Intraclass differences in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor or a sulphonylurea: Results from the OsMed Health-DB registry

Comparative safety of sulfonylureas among U.S. nursing home residents

BACKGROUND

The comparative safety of sulfonylureas (SUs) in nursing home (NH) residents remains understudied despite widespread use. We compared the effects of three SU medications and initial SU doses on adverse glycemic and cardiovascular events among NH residents.

METHODS

This national retrospective cohort study linked Medicare claims with Minimum Data Set 2.0 assessments for long-stay NH residents aged ≥65 years between January 2008 and September 2010. Exposures were the SU medication initiated (glimepiride, glipizide, or glyburide) and doses (standard or reduced). One-year outcomes were hospitalizations or emergency department visits for severe hypoglycemia, heart failure (HF), stroke, and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). After the inverse probability of treatment and inverse probability of censoring by death weighting, we estimated hazard ratios (HR) using Cox regression models with robust 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

The cohort (N = 6821) included 3698 new glipizide, 1754 glimepiride, and 1369 glyburide users. Overall, the mean (standard deviation) age was 81.4 (8.2) years, 4816 (70.6%) were female, and 5164 (75.7%) were White non-Hispanic residents. The rates of severe hypoglycemia were 30.3 (95% CI 22.3-40.1), 49.0 (95% CI 34.5-67.5), and 35.9 (95% CI 22.2-54.9) events per 1000 person-years among new glipizide, glimepiride, and glyburide users, respectively (glimepiride versus glipizide HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.4, p = 0.04; glyburide versus glipizide HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.9, p = 0.59). The rates of severe hypoglycemia were 27.1 (95% CI 18.6-38.0) and 42.8 (95% CI 33.6-53.8) events per 1000 person-years among new users of reduced and standard SU doses, respectively (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.4-3.5, p < 0.01). Rates of HF, stroke, and AMI were similar between medications and doses.

CONCLUSIONS

Among long-stay NH residents, new use of glimepiride and standard SU doses resulted in higher rates of severe hypoglycemic events. Cardiovascular outcomes may not be affected by the choice of SU medication or dose.

Glimepiride Use is Associated with Reduced Cardiovascular Mortality in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Heart Failure: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Glimepiride has good cardiovascular safety. However, whether glimepiride benefits clinical cardiovascular outcomes is unclear.

METHODS

A total of 21,451 inpatients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic heart failure (CHF) were analyzed, including 638 who received glimepiride treatment and 20,813 who did not. Propensity score matching yielded 509 pairs (glimepiride and non-glimepiride groups), and both groups were followed up. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to compare all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, hospitalizations and emergency visits for heart failure, and hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction or stroke.

RESULTS

During follow-up, the all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.63; P < 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.24-0.48; P < 0.001), and number of hospitalizations and emergency visits for heart failure (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.36-0.50; P < 0.001) and hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction or stroke (adjusted HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.73; P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the glimepiride group; the conclusion remained similar in all subgroups. Furthermore, high-dose glimepiride use (2-4 mg/day) was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality than low-dose (1 mg/day) (adjusted HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.99; P = 0.047). Glimepiride exhibited good molecular docking with soluble epoxide hydrolase (sEH) and increased the level epoxyeicosatrienoic acid (EET).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term continuous glimepiride use is associated with better survival, fewer hospitalizations and emergency visits for heart failure, and fewer hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction or stroke in patients with T2D and CHF. High-dose glimepiride has greater cardiovascular protective advantages than low-dose glimepiride. The cardiovascular protective effect of glimepiride may be related to the EET level increase through sEH inhibition.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor compared with sulfonylurea in combination with metformin: cardiovascular and renal outcomes in a propensity-matched cohort study

Background

To determine the impact of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) on the risk of major cardiocerebrovascular and renal outcomes compared with sulfonylurea (SU) combined with metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes from a population-based cohort.

Methods

From a nationwide cohort in Korea (2008–2013), 23,674 patients with type 2 diabetes treated with DPP4i plus metformin or SU plus metformin were selected and matched by propensity score. Composite cardiocerebrovascular events including incident ischemic heart disease (IHD), ischemic stroke (IS), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and cardiocerebrovascular death, as well as renal events including incident end-stage renal disease or initiation of renal-replacement therapy were assessed by Cox proportional-hazards models.

