The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus: cardiovascular safety

Antidiabetic omarigliptin dilates rabbit aorta by activating voltage-dependent K+ channels and the sarco/endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ -ATPase pump

We investigated the vasodilatory effect of omarigliptin, an oral antidiabetic drug in the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor class, and its related mechanisms using phenylephrine (Phe)-induced pre-contracted aortic rings. Omarigliptin dilated aortic rings pre-constricted with Phe in a dose-dependent manner. Pretreatment with the voltage-dependent K⁺ channel inhibitor 4-aminopyridine significantly attenuated the vasodilatory effect of omarigliptin, whereas pretreatment with the inwardly rectifying K⁺ channel inhibitor Ba²⁺ , ATP-sensitive K⁺ channel inhibitor glibenclamide, and large-conductance Ca²⁺ -activated K⁺ channel inhibitor paxilline did not alter its vasodilation. Pretreatment with the sarco/endoplasmic reticulum Ca²⁺ -ATPase (SERCA) pump inhibitors thapsigargin and cyclopiazonic acid significantly reduced the vasodilatory effect of omarigliptin. Neither cAMP/PKA-related signaling pathway inhibitors nor cGMP/PKG-related signaling pathway inhibitors modulated the vasodilatory effect of omarigliptin. Removal of endothelium did not diminish the vasodilatory effect of omarigliptin. Furthermore, pretreatment with the nitric oxide synthase inhibitor L-NAME or small-conductance Ca²⁺ -activated K⁺ channel inhibitor apamin, together with the intermediate-conductance Ca²⁺ -activated K⁺ channel inhibitor TRAM-34, did not influence the vasodilatory effect of omarigliptin. In conclusion, omarigliptin induced vasodilation in rabbit aortic smooth muscle by activating voltage-dependent K⁺ channels and the SERCA pump independently of other K⁺ channels, cAMP/PKA- and cGMP/PKG-related signaling pathways, and the endothelium.

The anti-diabetic drug alogliptin induces vasorelaxation via activation of Kv channels and SERCA pumps

In the present study, we investigated the vasorelaxant effects of alogliptin, an oral antidiabetic drug in the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class, using phenylephrine (Phe)-induced pre-contracted aortic rings. Alogliptin induced vasorelaxation in a dose-dependent manner. Pre-treatment with the voltage-dependent K⁺ (Kv) channel inhibitor 4-aminopyridine (4-AP) significantly decreased the vasorelaxant effect of alogliptin, whereas pre-treatment with the inwardly rectifying K⁺ (Kir) channel inhibitor Ba²⁺, ATP-sensitive K⁺ (K_ATP) channel inhibitor glibenclamide, and large-conductance Ca²⁺-activated K⁺ (BK_Ca) channel inhibitor paxilline did not alter the effects of alogliptin. Although pre-treatment with the Ca²⁺ channel inhibitor nifedipine did not affect the vasorelaxant effect of alogliptin, pre-treatment with the sarco/endoplasmic reticulum Ca²⁺-ATPase (SERCA) pump inhibitors thapsigargin and cyclopiazonic acid effectively attenuated the vasorelaxant response of alogliptin. Neither cGMP/protein kinase G (PKG)-related signaling pathway inhibitors (guanylyl cyclase inhibitor ODQ and PKG inhibitor KT 5823) nor cAMP/protein kinase A (PKA)-related signaling pathway inhibitors (adenylyl cyclase inhibitor SQ 22536 and PKA inhibitor KT 5720) reduced the vasorelaxant effect of alogliptin. Similarly, the vasorelaxant effect of alogliptin was not changed by endothelium removal or pre-treatment with the nitric oxide (NO) synthase inhibitor L-NAME or the small- and intermediate-conductance Ca²⁺-activated K⁺ (SK_Ca and IK_Ca) channel inhibitors apamin and TRAM-34. Based on these results, we suggest that alogliptin induced vasorelaxation in rabbit aortic smooth muscle by activating Kv channels and the SERCA pump independent of other K⁺ channels, cGMP/PKG-related or cAMP/PKA-related signaling pathways, and the endothelium.

