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

Clinical implications, diagnosis, and management of diabetes in patients with chronic liver diseases

Diabetes mellitus (DM) negatively affects the development and progression of chronic liver diseases (CLD) of various etiologies. Concurrent DM and CLD are also associated with worse clinical outcomes with respect to mortality, the occurrence of hepatic decompensation, and the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Unfortunately, early diagnosis and optimal treatment of DM can be challenging, due to the lack of established clinical guidelines as well as the medical complexity of this patient population. We conducted an exploratory review of relevant literature to provide an up-to-date review for internists and hepatologists caring for this patient population. We reviewed the epidemiological and pathophysiological associations between DM and CLD, the impact of insulin resistance on the progression and manifestations of CLD, the pathogenesis of hepatogenic diabetes, as well as the practical challenges in diagnosis and monitoring of DM in this patient population. We also reviewed the latest clinical evidence on various pharmacological antihyperglycemic therapies with an emphasis on liver disease-related clinical outcomes. Finally, we proposed an algorithm for managing DM in patients with CLD and discussed the clinical and research questions that remain to be addressed.

The efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to other oral glucose-lowering medications in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is), which belong to the class of incretin-based medications, are recommended as second or third-line therapies in guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. They have a favorable drug tolerability and safety profile compared to other glucose-lowering agents.

OBJECTIVE

This review discusses data concerning the use of DPP-4is and their cardiovascular profile, and gives an updated comparison with the other oral glucose-lowering medications with regards to safety and efficacy. Currently available original studies, abstracts, reviews articles, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the review.

DISCUSSION

DPP4is are moderately efficient in decreasing the HbA1c by an average of 0.5% as monotherapy, and 1.0% in combination therapy with other drugs. They have a good tolerability and safety profile compared to other glucose-lowering drugs. However, there are possible risks pertaining to acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSION

Cardiovascular outcome trials thus far have proven the cardiovascular safety for ischemic events in patients treated with sitagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, linagliptin and vildagliptin. Data showing increased rate of hospitalisation in the case of saxagliptin did not seem to be a class effect.

Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor was associated with an improvement in left ventricular systolic function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with impaired left ventricular systolic function

AIMS

Recent studies indicated that sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduced heart failure hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, whether SGTL2i can improve left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function remained unclear. This study aimed to compare the change in echocardiographic parameters in T2DM patients receiving SGLT2i with a different baseline LV ejection fraction (LVEF). The change in echocardiographic parameters was also compared between T2DM patients treated with SGLT2i and those treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i).

METHODS AND RESULTS

This multicentre cohort study consecutively enrolled 665, 119, and 132 T2DM patients treated with SGLT2i with a preserved (≥50%), moderately reduced (40-50%), and reduced baseline LVEF (<40%), respectively, with paired baseline and post-treatment echocardiographic data available between 1 June 2016 and 31 May 2018. There were 212 patients treated with DPP4i with paired baseline and post-treatment echocardiographic data available at the same time. For those patients treated with DPP4i, 45 patients had impaired baseline LVEF of <50%. Echocardiographic parameters, including LVEF, LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume (LVESV), and LV diastolic function, were analysed at baseline and after treatment. After a median SGLT2i treatment period of 230 days, patients with reduced LVEF were associated with an improvement in LVEF from 29.4 ± 7.4% to 42.2 ± 15.2% (P < 0.0001) and decrease in LVESV from 133.2 ± 49.2 to 117.4 ± 60.1 mL (P = 0.0002). Patients with moderately reduced LVEF were associated with an improvement in LVEF from 44.8 ± 2.9% to 49.7 ± 12.4% (P < 0.0001) and decrease in LVESV from 90.7 ± 31.1 to 80.0 ± 36.2 mL (P = 0.0017). Patients with preserved LVEF did not show an improvement in LVEF and LVESV after SGLT2i treatment. There were no significant changes of LV end-diastolic volume, LV diastolic function, and LV wall thickness in three study groups after SGLT2i treatment. In contrast, patients with impaired baseline LVEF (<50%) did not show any change in LVEF and LVESV after DPP4i treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor was associated with an improvement in LV systolic function in patients with T2DM with reduced and moderately reduced LVEF. In contrast, DPP4i treatment was not associated with any improvement in LVEF among patients with impaired LVEF.

Add-on therapy in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk: a nationwide study

BACKGROUND

In randomised clinical trials, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors reduced cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular risk, as compared to standard care. However, data comparing these agents in patients with T2D who are at moderate risk is sparse.

METHODS

From Danish national registries, we included patients with T2D previously on metformin monotherapy, who started an additional glucose-lowering agent [GLP-1 RA, SGLT-2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, sulfonylurea (SU), or insulin] in the period 2010-2016. Patients with a history of cardiovascular events [heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke] were excluded. Patients were followed for up to 2 years. Cause-specific adjusted Cox regression models were used to compare the risk of hospitalisation for HF, a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (MI, stroke or cardiovascular death), and all-cause mortality for each add-on therapy. Patients who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors were used as reference.

RESULTS

The study included 46,986 T2D patients with a median age of 61 years and of which 59% were male. The median duration of metformin monotherapy prior to study inclusion was 5.3 years. Add-on therapy was distributed as follows: 13,148 (28%) GLP-1 RAs, 2343 (5%) SGLT-2 inhibitors, 15,426 (33%) DPP-4 inhibitors, 8917 (19%) SUs, and 7152 (15%) insulin. During follow-up, 623 (1.3%, range 0.8-2.1%) patients were hospitalised for HF-hazard ratios (HR) were 1.11 (95% CI 0.89-1.39) for GLP-1 RA, 0.84 (0.52-1.36) for SGLT-2 inhibitors, 0.98 (0.77-1.26) for SU and 1.54 (1.25-1.91) for insulin. The composite MACE endpoint occurred in 1196 (2.5%, range 1.5-3.6%) patients, yielding HRs of 0.82 (0.69-0.97) for GLP-1 RAs, 0.79 (0.56-1.12) for SGLT-2 inhibitors, 1.22 (1.03-1.49) for SU and 1.23 (1.07-1.47) for insulin. 1865 (3.9%, range 1.9-9.0%) died from any cause during follow-up. HRs for all-cause mortality were 0.91 (0.78-1.05) for GLP-1 RAs, 0.79 (0.58-1.07) for SGLT-2 inhibitors, 1.13 (0.99-1.31) for SU and 2.33 (2.08-2.61) for insulin.

