were extracted, using the Standardized MedDRA Query "Cardiac failure". Disproportionality (case/non-case method) was implemented by calculating Reporting Odds Ratios (RORs) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI): (1) exploratory analysis on the entire FAERS (using rosiglitazone as positive control); (2) consolidated analyses by therapeutic area (within antidiabetics), correcting for event- and drug-related competition bias and adjusting for co-reported drugs as confounders.

RESULTS

HF during DPP4-I use was recorded in 390 reports (4.4% of total reports). In exploratory analysis, statistically significant ROR emerged for DPP-4-I as a class (ROR = 1.17; 95% CI = 1.05-1.29), saxagliptin (1.68; 1.29-2.17), vildagliptin (2.39; 1.38-4.14), and rosiglitazone (13.98; 13.30-14.70). In consolidated analyses, the ROR for saxagliptin (2.60; 1.92-3.50) and vildagliptin (4.07; 2.28-7.27) increased, and became also significant for sitagliptin (1.61; 1.40-1.86). Concomitant drugs were reported in more than 50% of cases; the adjusted RORs of saxagliptin (2.30; 1.70-3.10), vildagliptin (3.15; 1.76-5.63), and sitagliptin (1.48; 1.28-1.71) were nonetheless significant.

CONCLUSION

FAERS data are consistent with clinical studies on a possible association between saxagliptin and HF. The disproportionate reporting of HF with sitagliptin, conflicting with a recent phase IV trial, suggests that cardiovascular safety requires close post-marketing vigilance by clinicians of individual DPP-4-I in the community until the issue of class effect is solved.

Risks of cardiovascular diseases associated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and other antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes: a nation-wide longitudinal study

Background

Several antidiabetic drugs (i.e., sulfonylureas; SU, rosiglitazone) have been reported to be associated with increased risks of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) are newly available antidiabetic drugs. Most studies only compared DPP4i with a placebo or SU, or targeted a specific CVD event of interest (i.e., heart failure; HF). Comparative research of CVD risks of DPP4i with other antidiabetic drugs (i.e., metformin, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides, acarbose, and insulin) remains scarce. This study was aimed to assess comparative risks of CVD, including ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and HF, and hypoglycemia of DPP4i with other antidiabetic drugs.

Methods

We utilized Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database. A total of 123,050 T2DM patients newly prescribed oral antidiabetic treatments were identified in 2009–2010 and followed until 2013. Outcome endpoints included a composite of CVD events: hospitalizations for ischemic stroke, MI and HF, and hypoglycemia. Time-varying Cox proportional hazards regression was applied to assess the time to event hazards of various antidiabetic drugs, adjusted for patients’ demographics, comorbidity, diabetic complications, and co-medications. Additional analyses were performed for the patients with and without CVD history, respectively.

Results

DPP4i users had significantly lower CVD risks as compared to that of non-DPP4i users (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.83, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.76–0.91). Compared to DPP4i users, meglitinides (aHR 1.3, 95 % CI 1.20–1.43) and insulin users (aHR 3.73, 95 % CI 3.35, 4.14) had significantly higher risks for composite CVD, as well as those for stroke, MI, HF, and hypoglycemia. Additionally, metformin users had significantly lower risks for composite CVD risk (aHR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.79–0.94), as well as those for MI, HF, and hypoglycemia, as compared to those of DPP4i users. Although there was a trend toward low CVD risks in pioglitazone users, the role of potential confounding by indication cannot be excluded.