Strategies for Diabetes Management: Using Newer Oral Combination Therapies Early in the Disease

INTRODUCTION

The duration of uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can adversely impact small and large vessels, eventually leading to microvascular and macrovascular complications. Failure of therapeutic lifestyle changes, monotherapy, and clinical inertia contribute to persistent hyperglycemia and disease progression. The aim was to review the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes and how different oral agents can be used effectively as first-line therapy in combination with metformin, as well as in patients not achieving glycemic goals with metformin therapy.

METHODS

For this review, a non-systematic literature search of PubMed, NCBI, and Google Scholar was conducted.

RESULTS

New oral agents have made it possible to improve glycemic control to near-normal levels with a low risk of hypoglycemia and without weight gain, and sometimes with weight loss. Early combination therapy is effective and has been shown to have a favorable legacy effect. A number of agents are available in a single-pill combination (SPC) that provides fewer pills and better adherence. Compared with adding a sulfonylurea, still the most common oral combination used, empagliflozin has been shown to decrease cardiovascular (CV) events in a dedicated CV outcome study, and pioglitazone has been effective in reducing the risk of secondary CV endpoints, whereas sulfonylureas have been associated with an increased risk of CV disease. In those failing metformin, triple oral therapy by adding a non-metformin SPC such as empagliflozin/linagliptin or pioglitazone/alogliptin is a good option for reducing glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) without significant hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians have a comprehensive armamentarium of medications to treat patients with T2DM. Clinical evidence has shown that dual or triple oral combination therapy is effective for glycemic control, and early treatment is effective in getting patients to goal more quickly. Use of SPCs is an option for double or triple oral combination therapy and may result in better adherence.

Adverse effects of incretin-based therapies on major cardiovascular and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Recent cardiovascular outcome trials of incretin-based therapies (IBT) in type 2 diabetes have not demonstrated either benefit or harm in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Earlier meta-analyses showed conflicting results but were limited in methodology. We aimed to perform an updated meta-analysis of all available incretin therapies on the incidence of MACE plus arrhythmia and heart failure.

METHODS

We identified studies published through November 2014 by searching electronic databases and reference lists. We included RCTs in which the intervention group received incretin-based therapies and the control group received placebo or standard treatment; enrolled >100 participants in each group; interventions lasted >24 weeks; and reported data on one or more primary major adverse cardiovascular events endpoints plus terms for arrhythmia and heart failure. We used the Peto method for each CV event for individual IBT treatment.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis of 100 RCTs involving 54,758 incretin-based therapies users and 48,175 controls, exenatide was associated with increased risk of arrhythmia (OR 2.83; 95% CI, 1.06-7.57); saxagliptin was associated with an increased risk of heart failure (OR 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.46), and sitagliptin was associated with a significantly decreased risk of all cause death compared to active controls (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

In type 2 diabetes, exenatide may increase the risk of arrhythmia, and sitagliptin may reduce the risk of all cause death; however, the subgroup of patients most likely to experience harm or benefit is unclear. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Potential for combination of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

In individuals with advanced type 2 diabetes (T2DM), combination therapy is often unavoidable to maintain glycaemic control. Currently metformin is considered the first line of defence, but many patients experience gastrointestinal adverse events, necessitating an alternative treatment approach. Established therapeutic classes, such as sulphonylureas and thiazolidinediones, have some properties undesirable in individuals with T2DM, such as hypoglycaemia risk, weight gain and fluid retention, highlighting the need for newer agents with more favourable safety profiles that can be combined and used at all stages of T2DM. New treatment strategies have focused on both dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors, which improve hyperglycaemia by stimulating insulin secretion in a glucose-dependent fashion and suppressing glucagon secretion, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which reduce renal glucose reabsorption and induce urinary glucose excretion, thereby lowering plasma glucose. The potential complimentary mechanism of action and good tolerance profile of these two classes of agents make them attractive treatment options for combination therapy with any of the existing glucose-lowering agents, including insulin. Together, the DPP-4 and SGLT2 inhibitors fulfill a need for treatments with mechanisms of action that can be used in combination with a low risk of adverse events, such as hypoglycaemia or weight gain.