CONCLUSION

In a nationwide cohort of metformin-treated T2D patients and no history of cardiovascular events, the addition of either GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2 inhibitor to metformin treatment was associated with a similar risk of hospitalisation for HF and death, and a lower risk of MACE for GLP-1 RA when compared with add-on DPP-4 inhibitors. By contrast, initiation of treatment with SU and insulin were associated with a higher risk of MACE. Additionally, insulin was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for HF.

A randomized, open-label, active comparator trial assessing the effects of 26 weeks of liraglutide or sitagliptin on cardiovascular function in young obese adults with type 2 diabetes

AIM

To compare the effects of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor on magnetic resonance imaging-derived measures of cardiovascular function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint trial liraglutide (1.8 mg) and sitagliptin (100 mg) were compared in asymptomatic, non-insulin treated young (aged 18-50 years) adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes. The primary outcome was difference in circumferential peak early diastolic strain rate change (PEDSR), a biomarker of cardiac diastolic dysfunction 26 weeks after randomization. Secondary outcomes included other indices of cardiac structure and function, HbA1c and body weight.

RESULTS

Seventy-six participants were randomized (54% female, mean ± SD age 44 ± 6 years, diabetes duration 4.4 years, body mass index 35.3 ± 6.1 kg m^-2 ), of whom 65% had ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor. Sixty-one participants had primary outcome data available. There were no statistically significant between-group differences (intention-to-treat; mean [95% confidence interval]) in PEDSR change (-0.01 [-0.07, +0.06] s^-1 ), left ventricular ejection fraction (-1.98 [-4.90, +0.94]%), left ventricular mass (+1.14 [-5.23, +7.50] g) or aortic distensibility (-0.35 [-0.98, +0.28] mmHg^-1  × 10^-3 ) after 26 weeks. Reductions in HbA1c (-4.57 [-9.10, -0.37] mmol mol^-1 ) and body weight (-3.88 [-5.74, -2.01] kg) were greater with liraglutide.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in cardiovascular structure or function after short-term use of liraglutide and sitagliptin in younger adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes. Longer studies in patients with more severe cardiac dysfunction may be necessary before definitive conclusions can be made about putative pleiotropic properties of incretin-based therapies.

The therapeutic effect of B-type natriuretic peptides in acute decompensated heart failure

B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) exhibits roles in natriuresis and diuresis, making it an ideal drug that may aid in diuresing a fluid-overloaded patient with poor or worsening renal function. Several randomized clinical trials have tested the hypothesis that infusions of pharmacological doses of BNP to acute heart failure (HF) patients may enhance decongestion and preserve renal function in this clinical setting. Unfortunately, none of these have demonstrated beneficial outcomes. The current challenge for BNP research in acute HF lies in addressing a failure of concept and a reluctance to abandon an ineffective research model. Future success will necessitate a detailed understanding of the mechanism of action of BNP, as well as better integration of basic and clinical science.

Effects of Metformin on Left Ventricular Size and Function in Hypertensive Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Results of a Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter, Phase IV Trial

Background

Metformin is the most widely used oral antihyperglycemic agent for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Despite the possible benefits of metformin on diabetes mellitus (DM) and heart failure (HF), acute or unstable HF remains a precaution for its use.

Objective

The aim of the present prospective randomized controlled trial was to assess whether metformin treatment has beneficial effects on patients with T2DM with hypertension without overt HF.

Methods

A total of 164 patients (92 males, 72 females; median age 66 years) were included in this study. Patients with T2DM with a history of hypertension were randomized 1:1 to treatment for 1 year with either metformin (metformin-treated group) or other hypoglycemic agents (control group). The primary endpoints were changes in brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, left ventricular (LV) mass index, and indicators of LV diastolic function. We also evaluated changes in both clinical findings and blood laboratory examination data.

Results

We observed no significant changes between baseline and 1-year post-treatment in LV mass index, BNP levels, or E/e′ (early diastolic transmitral flow velocity/early diastolic mitral annular velocity; an indicator of LV diastolic function) in either the metformin-treated (n = 83) or the control (n = 81) groups. The metformin-treated group had a significant reduction of body mass index (BMI) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), but the control group did not. We determined that renal function, including serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate, deteriorated significantly in the control group but not in the metformin-treated group.

Conclusion

LV mass and diastolic function were not affected after 1 year of metformin treatment in patients with T2DM. However, we observed benefits in terms of reductions in both BMI and LDL-C levels and preservation of renal function.

Trial Registration

UMIN000006504. Registered 7 October 2011.

Basic Mechanisms of Diabetic Heart Disease

Diabetes mellitus predisposes affected individuals to a significant spectrum of cardiovascular complications, one of the most debilitating in terms of prognosis is heart failure. Indeed, the increasing global prevalence of diabetes mellitus and an aging population has given rise to an epidemic of diabetes mellitus-induced heart failure. Despite the significant research attention this phenomenon, termed diabetic cardiomyopathy, has received over several decades, understanding of the full spectrum of potential contributing mechanisms, and their relative contribution to this heart failure phenotype in the specific context of diabetes mellitus, has not yet been fully resolved. Key recent preclinical discoveries that comprise the current state-of-the-art understanding of the basic mechanisms of the complex phenotype, that is, the diabetic heart, form the basis of this review. Abnormalities in each of cardiac metabolism, physiological and pathophysiological signaling, and the mitochondrial compartment, in addition to oxidative stress, inflammation, myocardial cell death pathways, and neurohumoral mechanisms, are addressed. Further, the interactions between each of these contributing mechanisms and how they align to the functional, morphological, and structural impairments that characterize the diabetic heart are considered in light of the clinical context: from the disease burden, its current management in the clinic, and where the knowledge gaps remain. The need for continued interrogation of these mechanisms (both known and those yet to be identified) is essential to not only decipher the how and why of diabetes mellitus-induced heart failure but also to facilitate improved inroads into the clinical management of this pervasive clinical challenge.

Mortality and Morbidity in HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF Patients with Diabetes in the Middle East

Objectives

We sought to estimate the mortality and morbidity in diabetic acute heart failure (AHF) patients stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction.

Methods

We analyzed the data of patients with AHF from seven Middle Eastern countries (Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) from February to November 2012, who were enrolled in a multinational registry of patients with heart failure (HF).

