Risk of new-onset heart failure in patients using sitagliptin: a population-based cohort study

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.

Acute vs cumulative benefits of metformin use in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure

AIMS

To evaluate the association between metformin use and heart failure (HF) exacerbation in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and pre-existing HF using alternative exposure models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed data for patients with T2D and incident HF from a national US insurance claims database. We compared the results of several multivariable Cox models where time-varying use of metformin was modelled as: (1) current use; (2) total duration of past use; and (3) use within the past 30 days or 10 days. The outcome was defined as time to HF-related hospitalization. We then re-analysed the data using flexible weighted cumulative exposure (WCE) models.

RESULTS

A total of 7620 patients with diabetes and incident HF were analysed. The mean (SD) patient age was 54 (8) years, and 58% (n = 4440) were men. In all, 3799 individuals (50%) were exposed to metformin, and 837 HF hospitalizations (11%) occurred (mean follow-up 1.7 years). Results of conventional models suggested potential acute benefits in reducing HF exacerbation with metformin use in the past 10 days (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.97), while WCE models, which provided a better fit for the data, suggested lack of a systematic effect (aHR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69-1.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that cumulative metformin exposure does not decrease the risk of HF-related exacerbation. Use of other anti-hyperglycaemic agents with proven efficacy in patients with HF should also be considered as treatment options in this population.

Treatment of Diabetes in Patients with Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize and discuss heart failure outcomes for current glucose-lowering agents in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current regulations require cardiovascular outcomes trials for new glucose-lowering therapies to establish that there is no unacceptable increase in cardiovascular risk prior to approval. These cardiovascular outcomes trials include glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Overall, 87,162 patients have been studied in 10 published cardiovascular outcomes trials. There was no significant increase in major adverse cardiovascular events including cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke in any of these trials. Heart failure was a component of the secondary endpoint of all of these trials, but only two of these studies show a significant improvement in rates of hospitalization for heart failure. Expanded regulatory labeling for reduction in cardiovascular mortality (empagliflozin) and reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (liraglutide) has recently been established. Saxagliptin and to a lesser part alogliptin have been associated with an increased rate of hospitalization for heart failure. Canagliflozin and empagliflozin are the only two medications that have shown a clear benefit in rates of heart failure hospitalization in treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The safety of gliptins : updated data in 2018

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) are generally considered as glucose-lowering agents with a safe profile in type 2 diabetes.

AREAS COVERED

An updated review of recent safety data from randomised controlled trials, observational studies, meta-analyses, pharmacovigilance reports regarding alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin, with a special focus on risks of hypoglycemia, pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, major cardiovascular events, hospitalisation for heart failure and other new safety issues, such as bone fractures and arthralgia. The safety of DPP-4i use in special populations, elderly patients, patients with renal impairment, liver disease or heart failure, will also be discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The good tolerance/safety profile of DPP-4is has been largely confirmed, including in more fragile populations, with no gastrointestinal adverse effects and a minimal risk of hypoglycemia. DPP-4is appear to be associated with a small increased incidence of acute pancreatitis in placebo-controlled trials, although most observational studies are reassuring. Most recent studies with DPP-4is do not confirm the increased risk of hospitalisation for heart failure reported with saxagliptin in SAVOR-TIMI 53, but further post-marketing surveillance is still recommended. New adverse events have been reported such as arthralgia, yet a causal relationship remains unclear.

Heart failure hospitalization risk associated with use of two classes of oral antidiabetic medications: an observational, real-world analysis

BACKGROUND

Newer oral antidiabetic drug classes are expanding treatment options for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, concerns remain. The objective was to assess relative risk of heart failure hospitalization of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors in T2DM patients.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study used a national commercially insured claims database. Adults (>18 years) with T2DM newly starting SGLT2 or DPP4 medication between April 2013 and December 2014 were included. Depending on their index fill, patients were grouped into either SGLT2 or DPP4 medication class cohorts. The primary outcome was hospitalization for heart failure and the risk was assessed using Cox regression models. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) was used to adjust for potential confounders. Analyses were also stratified by the presence of baseline diabetes complication and age (<65 vs 65+).

RESULTS

The matched cohort included 4899 SGLT2 and 9798 DPP4 users. The risk of heart failure hospitalization was lower among SGLT2 users in comparison with matched DPP4 users (2.0% SGLT2 vs 3.1% DPP4; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.86; p = .001). However, the stratified analyses revealed no risk difference among the majority of the analyzed patients, i.e., those aged <65, which comprised 85% of the matched cohort (aHR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.57-1.05; p = .09), and those without prior complication, which comprised 69% of matched cohort (aHR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.54-1.27; p = 0.40).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-life analysis, the rate of hospitalizations for heart failure was significantly lower for patients initiating an SGLT2 compared with a DPP4 medication, specifically among older patients and those with diabetes complication.

Antidiabetic treatment with gliptins: focus on cardiovascular effects and outcomes

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