Cardiovascular and heart failure safety profile of vildagliptin: a meta-analysis of 17 000 patients

[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.

Factors that may Account for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction with a Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor, Vildagliptin, in Young Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

In a meta-analysis, we observed a significant 37% relative risk reduction in prospectively adjudicated major adverse cardiac events [MACEs, comprising of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular (CV) death] with vildagliptin vs. comparators in younger (< 65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), while the risk was similar in older patients (≥ 65 years). We carried out an exploratory analysis to identify the patient characteristics and on-treatment effects that may have contributed to the different outcomes in the two age groups.

METHODS

On-treatment differences (vildagliptin vs. comparators) for the change from baseline in CV risk factors were analyzed using an analysis of covariance model with the baseline value for each variable of interest, treatment and study as covariates. Additional adjustments for background antihypertensive and statin use were performed when analyzing changes in blood pressure and lipids, respectively. Baseline characteristics and patient demographics were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Patients aged < 65 years had shorter diabetes duration (4.4 vs. 8.2 years) and slightly higher glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at baseline (8.3% vs. 8.0%) than patients aged ≥ 65 years. More patients in the  ≥ 65 year age group had hypertension (73.1% vs. 51.3%), dyslipidemia (53.3% vs. 43.9%) and a history of CV events (32.2% vs. 12.9%). There were small, but statistically significant differences in the change in HbA1c and total cholesterol in favor of vildagliptin relative to comparators, which were similar in both age groups. Significant differences were observed in the reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (- 0.52 mmHg; 95% CI - 0.97, - 0.07; p = 0.023), low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol) (- 0.12 mmol/l; 95% CI - 0.19, - 0.04; p = 0.002) and weight (- 0.48 kg; 95% CI - 0.95, - 0.01; p < 0.047) in patients < 65 years, but not in patients ≥ 65 years. The incidence of hypoglycemic events was lower in patients treated with vildagliptin [2.1 and 3.5 per 100 subject years exposure (SYEs) in < 65 and ≥ 65 years, respectively] than with comparators (5.8 and 7.5 per 100 SYEs, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings, it can be hypothesized that the positive effects of vildagliptin on SBP, LDL cholesterol, hypoglycemia and weight observed in younger, but not in older patients could be associated with the lower risk of MACE in younger patients with T2DM.

FUNDING

Novartis.

A review of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Hot topics from randomized controlled trials

The first clinical study to investigate effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibition was published in 2002, and since then, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that DPP-4 inhibitors are efficacious, safe and well-tolerated. This review will focus upon RCTs which have investigated DPP-4 inhibitors in patient groups which are often under-represented or excluded from typical phase 3 clinical trials. Large cardiovascular (CV) safety outcome trials in patients with established CV disease have confirmed that DPP-4 inhibitors are not associated with any additional CV risk in these already-at-high-risk individuals, while raising awareness of any uncommon adverse events, such as heart failure hospitalization seen in one of the trials. Studies in patients with kidney disease have shown DPP-4 inhibitors to be efficacious without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia, irrespective of the degree of renal impairment, while data from the large CV trials as well as smaller RCTs have even pointed towards potential renoprotective effects such individuals. The use of DPP-4 inhibitors with insulin when therapy requires intensification may be beneficial without affecting the incidence or severity of hypoglycaemia, with these effects also being replicated in patients with chronic kidney disease, for whom other agents may not be suitable. Attention is now turning towards exploring the potential utility of DPP-4 inhibitors in other circumstances, including for in-hospital management of hyperglycaemia and in other metabolic disorders. Together, these RCTs raise the possibility that in the future, DPP-4 inhibitors may have a broader use which may extend beyond glycaemic control in the typical type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patient seen in general practice and may encompass conditions other than T2DM.

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.

The cardiovascular effect of incretin-based therapies among type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative cardiovascular safety of incretin-based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and www.clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with duration≥12 weeks. Network meta-analysis was performed, followed by subgroup analysis and meta-regression. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to assess the quality of evidence. The outcome of interest was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke and heart failure. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated as the measure of effect size.