Results

A total of 2258 AHF patients had diabetes mellitus. The mean age was 63.0±11.0 years (ranging from 18 to 99 years), and 60.3% (n = 1362) of the patients were males. The mean ejection fraction (EF) was 37.0±13.0%. HF with reduced EF (< 40%) (HFrEF) was observed in 1268 patients (56.2%), whereas 515 patients (22.8%) had mid-range (40-49%) (HFmrEF) and 475 patients (21.0%) had preserved EF (³ 50%) (HFpEF). The overall cumulative all-cause mortalities at three- and 12-months follow-up were 11.8% (n = 266) and 20.7% (n = 467), respectively. Those with HFpEF were associated with lower three-months cumulative all-cause mortality compared to those with HFrEF (7.6% vs. 5.9%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.31-0.95; p = 0.031), but not significantly different when compared to those with HFmrEF (aOR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.53-1.40; p = 0.554). There were largely no significant differences among the groups with regards to the 12-months all-cause cumulative mortality (11% vs. 11% vs. 10%; p = 0.984). There were also no significant differences in re-hospitalization rates between the three HF groups not only at three months (23% vs. 20% vs. 22%; p = 0.520), but at one-year follow-up (28% vs. 30% vs. 32%; p = 0.335).

Conclusions

Three-month cumulative all-cause mortality was high in diabetic HFrEF patients when compared to those with HFpEF. However, there were no significant differences in mortality at one-year follow-up between the HF groups. There were also no significant differences in re-hospitalization rates between the HF groups not only at three months but also at one-year follow-up in the Middle East.

Autophagy stimulation and intracellular sodium reduction as mediators of the cardioprotective effect of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors

In five large-scale trials involving >40 000 patients, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors decreased the risk of serious heart failure events by 25-40%. This effect cannot be explained by control of hyperglycaemia, since it is not observed with antidiabetic drugs with greater glucose-lowering effects. It cannot be attributed to ketogenesis, since it is not causally linked to ketone body production, and the benefit is not enhanced in patients with diabetes. The effect cannot be ascribed to a natriuretic action, since SGLT2 inhibitors decrease natriuretic peptides only modestly, and they reduce cardiovascular death, a benefit that diuretics do not possess. Although SGLT2 inhibitors increase red blood cell mass, enhanced erythropoiesis does not favourably influence the course of heart failure. By contrast, experimental studies suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors may reduce intracellular sodium, thereby preventing oxidative stress and cardiomyocyte death. Additionally, SGLT2 inhibitors induce a transcriptional paradigm that mimics nutrient and oxygen deprivation, which includes activation of adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase, sirtuin-1, and/or hypoxia-inducible factors-1α/2α. The interplay of these mediators stimulates autophagy, a lysosomally-mediated degradative pathway that maintains cellular homeostasis. Autophagy-mediated clearance of damaged organelles reduces inflammasome activation, thus mitigating cardiomyocyte dysfunction and coronary microvascular injury. Interestingly, the action of hypoxia-inducible factors-1α/2α to both stimulate erythropoietin and induce autophagy may explain why erythrocytosis is strongly correlated with the reduction in heart failure events. Therefore, the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure may be mediated by a direct cardioprotective action related to modulation of pathways responsible for cardiomyocyte homeostasis.

Efficacy and Safety of Pioglitazone versus Glimepiride after Metformin and Alogliptin Combination Therapy: A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Parallel-Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

There is limited information regarding the optimal third-line therapy for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) that is inadequately controlled using dual combination therapy. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of pioglitazone or glimepiride when added to metformin plus alogliptin treatment for T2DM.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, active-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02426294) recruited 135 Korean patients with T2DM that was inadequately controlled using metformin plus alogliptin. The patients were then randomized to also receive pioglitazone (15 mg/day) or glimepiride (2 mg/day) for a 26-week period, with dose titration was permitted based on the investigator's judgement.

RESULTS

Glycosylated hemoglobin levels exhibited similar significant decreases in both groups during the treatment period (pioglitazone: -0.81%, P<0.001; glimepiride: -1.05%, P<0.001). However, the pioglitazone-treated group exhibited significantly higher high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (P<0.001) and significantly lower homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance values (P<0.001). Relative to pioglitazone, adding glimepiride to metformin plus alogliptin markedly increased the risk of hypoglycemia (pioglitazone: 1/69 cases [1.45%], glimepiride: 14/66 cases [21.21%]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with T2DM inadequately controlled using metformin plus alogliptin, the addition of pioglitazone provided comparable glycemic control and various benefits (improvements in lipid profiles, insulin resistance, and hypoglycemia risk) relative to the addition of glimepiride.

Comparison of Different Case-Crossover Variants in Handling Exposure-Time Trend or Persistent-User Bias: Using Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and the Risk of Heart Failure as an Example

OBJECTIVES

Inappropriate use of the case-crossover design, which is efficient for examining associations between brief exposure and abrupt outcomes, in evaluating the effects of medications in the presence of exposure-time trends or persistent drug use may generate spurious associations. We compared different approaches to adjusting for these sources of bias by examining the risk of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) associated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Overall, existing evidence does not suggest a higher risk of HFH associated with DPP-4 inhibitors; however, case-crossover analyses of these medications may be susceptible to bias.

METHODS

We conducted case-crossover; age, sex, risk-set (ASR) matched case-time-control; disease risk score (DRS)-matched case-time-control; and case-case-time-control analyses to assess the association between DPP-4 inhibitors and HFH among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in a population-based Taiwanese database. We also examined metformin and sulfonylureas, both with assumed null associations.

RESULTS

Among 362 022 DM patients, 4105 (case-crossover), 4103 (ASR-matched case-time-control), 3957 (DRS-matched case-time-control), and 2812 (case-case-time-control) HFH cases were identified. The OR for DPP-4 inhibitors and HFH was elevated in the case-crossover analysis (1.52; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.95-2.42). The ASR-matched case-time control, DRS-matched case-time-control, and case-case-time control analyses yielded near-null associations (0.90 [95% CI 0.45-1.83], 0.96 [95% CI 0.46-2.02], and 0.92 [95% CI 0.39-2.21], respectively). Null effects were observed for metformin across designs and for sulfonylureas in the case-case-time control analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our case-crossover analysis suggested DPP-4 inhibitors may be associated with HFH; however, each method for adjusting for exposure-time and persistent user bias attenuated the findings. The case-case-time-control analysis had the least precision.

