Sitagliptin and risk of heart failure hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes on dialysis: A population-based cohort study

Neuropeptide Y as a risk factor for cardiorenal disease and cognitive dysfunction in CKD: translational opportunities and challenges

Neuropeptide Y (NPY) is a 36-amino-acid peptide member of a family also including peptide YY and pancreatic polypeptide, which are all ligands to Gi/Go coupled receptors. NPY regulates several fundamental biologic functions including appetite/satiety, sex and reproduction, learning and memory, cardiovascular and renal function and immune functions. The mesenteric circulation is a major source of NPY in the blood in man and this peptide is considered a key regulator of gut–brain cross talk. A progressive increase in circulating NPY accompanies the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) toward kidney failure and NPY robustly predicts cardiovascular events in this population. Furthermore, NPY is suspected as a possible player in accelerated cognitive function decline and dementia in patients with CKD and in dialysis patients. In theory, interfering with the NPY system has relevant potential for the treatment of diverse diseases from cardiovascular and renal diseases to diseases of the central nervous system. Pharmaceutical formulations for effective drug delivery and cost, as well as the complexity of diseases potentially addressable by NPY/NPY antagonists, have been a problem until now. This in part explains the slow progress of knowledge about the NPY system in the clinical arena. There is now renewed research interest in the NPY system in psychopharmacology and in pharmacology in general and new studies and a new breed of clinical trials may eventually bring the expected benefits in human health with drugs interfering with this system.

Association of Renal and Cardiovascular Safety With DPP-4 Inhibitors vs. Sulfonylureas in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease

This study assessed the effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4is) vs. sulfonylureas (SUs) on composite renal, cardiovascular, and hospitalized hypoglycemia outcomes in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) who were underrepresented in previous clinical studies. The National Health Insurance Research Database was utilized. Patients with T2D and advanced CKD (stages 3b-5) with stable use of DPP4is or SUs were identified during 2011-2015 and followed until death or December 31, 2016. The primary outcome was the composite renal outcome. Secondary outcomes included hospitalized heart failure (HHF), major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), hospitalized hypoglycemia, and all-cause death. Subdistribution hazard models were employed to assess treatment effects on clinical outcomes. A total of 1,204 matched pairs of DPP4i and SU users were analyzed. Compared with SUs, DPP4is had no significant difference in the risks of the composite renal outcome, HHF, and three-point and four-point MACE (hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals): 1.10 (0.93-1.31), 1.11 (0.95-1.30), 0.97 (0.79-1.19), and 1.08 (0.94-1.24), respectively), but reduced risks of hospitalized hypoglycemia (0.53 (0.43-0.64)) and all-cause death (0.71 (0.53-0.96)). In conclusion, among patients with T2D and advanced CKD, the use of DPP4is vs. SUs was associated with comparable safety profiles on renal and cardiovascular outcomes, and reduced risks of hospitalized hypoglycemia and all-cause death. DPP4is may be preferred for patients with T2D and advanced CKD, and the regular monitoring on cardiac function remains crucial among this population who are at a higher risk of HHF.

Higher-Dose Sitagliptin and the Risk of Congestive Heart Failure in Older Adults with CKD

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, is commonly prescribed to patients with type 2 diabetes. As this drug is primarily eliminated by the kidney, a reduced dose is recommended for patients with CKD. Some evidence suggests that sitagliptin is associated with a higher risk of congestive heart failure, particularly at higher doses. We compare the 1-year risk of death or hospitalization with congestive heart failure in patients with CKD newly prescribed sitagliptin at >50 versus ≤50 mg/d.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This population-based cohort study included older adults (>66 years) with type 2 diabetes and an eGFR<45 ml/min per 1.73 m² (but not receiving dialysis) who were newly prescribed sitagliptin between 2010 and 2017 in Ontario, Canada. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting on the basis of propensity scores to balance baseline characteristics. The primary composite outcome was death or hospitalization with congestive heart failure. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization with pancreatitis or hypoglycemia, all-cause hospitalization, and glycemic control. Weighted hazard ratios were obtained using Cox proportional hazards regression, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using bootstrap variance estimators.

RESULTS

Of 9215 patients, 6518 started sitagliptin at >50 mg/d, and 2697 started sitagliptin at ≤50 mg/d. The 1-year risk of death or hospitalization with congestive heart failure did not differ significantly between groups (79 versus 126 events per 1000 person-years; weighted hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.67 to 1.14); hospitalization with pancreatitis (weighted hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 3.03) and hypoglycemia (weighted hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 1.90) also did not differ significantly between groups. Patients starting sitagliptin at >50 mg/d had lower mean glycated hemoglobin concentrations (weighted between-group difference, -0.12%; 95% confidence interval, -0.19 to -0.06) and a lower risk of all-cause hospitalization (weighted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of death or congestive heart failure was not higher in older adults with CKD starting sitagliptin at >50 versus ≤50 mg/d.

PODCAST

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2020_11_25_CJN08310520_final.mp3.

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).

Uncoupling proteins as a therapeutic target to protect the diabetic heart

Myocardial remodeling and dysfunction caused by accelerated oxidative damage is a widely reported phenomenon within a diabetic state. Altered myocardial substrate preference appears to be the major cause of enhanced oxidative stress-mediated cell injury within a diabetic heart. During this process, exacerbated free fatty acid flux causes an abnormal increase in mitochondrial membrane potential leading to the overproduction of free radical species and subsequent cell damage. Uncoupling proteins (UCPs) are expressed within the myocardium and can protect against free radical damage by modulating mitochondrial respiration, leading to reduced production of reactive oxygen species. Moreover, transgenic animals lacking UCPs have been shown to be more susceptible to oxidative damage and display reduced cardiac function when compared to wild type animals. This suggests that tight regulation of UCPs is necessary for normal cardiac function and in the prevention of diabetes-induced oxidative damage. This review aims to enhance our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms relating to the role of UCPs in a diabetic heart, and further discuss known pharmacological compounds and hormones that can protect a diabetic heart through the modulation of UCPs.

Worsening Heart Failure During the Use of DPP-4 Inhibitors: Pathophysiological Mechanisms, Clinical Risks, and Potential Influence of Concomitant Antidiabetic Medications

Although dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors have been reported to have a neutral effect on thromboembolic vaso-occlusive events in large-scale trials, they act to potentiate several endogenous peptides that can exert deleterious cardiovascular effects. Experimentally, DPP-4 inhibitors may augment the ability of glucagon-like peptide-1 to stimulate cyclic adenosine monophosphate in cardiomyocytes, and potentiation of the effects of stromal cell-derived factor-1 by DPP-4 inhibitors may aggravate cardiac fibrosis. These potentially deleterious actions of DPP-4 inhibitors might not become clinically apparent if these drugs were to promote sodium excretion. However, the natriuretic effect of DPP-4 inhibitors is modest, because they act on the distal (rather than proximal) renal tubules. Accordingly, both clinical trials and observational studies have reported an increase in the risk of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes who were receiving DPP-4 inhibitors. This risk may be muted in trials with a high prevalence of metformin use or with low and declining background use of insulin and thiazolidinediones. Still, the most vulnerable patients (i.e., those with established heart failure) were not well represented in these studies. The only trial that specifically evaluated patients with pre-existing left ventricular dysfunction observed important drug-related adverse structural and clinical effects. In conclusion, an increased risk of worsening heart failure appears to be a class effect of DPP-4 inhibitors, even in patients without a history of heart failure. Additional clinical trials are urgently needed to elucidate the benefits and risks of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with established left ventricular dysfunction.