RESULTS

281 RCTs (76.9% double-blinded) with 180,000 patients were included, comparing incretin-based therapies with other six classes of anti-diabetic drugs or placebo. A statistically significant reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events was found in favour of GLP-1RAs when compared with placebo (OR 0.89, 95%CI: 0.80-0.99) and sulfonylurea (OR 0.76, 95%CI: 0.59-0.99), whereas DPP-4 inhibitors showed a neutral effect compared with placebo (OR 0.92, 95%CI: 0.83-1.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Incretin-based therapies show similar cardiovascular risk in comparison with metformin, insulin, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitor and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2. GLP-1RA could decrease the risk compared with sulfonylurea or placebo, while DPP-4I appears to have neutral effect on cardiovascular risk.

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.

Cardiovascular safety of vildagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A European multi-database, non-interventional post-authorization safety study

The aim of this non-interventional, multi-database, analytical cohort study was to assess the cardiovascular (CV) safety of vildagliptin vs other non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) using real-world data from 5 European electronic healthcare databases. Patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥18 years on NIAD treatment were enrolled. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the outcomes of interest (myocardial infarction [MI], acute coronary syndrome [ACS], stroke, congestive heart failure [CHF], individually and as a composite) were estimated using negative binomial regression. Approximately 2.8% of the enrolled patients (n = 738 054) used vildagliptin at any time during the study, with an average follow-up time of 1.4 years, resulting in a cumulative current vildagliptin exposure of 28 330 person-years. The adjusted IRRs (vildagliptin [±other NIADs] vs other NIADs) were in the range of 0.61 to 0.97 (MI), 0.55 to 1.60 (ACS), 0.02 to 0.77 (stroke), 0.49 to 1.03 (CHF), and 0.22 to 1.02 (composite CV outcomes). The IRRs and their 95% CIs were close to 1, demonstrating no increased risk of adverse CV events, including the risk of CHF, with vildagliptin vs other NIADs in real-world conditions.

Cardiovascular Actions and Clinical Outcomes With Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors

Potentiation of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) action through selective GLP-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonism or by prevention of enzymatic degradation by inhibition of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) promotes glycemic reduction for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus by glucose-dependent control of insulin and glucagon secretion. GLP-1R agonists also decelerate gastric emptying, reduce body weight by reduction of food intake and lower circulating lipoproteins, inflammation, and systolic blood pressure. Preclinical studies demonstrate that both GLP-1R agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors exhibit cardioprotective actions in animal models of myocardial ischemia and ventricular dysfunction through incompletely characterized mechanisms. The results of cardiovascular outcome trials in human subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus and increased cardiovascular risk have demonstrated a cardiovascular benefit (significant reduction in time to first major adverse cardiovascular event) with the GLP-1R agonists liraglutide (LEADER trial [Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Ourcome Results], -13%) and semaglutide (SUSTAIN-6 trial [Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes with Semaglutide], -24%). In contrast, cardiovascular outcome trials examining the safety of the shorter-acting GLP-1R agonist lixisenatide (ELIXA trial [Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrom]) and the DPP-4 inhibitors saxagliptin (SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial [Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53]), alogliptin (EXAMINE trial [Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes With Alogliptin Versus Standard of Care in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Acute Coronary Syndrome]), and sitagliptin (TECOS [Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin]) found that these agents neither increased nor decreased cardiovascular events. Here we review the cardiovascular actions of GLP-1R agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors, with a focus on the translation of mechanisms derived from preclinical studies to complementary findings in clinical studies. We highlight areas of uncertainty requiring more careful scrutiny in ongoing basic science and clinical studies. As newer more potent GLP-1R agonists and coagonists are being developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, the delineation of the potential mechanisms that underlie the cardiovascular benefit and safety of these agents have immediate relevance for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease.