Novel Antidiabetic Agents: Cardiovascular and Safety Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Concerns of elevated cardiovascular risk with some anti-diabetic medications warranted trials on the cardiovascular outcome to demonstrate cardiovascular safety of newly marketed anti-diabetic drugs. Although these trials were initially designed to evaluate safety, some of these demonstrated significant cardiovascular benefits.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed the cardiovascular and safety outcomes of novel antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or at high risk of it. We included the outcomes of safety trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, large cohort studies, and real-world data, which highlighted the cardiovascular profile of DPP-4is, GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is.

CONCLUSION

Although DPP-4is demonstrated non-inferiority to placebo, gaining cardiovascular safety, as well market authorization, SGLT-2is and most of the GLP-1RAs have shown impressive cardiovascular benefits in patients with T2D and established CVD or at high risk of it. These favorable effects of novel antidiabetic agents on cardiovascular parameters provide novel therapeutic approaches in medical management, risk stratification and prevention.

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.

Impact of diabetes on mortality and rehospitalization in acute heart failure patients stratified by ejection fraction

Aims

The aim of this study is to determine the impact of diabetes mellitus on all‐cause mortality and rehospitalization rates at 3 months and at 1 year in patients admitted with acute heart failure (AHF) stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction (EF).

Methods and results

We analysed consecutive patients admitted to 47 hospitals in seven Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Bahrain) with AHF from February to November 2012 with AHF who were enrolled in Gulf CARE, a multinational registry of patients with heart failure (HF). AHF patients were stratified into three groups: HF patients with reduced (EF) (HFrEF) (<40%), HF with mid‐range EF (HFmrEF) (40–49%), and HF patients with preserved EF (HFpEF) (≥50%). Analyses were performed using univariate and multivariate statistical techniques. The mean age of the cohort was 59 ± 15 years (ranging from 18 to 99 years), and 63% (n = 2887) of the patients were males. A total of 2258 (49%) AHF patients had diabetes mellitus. The mean EF was 37 ± 14%. A reduced EF was observed in 2683 patients (59%), whereas 962 patients (21%) had mid‐range and 932 patients (20%) had preserved EF. Multivariable analyses demonstrated no significant differences in all‐cause mortality between diabetics and non‐diabetics in all the three types of HF; at 3 months follow‐up: HFrEF [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94–1.80; P = 0.119], HFmrEF (aOR, 0.98; 95% CI: 0.51–1.87; P = 0.952), and HFpEF (aOR, 0.69; 95% CI: 0.38–1.26; P = 0.225); and at 12‐months follow‐up: HFrEF (aOR, 1.25; 95% CI: 0.97–1.62; P = 0.080), HFmrEF (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI: 0.68–1.68; P = 0.783), and HFpEF (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI: 0.67–1.72; P = 0.779). There were also no significant differences in rehospitalization rates between diabetics and non‐diabetics in all the three types of HF; at 3 months follow‐up: HFrEF (aOR, 0.94; 95% CI: 0.74–1.19; P = 0.581), HFmrEF (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.53–1.26; P = 0.369), and HFpEF (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI: 0.64–1.78; P = 0.812); and at 12‐months follow‐up: HFrEF (aOR, 0.93; 95% CI: 0.73–1.17; P = 0.524), HFmrEF (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI: 0.56–1.17; P = 0.257), and HFpEF (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI: 0.82–2.05; P = 0.271).

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in 3 and 12 months all‐cause mortality as well as rehospitalization rates between diabetics and non‐diabetic patients in all the three types of AHF patients stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction.

European Society of Cardiology/Heart Failure Association position paper on the role and safety of new glucose-lowering drugs in patients with heart failure

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Significant advances have recently occurred in the treatment of T2DM, with evidence of several new glucose-lowering medications showing either neutral or beneficial cardiovascular effects. However, some of these agents have safety characteristics with strong practical implications in HF [i.e. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), and sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors]. Regarding safety of DPP-4 inhibitors, saxagliptin is not recommended in HF because of a greater risk of HF hospitalisation. There is no compelling evidence of excess HF risk with the other DPP-4 inhibitors. GLP-1 RAs have an overall neutral effect on HF outcomes. However, a signal of harm suggested in two small trials of liraglutide in patients with reduced ejection fraction indicates that their role remains to be defined in established HF. SGLT-2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin) have shown a consistent reduction in the risk of HF hospitalisation regardless of baseline cardiovascular risk or history of HF. Accordingly, SGLT-2 inhibitors could be recommended to prevent HF hospitalisation in patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease or with multiple risk factors. The recently completed trial with dapagliflozin has shown a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and HF events in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, with or without T2DM. Several ongoing trials will assess whether the results observed with dapagliflozin could be extended to other SGLT-2 inhibitors in the treatment of HF, with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence of T2DM. This position paper aims to summarise relevant clinical trial evidence concerning the role and safety of new glucose-lowering therapies in patients with HF.

Distinct Myocardial Targets for Diabetes Therapy in Heart Failure With Preserved or Reduced Ejection Fraction

Noncardiac comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus (DM) have different outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). These different outcomes are the result of distinct myocardial effects of DM on HFpEF and HFrEF, which relate to different mechanisms driving myocardial remodeling in each heart failure phenotype. Myocardial remodeling is driven by microvascular endothelial inflammation in HFpEF and by cardiomyocyte cell death in HFrEF. Evidence consists of: different biomarker profiles, in which inflammatory markers are prominent in HFpEF and markers of myocardial injury or wall stress are prominent in HFrEF; reduced coronary flow reserve with microvascular rarefaction in HFpEF; and upregulation of free radical-producing enzymes in endothelial cells in HFpEF and in cardiomyocytes in HFrEF. As biopsies from patients with diabetic cardiomyopathy reveal, DM affects failing myocardium by phenotype-specific mechanisms. In HFpEF, DM mainly increases cardiomyocyte hypertrophy and stiffness, probably because of hyperinsulinemia and microvascular endothelial inflammation. In HFrEF, DM augments replacement fibrosis because of cardiomyocyte cell death induced by lipotoxicity or advanced glycation end products. Because DM exerts distinct effects on myocardial remodeling in HFpEF and HFrEF, the heart failure phenotype is important for DM therapy.