Results

During a median follow-up of 19.6 months (interquartile range 7.2–36.4), 762 composite cardiocerebrovascular events and 17 end-stage renal events occurred. There was no significant difference in the risk of IHD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI 0.81–1.23), IS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI 0.74–1.23), or cardiocerebrovascular death (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.46–1.18) in the DPP4i group compared to that in the SU group. Likewise, DPP4i therapy was not associated with the risk of end-stage renal outcomes (HR, 1.23; 95% CI 0.41–3.62). However, the risk of HHF was significantly higher in the DPP4i group than in the SU group (HR, 1.47; 95% CI 1.07–2.04).

Conclusions

This real-world database analysis showed that DPP4i therapy did not increase the overall risk of major cardiovascular and renal outcomes compared to SU therapy. However, the DPP4i-associated risk of HHF remained significant.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12933-019-0835-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

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.

Autophagy as an emerging target in cardiorenal metabolic disease: From pathophysiology to management

Although advances in medical technology and health care have improved the early diagnosis and management for cardiorenal metabolic disorders, the prevalence of obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and kidney disease remains high. Findings from numerous population-based studies, clinical trials, and experimental evidence have consolidated a number of theories for the pathogenesis of cardiorenal metabolic anomalies including resistance to the metabolic action of insulin, abnormal glucose and lipid metabolism, oxidative and nitrosative stress, endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, apoptosis, mitochondrial damage, and inflammation. Accumulating evidence has recently suggested a pivotal role for proteotoxicity, the unfavorable effects of poor protein quality control, in the pathophysiology of metabolic dysregulation and related cardiovascular complications. The ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS) and autophagy-lysosomal pathways, two major although distinct cellular clearance machineries, govern protein quality control by degradation and clearance of long-lived or damaged proteins and organelles. Ample evidence has depicted an important role for protein quality control, particularly autophagy, in the maintenance of metabolic homeostasis. To this end, autophagy offers promising targets for novel strategies to prevent and treat cardiorenal metabolic diseases. Targeting autophagy using pharmacological or natural agents exhibits exciting new strategies for the growing problem of cardiorenal metabolic disorders.

The pleiotropic cardiovascular effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors

Patients with Type 2 diabetes have an excess risk for cardiovascular disease. One of the several approaches, included in the guidelines for the management of Type 2 diabetes, is based on dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4; also termed CD26) inhibitors, also called gliptins. Gliptins inhibit the degradation of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1): this effect is associated with increased circulating insulin-to-glucagon ratio, and a consequent reduction of HbA1c. In addition to incretin hormones, there are several proteins that may be affected by DPP-4 and its inhibition: among these some are relevant for the cardiovascular system homeostasis such as SDF-1α and its receptor CXCR4, brain natriuretic peptides, neuropeptide Y and peptide YY. In this review, we will discuss the pathophysiological relevance of gliptin pleiotropism and its translational potential.

Pharmacovigilance Evaluation of the Association Between DPP-4 Inhibitors and Heart Failure: Stimulated Reporting and Moderation by Drug Interactions

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.

Practical strategies for improving outcomes in T2DM: The potential role of pioglitazone and DPP4 inhibitors

T2DM is a complex disease underlined by multiple pathogenic defects responsible for the development and progression of hyperglycaemia. Each of these factors can now be tackled in a more targeted manner thanks to glucose-lowering drugs that have been made available in the past 2 to 3 decades. Recognition of the multiplicity of the mechanisms underlying hyperglycaemia calls for treatments that address more than 1 of these mechanisms, with more emphasis placed on the earlier use of combination therapies. Although chronic hyperglycaemia contributes to and amplifies cardiovascular risk, several trials have failed to show a marked effect from intensive glycaemic control. During the past 10 years, the effect of specific glucose-lowering agents on cardiovascular risk has been explored with dedicated trials. Overall, the cardiovascular safety of the new glucose-lowering agents has been proven with some of the trials summarized in this review, showing significant reduction of cardiovascular risk. Against this background, pioglitazone, in addition to exerting a sustained glucose-lowering effect, also has ancillary metabolic actions of potential interest in addressing the cardiovascular risk of T2DM, such as preservation of beta-cell mass and function. As such, it seems a logical agent to combine with other oral anti-hyperglycaemic agents, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i). DPP4i, which may also have a potential to preserve beta-cell function, is available as a fixed-dose combination with pioglitazone, and could, potentially, attenuate some of the side effects of pioglitazone, particularly if a lower dose of the thiazolidinedione is used. This review critically discusses the potential for early combination of pioglitazone and DPP4i.