Clinical Safety and Tolerability of Vildagliptin - Insights from Randomised Trials, Observational Studies and Post-marketing Surveillance

Vildagliptin is one of the most extensively studied dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in terms of its clinical utility. Over the last decade, a vast panorama of evidence on the benefit-risk profile of vildagliptin has been generated in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In this article, we review the cumulative evidence on the safety of vildagliptin from the clinical development programme, as well as reports of rare adverse drug reactions detected during the post-marketing surveillance of the drug. Across clinical studies, the overall safety and tolerability profile of vildagliptin was similar to placebo, and it was supported by real-world data in a broad population of patients with T2DM, making DPP-4 inhibitors, like vildagliptin, a safe option for managing patients with T2DM.

Effects of glucose-lowering agents on ischemic stroke

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for cardiovascular events, including ischemic stroke. Moreover, ischemic stroke appears to be more severe in these patients and to be associated with less favorable outcomes. However, strict glycemic control does not appear to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. On the other hand, newer glucose-lowering agents (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) reduced the risk of cardiovascular events in recent randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Semaglutide also reduced the risk of ischemic stroke. These benefits are independent of glucose lowering and might be due to the favorable effects of these agents on body weight and blood pressure. Pioglitazone also reduced the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with insulin resistance or type 2 DM but the unfavorable safety profile limits its use. In contrast, sulfonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors have a neutral effect on cardiovascular morbidity and might be less attractive options in this high-risk population.

Cardiovascular outcome studies with incretin-based therapies: Comparison between DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) represent two distinct classes of incretin-based therapies used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Non-inferiority versus placebo was shown in large prospective cardiovascular outcome trials in patients with high cardiovascular risk: SAVOR-TIMI 53 (saxagliptin), EXAMINE (alogliptin), and TECOS (sitagliptin); ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide) and SUSTAIN 6 (semaglutide). The promises raised by meta-analyses of phase 2-3 trials with DPP-4is were non confirmed as no cardiovascular protection could be evidenced. However, LEADER showed a significant reduction in major cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in patients treated by liraglutide compared to placebo. These positive results contrasted with the non-inferiority results with lixisenatide in ELIXA. They were partially confirmed with semaglutide in SUSTAIN 6 despite the absence of reduction in cardiovascular mortality. Hospitalisation for heart failure was not increased except with saxagliptin in SAVOR-TIMI 53. The reasons for different outcomes between trials remain largely unknown as well as the precise underlying mechanisms explaining the cardiovascular protection by liraglutide. The clinical relevance of results with DPP-4is and GLP-1RAs is discussed. Ongoing trials with linagliptin and several once-weekly GLP-1RAs should provide new insights into remaining fundamental questions.

DPP-4 Inhibitor and Estrogen Share Similar Efficacy Against Cardiac Ischemic-Reperfusion Injury in Obese-Insulin Resistant and Estrogen-Deprived Female Rats

Estrogen deprivation aggravates cardiac injury after myocardial ischemia and reperfusion (I/R) injury. Although either estrogen or the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, vildagliptin, reduces myocardial damage following cardiac I/R, their effects on the heart in obese-insulin resistant and estrogen deprived conditions remain unknown. Ovariectomized (O) rats (n = 36) were divided to receive either normal diet (NDO) or high-fat diet (HFO) for 12 weeks, followed by treatment with a vehicle, estrogen or vildagliptin for 4 weeks. The setting of in vivo cardiac I/R injury, 30-min ischemia and 120-min reperfusion, was performed. At 12 weeks after ovariectomy, both NDO and HFO rats exhibited an obese-insulin resistant condition. Both NDO and HFO rats treated with estrogen and vildagliptin showed reduced fasting plasma glucose, insulin and HOMA index. Both treatments improved cardiac function indicated by restoration of heart rate variability and increased %left ventricular ejection fraction (%LVEF). The treatments similarly protected cardiac mitochondrial function against I/R injury, leading to a reduction in the infarct size, oxidative stress and apoptosis in the ischemic myocardium. These findings demonstrate that vildagliptin effectively improves metabolic status, and shares similar efficacy to estrogen in reducing myocardial infarction and protecting cardiac mitochondrial function against I/R injury in estrogen-deprived obese-insulin resistant rats.