Therapeutic Progress and Knowledge Basis on the Natriuretic Peptide System in Heart Failure

Notwithstanding substantial improvements in diagnosis and treatment, Heart Failure (HF) remains a major disease burden with high prevalence and poor outcomes worldwide. Natriuretic Peptides (NPs) modulate whole cardiovascular system and exhibit multiple cardio-protective effects, including the counteraction of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System (RAAS) and Sympathetic Nervous System (SNS), promotion of vasodilatation and natriuresis, and inhibition of hypertrophy and fibrosis. Novel pharmacological therapies based on NPs may achieve a valuable shift in managing patients with HF from inhibiting RAAS and SNS to a reversal of neurohormonal imbalance. Enhancing NP bioavailability through exogenous NP administration and inhibiting Neutral Endopeptidase (NEP) denotes valuable therapeutic strategies for HF. On the one hand, NEP-resistant NPs may be more specific as therapeutic choices in patients with HF. On the other hand, NEP Inhibitors (NEPIs) combined with RAAS inhibitors have proved to exert beneficial effects and reduce adverse events in patients with HF. Highly effective and potentially safe Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Neprilysin Inhibitors (ARNIs) have been developed after the failure of NEPIs and Vasopeptidase Inhibitors (VPIs) due to lacking efficacy and safety. Therapeutic progress and knowledge basis on the NP system in HF are summarized in the current review.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Alogliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) alogliptin is an oral, antidiabetic treatment that is approved in many countries to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), including the USA, Europe, and Japan. Alogliptin is efficacious both as monotherapy and as add-on/combination therapy with other commonly prescribed T2DM treatments, such as metformin and pioglitazone. Overall, alogliptin is well-tolerated in patients with T2DM, including older patients, those with renal and/or hepatic impairment, and those at high risk of cardiovascular events. There is a low risk of hypoglycemia, weight gain, acute pancreatitis, and gastrointestinal adverse events with alogliptin treatment, as demonstrated in long-term trials (lasting up to 4.5 years) and in a real-world setting. Additionally, alogliptin has a generally favorable or similar safety profile in comparison to other antidiabetic agents (metformin, thiazolidinediones, sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, α-glucosidase inhibitors, and insulin). However, further evaluation would be required to determine the mechanism and effect of alogliptin on heart failure, bullous pemphigoid, and inflammatory bowel disease. Of note, due to the ethnic diversity in the epidemiology of T2DM, alogliptin has been shown to be more efficacious in Asian patients than in non-Asian patients with T2DM, but with a similar tolerability profile. These data indicate that DPP-4is, including alogliptin, are important treatment options, especially for Asian patients with T2DM, for whom they have potential as a first-line therapy. This benefit-risk assessment aims to place alogliptin within the current armamentarium of T2DM and aid physicians when choosing optimal diabetes treatment for their patients.

Stromal cell derived factor-1 and long-term prognosis in acute coronary syndrome

Aim: To explore long-term prognostic value of SDF-1 in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Materials & methods: We included 254 patients with ACS. Plasma SDF-1 was measured and patients were classified into tertiles of SDF-1. Results: Multivariate analysis showed third tertile of SDF-1 as an independent predictor of all-cause death (HR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.2-5.2; p = 0.011) and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (HR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.1-3.1; p = 0.031). SDF-1 added to a clinical model can improve all-cause death prediction (net reclassification improvement 0.362; 95% CI: 0.423-0.681; p = 0.027). Conclusion: SDF-1 is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in long-term follow-up of patients with ACS and adds prognostic information beyond traditional cardiovascular risks factors.

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitory effect of flavonoids is hindered in protein rich environments

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors present a unique approach for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). In the present study, the inhibition of DPP-4 was evaluated for a large panel of flavonoids, important components of the human diet, using in vitro and ex vivo models. The activity of the isolated enzyme was assayed in vitro. Subsequently, the most active flavonoids were tested ex vivo in human whole blood and plasma. In this study, contrary to the in vitro fluorometric tests, flavonoids did not show inhibitory activity against DPP-4. Due to the discrepancy in the results between the in vitro and ex vivo approaches, plasma protein binding values were determined, presenting values from 43.9 to 100.0%. This work provides a new insight into the inhibitory activity for DPP-4, based on the flavonoid scaffold. Additionally, the obtained results showed that the inhibitory effect of flavonoids against DPP-4 was hindered in protein rich environments, like that occurring in blood, and indicated the need for experimental refinement in drug discovery for blood targets.

The Role of DPP-4 Inhibitors in the Treatment Algorithm of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: When to Select, What to Expect

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a growing global public health problem, the prevalence of which is projected to increase in the succeeding decades. It is potentially associated with many complications, affecting multiple organs and causing a huge burden to the society. Due to its multi-factorial pathophysiology, its treatment is varied and based upon a multitude of pharmacologic agents aiming to tackle the many aspects of the disease pathophysiology (increasing insulin availability [either through direct insulin administration or through agents that promote insulin secretion], improving sensitivity to insulin, delaying the delivery and absorption of carbohydrates from the gastrointestinal tract, or increasing urinary glucose excretion). DPP-4 (dipeptidyl peptidase-4) inhibitors (or “gliptins”) represent a class of oral anti-hyperglycemic agents that inhibit the enzyme DPP-4, thus augmenting the biological activity of the “incretin” hormones (glucagon-like peptide-1 [GLP-1] and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide [GIP]) and restoring many of the pathophysiological problems of diabetes. They have already been used over more than a decade in the treatment of the disease. The current manuscript will review the mechanism of action, therapeutic utility, and the role of DPP-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Therapeutic strategies utilizing SDF-1α in ischaemic cardiomyopathy

Heart failure is rapidly increasing in prevalence and will redraw the global landscape for cardiovascular health. Alleviating and repairing cardiac injury associated with myocardial infarction (MI) is key to improving this burden. Homing signals mobilize and recruit stem cells to the ischaemic myocardium where they exert beneficial paracrine effects. The chemoattractant cytokine SDF-1α and its associated receptor CXCR4 are upregulated after MI and appear to be important in this context. Activation of CXCR4 promotes both cardiomyocyte survival and stem cell migration towards the infarcted myocardium. These effects have beneficial effects on infarct size, and left ventricular remodelling and function. However, the timing of endogenous SDF-1α release and CXCR4 upregulation may not be optimal. Furthermore, current ELISA-based assays cannot distinguish between active SDF-1α, and SDF-1α inactivated by dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4). Current therapeutic approaches aim to recruit the SDF-1α-CXCR4 pathway or prolong SDF-1α life-time by preventing its cleavage by DPP4. This review assesses the evidence supporting these approaches and proposes SDF-1α as an important confounder in recent studies of DPP4 inhibitors.