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.

The impact of glucose-lowering medications on cardiovascular disease

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus die most frequently from cardiovascular disease. Metabolic control is mandatory both for preventing long-term complications and for reducing the negative effects of the exposure of the other risk factors. In this article, we will describe the most commonly used glucose-lowering agents, the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying their cardiovascular protection, the available evidence-based data for this protection, and the contraindications and potential adverse effects.

Dapagliflozin and saxagliptin tablets for adults with type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Saxagliptin (a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, DPP-4i) and dapagliflozin (a sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitor, SGLT2i) improve glucose control in type 2 diabetes (T2D) through different potentially complementary mechanisms, thus offering the opportunity for a combined therapy. Area covered: The characteristics of the saxagliptin/dapagliflozin combination are analysed, focusing on: 1) pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties; 2) efficacy and safety in phase III trials with concurrent and sequential add-on therapy; and 3) potential use in clinical practice, including in special populations (cardiovascular disease, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, elderly). Expert commentary: Conclusions drawn from clinical trials investigating combination with the separate drugs are considered to apply to the fixed-dose combination (FDC) that demonstrates bioequivalence. Dual saxagliptin/dapagliflozin therapy is more potent than either monotherapy and can be used as an initial combination or a stepwise sequential approach. Dual therapy is generally well tolerated and may be used in special populations, with some limitations because of the presence of dapagliflozin. However, the latter may offer some advantages because of multiple effects attributed to SGLT2i. The best place of this dual combination for the management of T2D and the profile of patients who will make the most of this combined therapy remains to be defined.

Nonclinical and clinical pharmacology evidence for cardiovascular safety of saxagliptin

BACKGROUND

In the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (SAVOR) trial in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) at high risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, saxagliptin did not increase the risk for major CV adverse events. However, there was an unexpected imbalance in events of hospitalization for heart failure (hHF), one of six components of the secondary CV composite endpoint, with a greater number of events observed with saxagliptin. Here, we examined findings from nonclinical safety and clinical pharmacology studies of saxagliptin with the aim of identifying any potential signals of myocardial injury.

METHODS

In vitro and in vivo (rat, dog, monkey) safety pharmacology and toxicology studies evaluating the potential effects of saxagliptin and its major active metabolite, 5-hydroxy saxagliptin, on the CV system are reviewed. In addition, results from saxagliptin clinical studies are discussed: one randomized, 2-period, double-blind, placebo-controlled single-ascending-dose study (up to 100 mg); one randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential, multiple-ascending-high-dose study (up to 400 mg/day for 14 days); and one randomized, double-blind, 4-period, 4-treatment, cross-over thorough QTc study (up to 40 mg/day for 4 days) in healthy volunteers; as well as one randomized, placebo-controlled, sequential multiple-ascending-dose study in patients with T2D (up to 50 mg/day for 14 days).

RESULTS

Neither saxagliptin nor 5-hydroxy saxagliptin affected ligand binding to receptors and ion channels (e.g. potassium channels) or action potential duration in in vitro studies. In animal toxicology studies, no changes in the cardiac conduction system, blood pressure, heart rate, contractility, heart weight, or heart histopathology were observed. In healthy participants and patients with T2D, there were no findings suggestive of myocyte injury or fluid overload. Serum chemistry abnormalities indicative of cardiac injury, nonspecific muscle damage, or fluid homeostasis changes were infrequent and balanced across treatment groups. There were no QTc changes associated with saxagliptin. No treatment-emergent adverse events suggestive of heart failure or myocardial damage were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The saxagliptin nonclinical and clinical pharmacology programs did not identify evidence of myocardial injury and/or CV harm that may have predicted or may explain the unexpected imbalance in the rate of hHF observed in SAVOR.

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

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