Economic impact of combining metformin with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in diabetic patients with renal impairment in spanish patients

BACKGROUND

To evaluate resource use and health costs due to the combination of metformin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in patients with diabetes and renal impairment in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

An observational, retrospective study was performed. Patients aged ≥30 years treated with metformin who initiated a second oral antidiabetic treatment in 2009 to 2010 were included. Two groups of patients were analysed: metformin+DPP-4 inhibitors and other oral antidiabetics. The main measures were: compliance, persistence, metabolic control (glycosylated hemoglobin< 7%) and complications (hypoglycemia, cardiovascular events) and total costs. Patients were followed up for 2 years.

RESULTS

We included 395 patients, mean age 70.2 years, 56.5% male: 135 patients received metformin+DPP-4 inhibitors and 260 patients received metformin+other oral antidiabetics. Patients receiving DPP-4 inhibitors showed better compliance (66.0% vs. 60.1%), persistence (57.6% vs. 50.0%), and metabolic control (63.9% vs. 57.3%), respectively, compared with those receiving other oral antidiabetics (P<0.05), and also had a lower rate of hypoglycemia (20.0% vs. 47.7%) and lower total costs (€ 2,486 vs. € 3,002), P=0.001.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of the study, patients with renal impairment treated with DPP-4 inhibitors had better metabolic control, lower rates (association) of hypoglycaemia, and lower health costs for the Spanish national health system.

Understanding the type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease risk paradox

Patients with diabetes have approximately a 2-fold increase in the risk for coronary heart disease, stroke, and death from vascular causes compared with patients who do not have diabetes. Interventions targeted at modifiable risk factors, such as smoking cessation and management of hypertension and dyslipidemia, reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Paradoxically, large randomized studies have failed to conclusively show that intensively lowering glucose reduces CVD event rates in patients with T2DM, despite pathophysiologic and epidemiologic evidence suggesting that hyperglycemia contributes to CVD. Although initiation of intensive glycemic control early in the disease course may be associated with a reduction in the long-term risk of cardiovascular (CV) events, this approach in those with long-standing or complicated T2DM is not of clear benefit and may even be harmful in some. Failure to mitigate risk with antihyperglycemic therapy and the potential for some treatments to increase CVD risk underlies a treatment paradox. New glucose-lowering therapies are now subject to close scrutiny for CV safety before and after drug approval. Results from the first trials designed to meet the recent CV regulatory requirements have shown no increased risk of major adverse CV events but also no CV benefit from dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor therapy, as well as a potentially increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure. Conclusive evidence of CV risk reduction with glucose-lowering therapy is still lacking and scrutiny of additional agents is necessary. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a heterogeneous disease, for which patient-centered, individualized care, and goal-setting is appropriate. Interventions that focus on the management of CV risk factors and glucose lowering with medications that are not cardiotoxic represent an optimal and attainable treatment approach.

Importance of cardiovascular disease risk management in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is commonly accompanied by other cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, such as hypertension, obesity, and dyslipidemia. Furthermore, CVD is the most common cause of death in people with T2DM. It is therefore of critical importance to minimize the risk of macrovascular complications by carefully managing modifiable CVD risk factors in patients with T2DM. Therapeutic strategies should include lifestyle and pharmacological interventions targeting hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, cigarette smoking, physical inactivity, and prothrombotic factors. This article discusses the impact of modifying these CVD risk factors in the context of T2DM; the clinical evidence is summarized, and current guidelines are also discussed. The cardiovascular benefits of smoking cessation, increasing physical activity, and reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and blood pressure are well established. For aspirin therapy, any cardiovascular benefits must be balanced against the associated bleeding risk, with current evidence supporting this strategy only in certain patients who are at increased CVD risk. Although overweight, obesity, and hyperglycemia are clearly associated with increased cardiovascular risk, the effect of their modification on this risk is less well defined by available clinical trial evidence. However, for glucose-lowering drugs, further evidence is expected from several ongoing cardiovascular outcome trials. Taken together, the evidence highlights the value of early intervention and targeting multiple risk factors with both lifestyle and pharmacological strategies to give the best chance of reducing macrovascular complications in the long term.