Importance of Postprandial Glucose in Relation to A1C and Cardiovascular Disease

IN BRIEF This article reviews the evidence regarding the impact of postprandial glucose (PPG) on overall A1C and its relation to cardiovascular disease (CVD). To date, four randomized, controlled trials have evaluated the impact of PPG reduction on CVD; however, only one of these successfully demonstrated a positive effect. Despite this, epidemiological evidence does indicate a cardiovascular benefit of PPG reduction, and agents that can be used to manage PPG in people with type 2 diabetes are also discussed.

Challenges to hemoglobin A1c as a therapeutic target for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is widely accepted as the most reliable measure of long-term glycemia. However, there is disagreement among professional medical societies on a proper glycemic target for long-term benefits in type 2 diabetes (T2D). The use of some glucose-lowering drugs was associated with heart failure despite substantial lowering of HbA1c. The failure of intensive glycemic control to reduce cardiovascular risk in some trials again brought into question the usefulness of HbA1c as a therapeutic target in T2D. In large cardiovascular outcome trials, some newer glucose-lowering drugs were associated with higher risks of heart failure or amputation despite comparable glycemic control between the test and placebo groups. Here, we provide evidence that variation in hemoglobin glycation between individuals is responsible for these inconsistencies. We suggest that further research be conducted in this area and that the findings be applied to clinical trials and practice.

Heart failure in the patient with diabetes: Epidemiology, aetiology, prognosis, therapy and the effect of glucose-lowering medications

In people with type 2 diabetes the frequency of heart failure (HF) is increased and mortality from HF is higher than with non-diabetic HF. The increased frequency of HF is attributable to the cardiotoxic tetrad of ischaemic heart disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, diabetic cardiomyopathy and an extracellular volume expansion resistant to atrial natriuretic peptides. Activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous systems results in cardiac remodelling, which worsens cardiac function. Reversal of remodelling can be achieved, and cardiac function improved in people with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and β-blockers. However, with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), only therapy for the underlying risk factors helps. Blockers of mineralocorticoid receptors may be beneficial in both HFrEF and HFpEF. Glucose-lowering drugs can have a negative effect (insulin, sulphonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and thiazolidinediones), a neutral effect (α-glucosidase inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) or a positive effect (sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and metformin).

Update on Cardiovascular Safety of Incretin-Based Therapy in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis of Cardiovascular Outcome Trials

OBJECTIVES

The authors of 2 large randomized trials have recently published their findings related to the effects of a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) (the HARMONY trial) and a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor (the CARMELINA trial) on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In light of these new data, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of GLP-1RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors in CV outcome trials to assess their CV safety in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in the Embase and MEDLINE databases to identify trials involving GLP-1RAs and DPP-4 inhibitors with major CV-related outcomes reported, including major adverse CV events, CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke, death from any cause and hospitalization because of heart failure. A total of 9 CV outcome trials were included. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated based on the Mantel-Haenszel method.

RESULTS

Relative to placebo, GLP-1RAs were associated with a statistically significant reduction in the odds of major adverse CV events (13%), CV death (12%), death from any cause (11%) and stroke (13%). DPP-4 inhibitors were comparable to placebo for all outcomes. Moreover, DPP-4 inhibitors were associated with a nonsignificant 5% increase in the odds of hospitalization from heart failure compared to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated that GLP-1RAs were associated with a significant reduction in major adverse CV events, CV death, stroke and death from any cause, while DPP-4 inhibitors were comparable to placebo for all CV outcomes, including hospitalizations for heart failure.

Comparative outcomes of heart failure among existent classes of anti-diabetic agents: a network meta-analysis of 171,253 participants from 91 randomized controlled trials

Background

The cardiovascular (CV) safety in terms of heart failure among different classes of treatment remains largely unknown. We sought to assess the comparative effect of these agents on heart failure outcomes.

Methods

This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD 42016042063). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. For the primary outcomes reported previously, studies between Jan 1, 1980 and June 30, 2016 were screened, and subsequently updated till Jan 24, 2019. We performed network meta-analysis to obtain estimates for the outcomes of heart failure, in particular by rankograms for ranking of heart failure risk as well as by pairwise comparisons among all classes of anti-diabetic medications.

Results

A total of 91 trials were included, among which were 171,253 participants and 4163 reported cases of heart failure events. As for rankograms, the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of sodium-glucose co-transporters 2 and thiazolidinediones were 93.4% and 4.3%, respectively, signifying the lowest and highest risk of heart failure, respectively. As for pairwise comparisons in the network, sodium-glucose co-transporters 2 were significantly superior to insulin (OR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.62–0.91), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (OR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.59–0.78), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (OR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.54–0.78), and thiazolidinediones (OR: 0.46, 95% CI 0.27–0.77) in terms of heart failure risk. Furthermore, in an exploratory analysis among subjects with underlying heart failure or at risk of heart failure, the superiority of sodium-glucose co-transporters 2 was still significant.

Conclusions

In terms of heart failure risk, sodium-glucose co-transporters 2 were the most favorable option among all classes of anti-diabetic medications.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12933-019-0853-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evidence-based and tailored medication in type 2 diabetes: a pathway learned from clinical trials

In Japan, the choice of anti-diabetic medication is officially recommended according to the patient’s glycemic condition and disease phenotype, unlike most other regions where metformin is recommended as the first-line medication. There has been an increase in the number of available glucose-lowering agents, making it necessary to select these agents based on ever-improving evidence obtained from clinical trials. For the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor class of drugs, nine drugs are currently available on the market in Japan. Although previous cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) demonstrated non-inferiority for both major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and safety for some drugs of the class, the design and results of the CARMELINA trial seemed to be slightly different from earlier trials in that it showed the drugs were safe and partially effective even in patients with renal impairment. Thus, recent CVOTs on newer glucose-lowering agents have mainly focused on the major impacts of individual classes and drugs on clinical outcomes behind their glucose-lowering action. The diverse features of the classes and individual drugs may have also highlighted not only the class-effects, but also the drug-effects of glucose-lowering agents. This will lead to clinical-based evidence and assist with optimum selection of the class and/or drug for tailored medication in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Clinical impact of oral antidiabetic medications in heart failure patients