Conclusions

DPP4i-treated T2DM patients had lower risks for CVD as compared to those for non-DPP4i users, except metformin users.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12933-016-0350-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and risk of heart failure in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the risk of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov searched up to 25 June 2015, and communication with experts.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared DPP-4 inhibitors against placebo, lifestyle modification, or active antidiabetic drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes, and explicitly reported the outcome of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Teams of paired reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data using standardised, pilot tested forms. Data from trials and observational studies were pooled separately; quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Eligible studies included 43 trials (n=68,775) and 12 observational studies (nine cohort studies, three nested case-control studies; n=1,777,358). Pooling of 38 trials reporting heart failure provided low quality evidence for a possible similar risk of heart failure between DPP-4 inhibitor use versus control (42/15,701 v 33/12,591; odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.56); risk difference 2 fewer (19 fewer to 28 more) events per 1000 patients with type 2 diabetes over five years). The observational studies provided effect estimates generally consistent with trial findings, but with very low quality evidence. Pooling of the five trials reporting admission for heart failure provided moderate quality evidence for an increased risk in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors versus control (622/18,554 v 552/18,474; 1.13 (1.00 to 1.26); 8 more (0 more to 16 more)). The pooling of adjusted estimates from observational studies similarly suggested (with very low quality evidence) a possible increased risk of admission for heart failure (adjusted odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.09) in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors (exclusively sitagliptin) versus no use.

CONCLUSIONS

The relative effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on the risk of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes is uncertain, given the relatively short follow-up and low quality of evidence. Both randomised controlled trials and observational studies, however, suggest that these drugs may increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure in those patients with existing cardiovascular diseases or multiple risk factors for vascular diseases, compared with no use.

DPP-4 inhibitors, heart failure and type 2 diabetes: all eyes on safety

Epidemiological analyses have clearly outlined the association between heart failure (HF) and diabetes (DM). HF patients with concomitant DM show a further increase in morbidity and mortality due to coexistence of several mechanisms including disturbed neurohormonal axis as well as structural and functional abnormalities occurring in the diabetic myocardium. Although several studies have shown that poor glycemic control-as indicated by HbA1c levels-may be associated with an increased risk of HF, this issue remains poorly understood and further evidence is required to show unequivocal benefits of this approach. In the attempt to explore the effects of new anti-hyperglycemic therapies, randomized trials have shown that some glucose-lowering drugs-thought not affecting cardiovascular (CV) death or ischemic complications-might significantly increase the risk of HF-hospitalizations in DM patients. Specifically, the use of dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DDP-4) inhibitors (DPP-4i) has recently raised a major safety concern owing to an increase of HF hospitalizations in SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial. In contrast with these findings, the more recent TECOS study as well as new TECOS sub-analyses presented at the last ESC Congress-have yielded to the conclusion that the DPP-4i sitagliptin is not associated with any sort of HF risk. Therefore, increased risk of HF hospitalizations does not seem to be a class effect of DPP-4i. The present article critically discusses available evidence concerning DPP-4i and risk of HF in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The use of DPP-4i in combination therapy is also discussed, in light of the recent EMPA-REG trial.

Direct effects of DPP-4 inhibition on the vasculature. Reconciling basic evidence with lack of clinical evidence

Diabetes is burdened by macrovascular and microvascular complications that collectively reduce life expectancy. As the ultimate goal of diabetes treatment is to prevent excess morbidity and mortality associated with its complications, the interest on cardiovascular effects of glucose lowering medications is high. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) lower blood glucose by protecting the incretin hormone glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) from enzymatic degradation, thereby restoring meal-stimulated insulin release. DPP-4 has several non-incretin substrates, including cytokines, chemokines, and neurohormones, which can exert favourable, but also unpredictable, vascular effects, once they are stabilized by DPP-4i. Choi et al. now provide additional evidence that DPP-4i counteracts vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration, resulting in an attenuation of neointimal hyperplasia. Though several other in vitro, preclinical, and preliminary clinical studies on surrogate end-points suggest that DPP-4i can exert similar direct vasculoprotective actions, results of placebo-controlled phase IV trials have so far shown no reduction cardiovascular endpoints by DPP-4i. In this commentary, we put DPP-4 pleiotropy and complexity into context, trying to reconcile why results from basic science have not yet translated into clinical evidence of cardiovascular protection.