1
|
Scheen AJ. Efficacy / safety balance of DPP-4 inhibitors versus SGLT2 inhibitors in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes. DIABETES & METABOLISM 2021; 47:101275. [PMID: 34481962 DOI: 10.1016/j.diabet.2021.101275] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/06/2021] [Accepted: 08/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) offer new options for the oral management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with the advantage in the elderly population to be devoid of a high risk of hypoglycaemia. SGLT2is have also shown benefits regarding cardiovascular (heart failure) and renal protection, including in patients with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years while DPP-4is have only proved cardiovascular and renal safety without superiority compared with placebo. The glucose-lowering efficacy of the two pharmacological classes is almost similar including in older patients with T2DM. However, the tolerance and safety profile may be highly different and overall more favourable with DPP-4is than with SGLT2is. Some adverse events have been reported with SGLT2is which may be more prevalent or severe in older patients than in younger patients. The present comprehensive review focuses on the benefit/risk balance in the elderly population with T2DM by comparing the profile of DPP-4is and SGLT2is regarding the following potential issues: metabolic disorders (hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis); cardiac and vascular issues (atheromatous cardiovascular disease, heart failure, volume reduction hypotension, and lower limb amputations); renal endpoints including acute renal injury; risk of infections; digestive disorders; bone and skin adverse events; and cancer risk. Both DPP-4is and SGLT2is have their own advantages and disadvantages. Personalised treatment is recommended based upon the efficacy/safety profile of each drug class and individual patient characteristics that may be markedly different among the heterogeneous population of older individuals with T2DM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- André J Scheen
- Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Centre for Interdisciplinary Research on Medicines (CIRM), University of Liège, Liège, Belgium; Division of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Disorders, Department of Medicine, CHU Liège, Liège, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Scheen AJ. Careful use to minimize adverse events of oral antidiabetic medications in the elderly. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2021; 22:2149-2165. [PMID: 33823723 DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2021.1912735] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION An increasing number of older patients has type 2 diabetes treated with different oral antidiabetic agents whose safety may raise concern considering some particularities of a heterogeneous elderly population. AREAS COVERED This article discusses some characteristics of older patients that could increase the risk of adverse events, with a focus on hypoglycemia. It describes the most frequent and/or severe complications reported in the elderly in both randomized controlled trials and observational studies with metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (gliptins) and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (gliflozins). EXPERT OPINION Old patients may present comorbidities (renal impairment, vascular disease, heart failure, risk of dehydration, osteoporosis, cognitive dysfunction) that could increase the risk of severe adverse events. Sulfonylureas (and meglitinides) induce hypoglycemia, which may be associated with falls/fractures and cardiovascular events. Medications lacking hypoglycemia should be preferred. Gliptins appear to have the best tolerance/safety profile whereas gliflozins exert a cardiorenal protection. However, data are lacking in very old or frailty old patients so that caution and appropriate supervision of such patients are required. Taking advantage of a large choice of pharmacotherapies, personalized treatment is recommended based upon both drug safety profiles and old patient individual characteristics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- André J Scheen
- Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Centre for Interdisciplinary Research on Medicines (CIRM), University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.,Division of Diabetes, Nutrition and Metabolic Disorders, Department of Medicine, CHU Liège, Liège, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Seferović PM, Coats AJS, Ponikowski P, Filippatos G, Huelsmann M, Jhund PS, Polovina MM, Komajda M, Seferović J, Sari I, Cosentino F, Ambrosio G, Metra M, Piepoli M, Chioncel O, Lund LH, Thum T, De Boer RA, Mullens W, Lopatin Y, Volterrani M, Hill L, Bauersachs J, Lyon A, Petrie MC, Anker S, Rosano GMC. European Society of Cardiology/Heart Failure Association position paper on the role and safety of new glucose-lowering drugs in patients with heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2019; 22:196-213. [PMID: 31816162 DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.1673] [Citation(s) in RCA: 117] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2019] [Revised: 10/09/2019] [Accepted: 10/16/2019] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Petar M Seferović
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.,Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - Andrew J S Coats
- Pharmacology, Centre of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, IRCCS San Raffaele Pisana, Rome, Italy
| | - Piotr Ponikowski
- Centre for Heart Diseases, Wrocław Medical University, Wrocław, Poland
| | - Gerasimos Filippatos
- University of Cyprus Medical School, Nicosia, Cyprus.,Athens University Hospital Attikon, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Martin Huelsmann
- Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine II, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Pardeep S Jhund
- British Heart Foundation, Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Marija M Polovina
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.,Department of Cardiology, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - Michel Komajda
- Institute of Cardiometabolism and Nutrition (ICAN), Pierre et Marie Curie University, Paris VI, La Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, Paris, France
| | - Jelena Seferović
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.,Clinic for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolic Disorders, Clinical Centre, Belgrade, Serbia