Incretin-based agents in type 2 diabetic patients at cardiovascular risk: compare the effect of GLP-1 agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors on cardiovascular and pancreatic outcomes

Background

Incretin-based agents, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4Is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1As), work via GLP-1 receptor for hyperglycemic control directly or indirectly, but have different effect on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The present study is to evaluate and compare effects of incretin-based agents on CV and pancreatic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and high CV risk.

Methods

Six prospective randomized controlled trials (EXMAINE, SAVOR-TIMI53, TECOS, ELIXA, LEADER and SUSTAIN-6), which included three trials for DPP-4Is and three trials for GLP-1As, with 55,248 participants were selected to assess the effect of different categories of incretin-based agents on death, CV outcomes (CV mortality, major adverse CV events, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, heart failure hospitalization), pancreatic events (acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer) as well as on hypoglycemia.

Results

When we evaluated the combined effect of six trials, the results suggested that incretin-based treatment had no significant effect on overall risks of CV and pancreatic outcomes compared with placebo. However, GLP-1As reduced all-cause death (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.82–0.98) and CV mortality (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.73–0.97), whereas DPP-4Is had no significant effect on CV outcomes but elevated the risk for acute pancreatitis (OR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.14–2.72) and hypoglycemia (both any and severe hypoglycemia), while GLP-1As lowered the risk of severe hypoglycemia.

Conclusions

GLP-1As decreased risks of all-cause and CV mortality and severe hypoglycemia, whereas DPP-4Is had no effect on CV outcomes but increased risks in acute pancreatitis and hypoglycemia.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12933-017-0512-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Brazil; findings and implications

INTRODUCTION

Vildagliptin is an inhibitor of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase 4, indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, combined or not with metformin. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin in the Brazilian context. Areas covered: Using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Lilacs and CRD, six studies were selected for the economic models. This study utilised cost data in the Brazilian health system to provide the context. Expert commentary: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an epidemic disease and represents a challenge for all health care systems. Although guidelines clearly define first-line treatment, there are several other promising treatments. Vildagliptin is one of them, resulting in a mean lifetime increase of 0.31 years compared to metformin alone and 1.19 more life years compared to other metformin combinations. Considering observational data, life years with dual vildagliptin-containing treatments were 0.37 more compared to other dual treatments. However, its high cost versus generic metformin and its unclear safety profile weakens its subsequent cost-effectiveness. Consequently, the incorporation of vildagliptin or its combination with metformin is currently not recommended for the Brazilian Health Care System. This may change as more data becomes available.

SAVOR-TIMI to SUSTAIN-6: a critical comparison of cardiovascular outcome trials of antidiabetic drugs

INTRODUCTION

Since the inception of mandatory cardiovascular (CV) safety outcome trial (CVOT) promulgated by US FDA in 2008, seven trials have so far been published with three different classes of antidiabetic drugs in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This mini-review aims to critically analyse these CVOTs in terms of different outcomes achieved. Areas covered: An electronic search pertaining to the subject was conducted till September 2016. The three CVOT conducted with saxagliptin, alogliptin and sitagliptin respectively, found them to be CV-neutral. However, both saxagliptin and alogliptin showed an increase in hospitalization due to heart failure (hHF), while sitagliptin had no such signal. The trial conducted with empagliflozin (EMPA-REG) found it to be superior in reducing major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The CVOT conducted with lixisenatide (ELIXA) was CV-neutral, but both liraglutide (LEADER) and semaglutide (SUSTAIN-6) demonstrated superiority in reducing MACE. Expert commentary: While EMPA-REG had robust reduction in the CV-death, all-cause death and hHF, there was a discordant non-significant increase in silent myocardial infarction (MI) (assessed in approximately 50% of patients) and non-fatal stroke. LEADER had concordant reduction in all CV endpoints. SUSTAIN-6 had most robust reduction in 3P-MACE, although no reduction in the CV-death, all-cause death and hHF were observed.