Heart failure (HF) is a common complication in patients with type 2 diabetes and it is closely associated with high morbidity and mortality rate. The incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes is related to high levels of glycemia, expressed by increase of HbA1c levels. However, there is little evidence to indicate that glycemic control can reduce the incidence of HF events in this population. Recently, several new antidiabetic drugs have been proposed although the exact clinical impact on heart failure occurrence and deterioration is under debate. Most common oral antidiabetic medication such as SGLT2, GLP-1 receptor agonist, metformin, and DPP4 inhibitor revealed peculiar metabolic and biomolecular signal effects. Moreover, the negative effects of thiazolidinediones on HF prognosis, on cardiac function, and exercise tolerance is of great interest. Conversely, several studies on GLP-1RA have highlighted many positive effects on cardiac myocytes, reducing apoptosis through cAMP/PKA/CRCB-mediated pathways protecting against oxidative stress. DPP-4 inhibitors have a controversial effect: saxagliptin and alogliptin may increase the risk of HF as opposed to vildagliptin and sitagliptin. Metformin increases myocardial ATP levels due to activation of 5-AMPK and this could explain the positive link between the drug and events rate reduction in diabetic patients with HF. The more interesting class of new drugs is SGLT2 inhibitors, that seems to have a positive effect on cardiac function by 38% reduction of HF incidence and mortality with empagliflozin treatment. In this review, we would analyze the specific effects of each class so as to better elucidate the clinical impact of antidiabetic drug on HF for guiding the clinicians in the choice of a best individualized therapy.

Management of patients with diabetes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: An international comparison

AIMS

To compare the management of patients with diabetes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the United States and Asia to understand variations in treatment patterns across different healthcare systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Our cohort included patients with diabetes and HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%) from a US-based registry of adults with diabetes (2013-2016, electronic health records) and a multi-national Asian registry of adults with heart failure (2010-2016, prospective registry). Asian countries were categorized as high income (HI) or low income (LI), according to the United Nations classification. Rates of use of guideline-directed medical therapies (determined through review of active medication lists) were compared across regions.

RESULTS

Patients with diabetes and HFrEF in the United States (n = 28 877) were older, had higher body mass indices, and were more likely to have coronary disease than those in Asia (n = 2235). Compared with US patients, the use of guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF was lower in patients in LI Asian countries (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers: patients in the United States, 77% vs. patients in HI Asian countries, 76% vs patients in LI Asian countries, 69%; β-blockers: patients in the United States, 91% vs. patients in HI Asian countries, 87% vs. patients in LI Asian countries, 69%; P < 0.001 for both). Insulin was used more commonly in the United States (44% vs. 24% vs. 25%, respectively; P < 0.001), whereas sulphonylureas were more often prescribed in Asian countries (42% vs. 52% vs. 54%; respectively, P < 0.001). Thiazolidinediones were prescribed in 6% of US patients compared with <1% of patients in Asia. The use of newer diabetes medications was <5% in all.

CONCLUSION

In both the United States and Asia, opportunities for improvement in the use of evidence-based therapies exist for patients with both diabetes and HFrEF. Effective tools to guide medication choices for these complex, high-risk patients could have substantial impact on quality and outcomes.

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.

Consensus document of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis (SEA) for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus

A consensus document of the Diabetes working group of the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis (SEA) is presented, based on the latest studies and conceptual changes that have appeared. It presents the cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and the action guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with T2DM. The importance of lipid control, based on the objective of LDL-C and non-HDL-C when there is hypertriglyceridemia, and the blood pressure control in the prevention and treatment of CVD is evaluated. The new hypoglycemic drugs and their effects on CVD are reviewed, as well as the treatment and control guidelines of hyperglycemia. Likewise, the use of antiplatelet agents is considered. Emphasis is placed on the importance of global and simultaneous action on all risk factors to achieve a significant reduction in cardiovascular events. This supplement is sponsored by Laboratorios Esteve, S.A.

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

Observational research on sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors: A real breakthrough?

Sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors have attracted the interest of the scientific community following the results from dedicated cardiovascular outcome trials, which demonstrated remarkable reduction in all-cause mortality and other cardiovascular (CV) endpoints with empagliflozin and canagliflozin. These impressive results raised further expectations on real world data from large observational cohort studies. They were designed to address the possible existence of a class effect, and the uncertainty on whether this benefit can be extended from secondary to primary CV prevention of patients with type 2 diabetes. In this review, we collated data from existing observational studies (including the celebrated CVD-REAL cohorts) and critically appraised results and methodological issues with the aim of providing clinical insight, including unsettled aspects, and proposing a research agenda for future investigations.

Pharmacotherapy of type 2 diabetes in patients with chronic liver disease: focus on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacotherapy used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is facing a paradigm shift in clinical practice with recent cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials having a substantial impact on drug prescription with treatment having a more tailored approach. In patients with T2DM, the issue of chronic liver disease is multifaceted. However, a clinical evidence is emerging on the beneficial effect of antidiabetic medications on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

AREAS COVERED

The authors provide a synopsis on the current and upcoming pharmacotherapy for NAFLD, including the challenges with their development, focusing on drugs for T2DM. Clinical data on the potential benefits and safety issues are assessed with the aim of proposing an individualized algorithm for patient management. Both MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.Gov are used to derive the relevant information.

EXPERT OPINION

Considering the pivotal role of insulin resistance in NAFLD, insulin sensitizers should be the treatment of choice. Accordingly, pioglitazone is the only drug with a significant effect on liver fibrosis, the driver of disease progression and long-term outcome. Among new glucose-lowering drugs, glucagon-like-peptide 1 receptor agonists or sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors have shown positive effects in phase II studies and are qualifying as potential candidates for NAFLD treatment in diabetes.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication, and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

Cardiovascular Benefits of Acarbose vs Sulfonylureas in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Treated With Metformin

CONTEXT

Although α-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs) have been shown to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction in patients with impaired glucose tolerance, the cardiovascular benefits of AGIs in those with type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We compared the clinical outcomes of adding acarbose vs sulfonylureas to metformin therapy in patients with T2D.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The study population was drawn from the database of the Diabetes Pay-for-Performance program in Taiwan. Sulfonylureas and acarbose were prescribed to 196,143 and 14,306 patients with T2D, respectively, from 2004 to 2015, who had been treated with metformin. A propensity score-matched cohort study was conducted. The patients were followed up for clinical adverse events of all-cause mortality and hospitalizations of major atherosclerotic events (i.e., myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke), heart failure, or hypoglycemia.

RESULTS

A total of 14,306 propensity score-matched pairs (age, 55.8 ± 13.1 years; 47.8% men) were enrolled in the present analysis. Compared with sulfonylureas as the add-on therapy to metformin, the use of acarbose was associated with significantly lower risks of hospitalizations for major atherosclerotic events [hazard ratio (HR), 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.91], ischemic stroke (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94), and hypoglycemia (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.71), after accounting for major confounding factors.