| | - Ibrahim Sari
- Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Francesco Cosentino
- Cardiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | | | - Marco Metra
- Cardiology, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
| | - Massimo Piepoli
- Heart Failure Unit, Cardiology, G. da Saliceto Hospital, Piacenza, Italy
| | - Ovidiu Chioncel
- University of Medicine Carol Davila, Bucharest, Romania.,Emergency Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases, Bucharest, Romania
| | - Lars H Lund
- Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, and Heart and Vascular Theme, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Thomas Thum
- Hannover Medical School, Institute of Molecular and Translational Therapeutic Strategies, Hannover, Germany
| | - Rudolf A De Boer
- Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Wilfried Mullens
- Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences, BIOMED - Biomedical Research Institute, Hasselt University, Diepenbeek, Belgium.,Department of Cardiology, Ziekenhuis Oost, Genk, Belgium
| | - Yuri Lopatin
- Regional Cardiology Centre Volgograd, Volgograd State Medical University, Volgograd, Russia
| | | | - Loreena Hill
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Johann Bauersachs
- Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Medical School Hannover, Hannover, Germany
| | - Alexander Lyon
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London and Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK
| | - Mark C Petrie
- Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, British Heart Foundation Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Stefan Anker
- Department of Cardiology (CVK), Berlin Institute of Health Center for Regenerative Therapies (BCRT), German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK) partner site Berlin, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Guardado-Mendoza R, Cázares-Sánchez D, Evia-Viscarra ML, Jiménez-Ceja LM, Durán-Pérez EG, Aguilar-García A. Linagliptin plus insulin for hyperglycemia immediately after renal transplantation: A comparative study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2019; 156:107864. [PMID: 31539565 DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2019.107864] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2019] [Revised: 08/05/2019] [Accepted: 09/16/2019] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
AIMS Post-renal-transplanted patients frequently present hyperglycemia immediately after the procedure. The goal of this work was to evaluate the effect of linagliptin + insulin in post-renal-transplanted patients with hyperglycemia. METHODS Retrospective comparative study in post-renal transplanted patients with hyperglycemia after transplantation who were treated with linagliptin 5 mg daily plus insulin vs insulin alone for 5 days after renal transplantation with hyperglycemia. Main outcomes were glucose levels, insulin dose and severity of hypoglycemia. RESULTS There were 14 patients treated with linagliptin + insulin and 14 patients treated only with insulin. Glucose levels and insulin doses were lower in the linagliptin + insulin group in comparison with the insulin alone group, 131.0 ± 15.1 vs 191.1 ± 22.5 mg/dl (7.27 ± 0.84 vs 10.61 ± 1.25 mmol/l) and 37.5 ± 6.3 vs 24.2 ± 6.6 U, respectively (p < 0.05). Hypoglycemia was less severe in the linagliptin + insulin group, 65.1 ± 2.2 vs 54.2 ± 3.3 mg/dl (3.61 ± 0.12 vs 3.00 ± 3.3 ± 0.18 mmol/l), p 0.036. CONCLUSIONS The combination of linagliptin + insulin provided better glycemic control with a lower insulin dose and less severe hypoglycemia in comparison to insulin alone in patients with hyperglycemia immediately after renal transplantation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rodolfo Guardado-Mendoza
- Hospital Regional de Alta Especialidad del Bajío, University of Guanajuato, León, Guanajuato, Mexico.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Fadini GP, Sarangdhar M, Avogaro A. Pharmacovigilance Evaluation of the Association Between DPP-4 Inhibitors and Heart Failure: Stimulated Reporting and Moderation by Drug Interactions. Diabetes Ther 2018; 9:851-861. [PMID: 29549573 PMCID: PMC6104265 DOI: 10.1007/s13300-018-0408-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In the SAVOR-TIMI trial, the risk of heart failure (HF) was increased by 27% in T2D patients randomized to the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) saxagliptin. Other studies have provided inconsistent results regarding this association. Herein, we performed a pharmacovigilance analysis of the rate of HF associated with DPP4is, focusing on stimulated reporting and moderation by drug-drug interactions. METHODS We mined the FDA adverse event (AE) reporting system (FAERS) from 2004q1 to 2017q3, including a total of 9906,642 AE reports. Rates (/1000 reports) of HF within the reports for DPP4is and reports for other antidiabetic drugs were calculated for the period up to 2013q3 (date of publication of the SAVOR-TIMI trial results) and from 2013q4 to 2017q3. Analyses were refined by filtering according to therapeutic area, concomitant diseases and drugs, and competing AEs. RESULTS The rate of HF among the AE reports filed for DPP4is significantly increased after 2013q3, especially for saxagliptin. When compared to non-insulin non-glitazone antidiabetic drugs, the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) of HF for DPP4is was 0.62 (95% CI 0.56-0.68) up to 2013q3 and 2.12 (95% CI 1.96-2.28) from 2013q4 to 2017q3. This stimulated reporting was consistent in subanalyses based on the presence/absence of cardiac disorders and after controlling for competing AEs. The rate of HF among AE reports for DPP4is was modestly moderated by the concomitant use of metformin (- 15%) and strongly moderated by the concomitant use of SGLT2 inhibitors (- 63%), even after excluding competing AEs. CONCLUSIONS Within the FAERS, the association between HF and DPP4is was biased by stimulated reporting, implying that the publication of the SAVOR-TIMI trial and the subsequent regulatory warnings primed clinicians to report HF events in DPP4i users as drug-related AEs. The rate of HF associated with DPP4is was moderated when they were used in combination with SGLT2 inhibitors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mayur Sarangdhar
- Division of Biomedical Informatics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Centre, Cincinnati, OH, USA
| | - Angelo Avogaro
- Department of Medicine, University of Padova, 35128, Padua, Italy
| |
Collapse
|