Cardiovascular Safety of Incretin-Based Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Review of Integrated Analyses and Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction

Regulatory requirements mandate that new drugs for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, are evaluated to show that they do not increase cardiovascular (CV) risk.

Methods

A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the association between DPP-4 inhibitor and GLP-1 receptor agonist use and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The National Institutes of Health Medline database was searched for pooled analyses, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists that included CV endpoints.

Results

Thirty-six articles met the inclusion criteria encompassing 11 pooled analyses, 17 meta-analyses, and eight RCTs (including secondary analyses). Over the short term (up to 4 years), patients with T2DM exposed to a DPP-4 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor agonist were not at increased risk for MACE (or its component endpoints) compared with those who received comparator agents. Two meta-analyses showed a significant reduction in the incidence of MACE associated with DPP-4 inhibitor therapy as a drug class, but this beneficial effect was not observed in other meta-analyses that included large RCT CV outcome studies. In four RCTs that evaluated alogliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, or lixisenatide, there was no overall increased risk for MACE relative to placebo in T2DM patients at high risk for CV events or with established CV disease, although there was an increased rate of hospitalization for heart failure associated with saxagliptin. A fifth RCT showed that liraglutide reduced MACE risk by 13% versus placebo.

Conclusion

Overall, incretin therapy does not appear to increase risk for MACE in the short term.

An update on the 'gliptins'

Progressive impairment of insulin secretion in people with type 2 diabetes leads to blood glucose concentrations worsening over time, often resulting in escalation of blood glucose lowering therapy.¹ In 2015/2016, more money was spent on dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors ('gliptins') than on any other class of antidiabetic drug except for insulins.² In 2008, we reviewed sitagliptin and vildagliptin.³ Here, we briefly review three other DPP-4 inhibitors, saxagliptin (Onglyza-AstraZeneca), linagliptin (Trajenta-Boehringer Ingelheim) and ▼alogliptin (Vipidia-Takeda), and consider data from recent cardiovascular outcomes studies.

Pattern of Onset and Risk Factors for Peripheral Oedema During Vildagliptin Use: Analysis from the Vildagliptin Prescription-Event Monitoring Study in England

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trials have identified peripheral oedema (PO) as an adverse event of vildagliptin (an oral anti-diabetic drug [OAD]). A post-marketing study (PMS) was conducted to advance the understanding of vildagliptin use and particular safety concerns identified within the risk-management plan. PMS objectives included comparing the hazards between vildagliptin monotherapy and combination therapy for selected a priori identified risks, including PO.

AIM

This study was a per-protocol supplementary analysis to investigate the pattern of onset and effect of vildagliptin combination therapy on PO risk.

METHODS

The PMS used an observational cohort design. OAD exposure, selected risk factors and outcome data were collected from general practitioners in England regarding vildagliptin users for the 6-month period after starting treatment. Data analysis comprised univariate case/non-case analysis, time-to-onset analysis and Cox proportional hazard models to estimate hazard ratios (HR) of PO adjusting for selected patients' baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 4828 patients (median age 63 years; interquartile range [IQR] 54-71), 2692 of whom were male (55.8 %). The crude cumulative hazard of PO was 19.09 cases (95 % confidence interval [CI] 13.54-26.10) per 1000 person-years; 50 % of cases occurred during the first 34 days of treatment. A significantly faster time to PO onset was observed in patients prescribed concomitant sulfonylureas versus other treatment combinations (log rank test [LRT] p = 0.0365); in patients with a prior history of PO (LRT p < 0.001), arrhythmia (LRT p = 0.0003) or hypertension (LRT p = 0.0125); and in patients aged ≥60 years (LRT p = 0.0047). Similarly, the case/non-case univariate analysis indicated that patients with PO were older; had a higher prevalence of a history of either arrhythmia, hypertension or PO; and frequently used a sulfonylurea in combination. In the hazard function analysis, only sex and prior PO history had a profound effect on risk of PO after starting vildagliptin. Furthermore, effect modification was observed between sex and prior PO history; in male patients of average age (62 years), the HR was 12.84 (95 % CI 4.96-33.23); in females, it was 1.44 (95 % CI 0.32-6.40).