Pathogenesis and management of postprandial hyperglycemia: role of incretin-based therapies

Postprandial plasma glucose concentrations are an important contributor to glycemic control. There is evidence suggesting that postprandial hyperglycemia may be an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are antidiabetic agents that predominantly reduce postprandial plasma glucose levels. DPP-4 inhibitors are associated with fewer gastrointestinal side effects than GLP-1 receptor agonists and are administered orally, unlike GLP-1 analogs, which are administered as subcutaneous injections. GLP-1 receptor agonists are somewhat more effective than DPP-4 inhibitors in reducing postprandial plasma glucose and are usually associated with significant weight loss. For these reasons, GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally preferred over DPP-4 inhibitors as part of combination treatment regimens in patients with glycated hemoglobin levels above 8.0%. This article reviews the pathogenesis of postprandial hyperglycemia, the mechanisms by which GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors reduce postprandial plasma glucose concentrations, and the results of recent clinical trials (ie, published 2008 to October 2012) that evaluated the effects of these agents on postprandial plasma glucose levels when evaluated as monotherapy compared with placebo or as add-on therapy to metformin, a sulfonylurea, or insulin. Findings from recent clinical studies suggest that both GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors could become valuable treatment options for optimizing glycemic control in patients unable to achieve glycated hemoglobin goals on basal insulin, with the added benefits of weight loss and a low risk of hypoglycemia.

Cardiovascular effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: from risk factors to clinical outcomes

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (gliptins) are oral incretin-based glucose-lowering agents with proven efficacy and safety in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In addition, preclinical data and mechanistic studies suggest a possible additional non-glycemic beneficial action on blood vessels and the heart, via both glucagon-like peptide-1-dependent and glucagon-like peptide-1-independent effects. As a matter of fact, DPP-4 inhibitors improve several cardiovascular risk factors: they improve glucose control (mainly by reducing the risk of postprandial hyperglycemia) and are weight neutral; may lower blood pressure somewhat; improve postprandial (and even fasting) lipemia; reduce inflammatory markers; diminish oxidative stress; improve endothelial function; and reduce platelet aggregation in patients with T2DM. In addition, positive effects on the myocardium have been described in patients with ischemic heart disease. Results of post hoc analyses of phase 2/3 controlled trials suggest a possible cardioprotective effect with a trend (sometimes significant) toward lower incidence of major cardiovascular events with sitagliptin, vildagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, or alogliptin compared with placebo or other active glucose-lowering agents. However, the definite relationship between DPP-4 inhibition and better cardiovascular outcomes remains to be proven. Major prospective clinical trials involving various DPP-4 inhibitors with predefined cardiovascular outcomes are under way in patients with T2DM and a high-risk cardiovascular profile: the Sitagliptin Cardiovascular Outcome Study (TECOS) on sitagliptin, the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (SAVOR-TIMI) 53 trial on saxagliptin, the Cardiovascular Outcomes Study of Alogliptin in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes and Acute Coronary Syndrome (EXAMINE) trial on alogliptin, and the Cardiovascular Outcome Study of Linagliptin Versus Glimepiride in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes (CAROLINA) on linagliptin. If these trials confirm that a DPP-4 inhibitor can reduce the cardiovascular burden of T2DM, it would be major progress that would dramatically influence the management of the disease.