CONCLUSIONS

In T2D treatment, the use of acarbose as an add-on remedy to metformin was associated with lower risks of major atherosclerotic events, ischemic stroke, and hypoglycemia compared with the use of sulfonylurea as an add-on remedy.

Primary versus secondary source of data in observational studies and heterogeneity in meta-analyses of drug effects: a survey of major medical journals

Background

The data from individual observational studies included in meta-analyses of drug effects are collected either from ad hoc methods (i.e. “primary data”) or databases that were established for non-research purposes (i.e. “secondary data”). The use of secondary sources may be prone to measurement bias and confounding due to over-the-counter and out-of-pocket drug consumption, or non-adherence to treatment. In fact, it has been noted that failing to consider the origin of the data as a potential cause of heterogeneity may change the conclusions of a meta-analysis. We aimed to assess to what extent the origin of data is explored as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of observational studies.

Methods

We searched for meta-analyses of drugs effects published between 2012 and 2018 in general and internal medicine journals with an impact factor > 15. We evaluated, when reported, the type of data source (primary vs secondary) used in the individual observational studies included in each meta-analysis, and the exposure- and outcome-related variables included in sensitivity, subgroup or meta-regression analyses.

Results

We found 217 articles, 23 of which fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Eight meta-analyses (8/23, 34.8%) reported the source of data. Three meta-analyses (3/23, 13.0%) included the method of outcome assessment as a variable in the analysis of heterogeneity, and only one compared and discussed the results considering the different sources of data (primary vs secondary).

Conclusions

In meta-analyses of drug effects published in seven high impact general medicine journals, the origin of the data, either primary or secondary, is underexplored as a source of heterogeneity.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0561-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled cardiovascular outcome trials with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Efficacy trials showed that glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP1R) agonists reduced metabolic risk factors in addition to glucose lowering, but the cardiovascular and microvascular efficacy of this drug class remains to be determined. We aimed to evaluate the overall cardiovascular and microvascular efficacy of GLP1R agonists by performing a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled, cardiovascular outcomes trials including at least 2000 patient-years' follow-up and 100 composite cardiovascular events were included. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed and the quality of evidence was graded.

RESULTS

Thirty-three thousand four hundred fifty-seven patients and 4105 cardiovascular events from 4 large trials were included. GLP1R agonists were associated with a statistically significant reduction in risks for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.95; number needed to treat [NNT]: 286 person-years), cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.96; NNT: 412 person-years), stroke (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.76 to 0.98; NNT: 209 person-years) and the composite adverse cardiovascular outcome (MACE; HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.96; NNT: 241 person-years). The magnitude of benefit on MACE was attenuated in patients with a history of congestive heart failure (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.08 with; HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.00 without). The risks for hospitalization for heart failure and myocardial infarction were not significantly different. The quality of the evidence was deemed as moderate to high based on GRADE approach. TSA provided firm evidence for a 10% reduction in all-cause mortality, a 15% reduction in MACE, and lack of a 15% reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, but evidence remains inconclusive for cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction. GLP1R agonists numerically reduced the rates for nephropathy but the risk for retinopathy was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis suggested that GLP1R agonists significantly reduced the risk for all-cause mortality and composite cardiovascular outcomes, but the reduction of cardiovascular mortality remains to be confirmed.

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.

Metformin combined with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors or metformin combined with sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes: A real world analysis of the South Korean national cohort

AIMS

We explored the risks associated with metformin plus sulfonylurea (MET + SU) or MET plus a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (MET + DPP4i) for hypoglycemia, cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and all-cause mortality in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with comorbidities.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study is based on the South Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort, enrolling T2D patients with one or more diabetes-related comorbidities who switched from monotherapy to MET + SU or MET + DPP4i between July 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013. The risk of hypoglycemia, CVD events and all-cause mortality was examined using Cox's proportional hazard modeling and propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Overall, 5693 patients with a mean of 2.6 comorbidities in addition to diabetes were included. Compared with MET + SU, MET + DPP4i treatment was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycemia, CVD events and all-cause mortality; adjusted HRs (95% CI), 0.39 (0.18-0.83), 0.72 (0.54-0.97), and 0.64 (0.39-1.05), respectively. Propensity score matching showed comparable results. In further subgroup analyses according to comorbidity type and number, MET + DPP4i was associated with less CVD events and all-cause mortality compared to MET + SU. This increased with more complex comorbid status.

CONCLUSIONS

In T2D patients with comorbidities, MET + DPP4i treatment is associated with lower risks of CVD events and all-cause mortality compared with MET + SU, independent of type or number of comorbidities. A more complex comorbid status further increases this effect.

Reduced risk of heart failure with intensified multifactorial intervention in individuals with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria: 21 years of follow-up in the randomised Steno-2 study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

In type 2 diabetes mellitus, heart failure is a frequent, potentially fatal and often forgotten complication. Glucose-lowering agents and adjuvant therapies modify the risk of heart failure. We recently reported that 7.8 years of intensified compared with conventional multifactorial intervention in individuals with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria in the Steno-2 study reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease and prolonged life over 21.2 years of follow-up. In this post hoc analysis, we examine the impact of intensified multifactorial intervention on the risk of hospitalisation for heart failure.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty individuals were randomised to conventional or intensified multifactorial intervention, using sealed envelopes. The trial was conducted using the Prospective, Randomised, Open, Blinded Endpoints (PROBE) design. After 7.8 years, all individuals were offered intensified therapy and the study continued as an observational follow-up study for an additional 13.4 years. Heart-failure hospitalisations were adjudicated from patient records by an external expert committee blinded for treatment allocation. Event rates were compared using a Cox regression model adjusted for age and sex.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were assigned to each treatment group. Ten patients undergoing intensive therapy vs 24 undergoing conventional therapy were hospitalised for heart failure during follow-up. The HR (95% CI) was 0.30 (0.14, 0.64), p = 0.002 in the intensive-therapy group compared with the conventional-therapy group. Including death in the endpoint did not lead to an alternate overall outcome; HR 0.51 (0.34, 0.76), p = 0.001. In a pooled cohort analysis, an increase in plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) during the first two years of the trial was associated with incident heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Intensified, multifactorial intervention for 7.8 years in type 2 diabetic individuals with microalbuminuria reduced the risk of hospitalisation for heart failure by 70% during a total of 21.2 years of observation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00320008.

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.