CONCLUSIONS

In this planned supplementary analysis, the findings suggest that PO occurred most frequently within 1 month after starting treatment with vildagliptin, and previous PO history and male sex in elderly patients were important predictors of this risk. The observation that concomitant use of a sulfonylurea may also increase PO risk early after starting treatment should be taken into consideration if prescribing OADs in combination with vildagliptin.

An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVE

This updated meta-analysis determines the effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on glycemic and tolerability outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease with glomerular filtration rate of ⩽60 mL/min or on dialysis.

METHODS

In all, 14 citations were identified from multiple databases. Qualitative assessments and quantitative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

There were 2261 participants, 49-79 years of age, 49% men and 44% Caucasians. In seven placebo-comparator studies, reduction in hemoglobin A1c at weeks 12-24 was 0.55% (95% confidence interval: -0.68 to -0.43), P < 0.00001). In three sulfonylurea-comparator studies, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors did not significantly reduce hemoglobin A1c at weeks 52-54 (-0.15% (95% confidence interval: -0.32 to 0.02)). In one sitagliptin versus albiglutide study, albiglutide significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c in patients with moderate renal impairment (-0.51%). A similar reduction in hemoglobin A1c was seen with sitagliptin versus vildagliptin (-0.56% vs -0.54%). Compared with placebo or sulfonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors did not significantly reduce hemoglobin A1c after 12 and 54 weeks in patients on dialysis. Hypoglycemia was reported by ~30% of patients in both dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and placebo groups over 24-52 weeks. While hypoglycemia was more common with a sulfonylurea at 52-54 weeks (risk ratio: 0.46 (95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 1.18)), there was significant heterogeneity (I (2) = 87%). Limitations included high drop-out rate from most studies and small number of active-comparator studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with chronic kidney disease caused a modest reduction in hemoglobin A1c versus placebo, but not when compared with sulfonylureas or albiglutide, or when used in patients on dialysis. Additional active-comparator studies are needed to further elucidate the role of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with chronic kidney disease stages 3-5 or on dialysis.

Effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor in insulin-resistant rats with myocardial infarction

Adverse cardiac remodeling after myocardial infarction (MI) leads to progressive heart failure. Obese-insulin resistance increases risks of MI and heart failure. Although dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor is known to exert cardioprotection, its effects on adverse remodeling after MI in obese-insulin-resistant rats are unclear. We hypothesized that DPP4 inhibitor reduces adverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling and LV dysfunction in obese-insulin-resistant rats with MI. Rats were fed either normal diet (ND) or high-fat diet (HFD) for 12 weeks to induce obese-insulin resistance, followed by left anterior descending coronary artery ligation to induce MI. Then, rats in each dietary group were divided into five subgroups to receive vehicle, enalapril (10mg/kg/day), metformin (30mg/kg/day), DPP4 inhibitor vildagliptin (3mg/kg/day), or combined metformin and vildagliptin for 8 weeks. Heart rate variability (HRV), LV function, pathological and biochemical studies for LV remodeling, and cardiomyocyte apoptosis were determined. Obese-insulin-resistant rats had severe insulin resistance and LV dysfunction. HFD rats had a higher mortality rate than ND rats, and all treatments reduced the mortality rate in obese-insulin-resistant rats. Although all drugs improved insulin resistance, HRV, LV function as well as reduced cardiac hypertrophy and fibrosis, vildagliptin effectively reduced cardiomyocyte cross-sectional areas more than enalapril and was related to markedly decreased ERK1/2 phosphorylation. In ND rats with MI, metformin neither improved LV ejection fraction nor reduced cardiac fibrosis. The infarct size and transforming growth factor-β expression were not different among groups. In obese-insulin-resistant rats with chronic MI, DPP4 inhibitor vildagliptin exerts better cardioprotection than enalapril in attenuating adverse LV remodeling.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of vildagliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an update on the efficacy and safety of vildagliptin for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We searched MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE and the drug manufacturer's website for randomised controlled trials of vildagliptin in patients with T2DM. Sixty-nine studies (28,006 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo vildagliptin reduced HbA1c (weighted mean difference WMD -0.69 %; 95 % CI -0.83 to -0.56 %; I (2) = 82 %), and it was as effective as other antidiabetic agents (WMD -0.01 %; 95 % CI -0.16 to 0.14 %; I (2) = 93 %), without increasing the risk for hypoglycemia (OR 0.83; 95 % CI 0.59 to 1.16; I (2) = 0 % vs. placebo, and OR 0.19; 95 % CI 0.15 to 0.24; I (2) = 78 % versus active comparators). However, it was associated with an increase in the incidence of arthralgia compared with other comparators (OR 1.23; 95 % CI 1.02 to 1.48; I (2) = 0 %). On the contrary, vildagliptin did not increase the incidence of pancreatitis (OR 0.97; 95 % CI 0.37 to 2.53; I (2) = 0 %), serious adverse events (OR 0.98; 95 % CI 0.88 to 1.09; I (2) = 0 %) or death (OR 1.10, 95 % CI 0.75 to 1.61; I (2) = 0 %). Finally, odds ratio (OR) for heart failure, and overall cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 0.77 (95 % CI 0.46 to 1.30; I (2) = 0 %) and 0.91 (95 % CI 0.73 to 1.14; I (2) = 0 %), respectively. Vildagliptin is an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients with T2DM, both as monotherapy and as add-on treatment.

Antidiabetic treatment with gliptins: focus on cardiovascular effects and outcomes

The traditional oral pharmacological therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has been based on the prescription of metformin, a biguanide, as first line antihyperglycemic agent world over. It has been demonstrated that after 3 years of treatment, approximately 50 % of diabetic patients could achieve acceptable glucose levels with monotherapy; but by 9 years this had declined to only 25 %. Therefore, the implementation of a combined pharmacological therapy acting via different pathways becomes necessary, and its combination with a compound of the sulfonylurea group was along decades the most frequently employed prescription in routine clinical practice. Meglitinides, glitazones and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors were subsequently developed, but the five mentioned groups of oral antihyperglycemic agents are associated with variable degrees of undesirable or even severe cardiovascular events. The gliptins—also called dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors—are an additional group of antidiabetic compounds with increasing clinical use. We review the status of the gliptins with emphasis on their capabilities to positively or negatively affect the cardiovascular system, and their potential involvement in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Alogliptin, anagliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, teneligliptin and vildagliptin are the compounds currently in clinical use. Regardless differences in chemical structure and metabolic pathways, gliptins as a group exert favorable changes in experimental models. These changes, as an almost general rule, include improved endothelial function, reduction of inflammatory markers, oxidative stress ischemia/reperfusion injury and atherogenesis. In addition, increased adiponectin levels and modest decreases in lipidemia and blood pressure were reported. In clinical settings, several trials—notably the longer one, employing sitagliptin, with a mean follow-up period of 3 years—did not show an increased risk for ischemic events. Anyway, it should be emphasized that the encouraging results from basic science were not yet translated into clinical evidence, probably due the multiple and pleiotropic enzymatic effects of DPP4 inhibition. Moreover, when employing saxagliptin, while the drug was not associated with an augmented risk for ischemic events, it should be pinpointed that the rate of hospitalization for heart failure was significantly increased. Gliptins as a group constitute a widely accepted therapy for the management of T2DM, usually as a second-line medication. Nonetheless, for the time being, a definite relationship between gliptins treatment and improved cardiovascular outcomes remains uncertain and needs yet to be proven.