Association Between Sitagliptin Use and Heart Failure Hospitalization and Related Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Emerging role of antidiabetic drugs in cardiorenal protection

The global prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) has led to widespread multi-system damage, especially in cardiovascular and renal functions, heightening morbidity and mortality. Emerging antidiabetic drugs sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) have demonstrated efficacy in preserving cardiac and renal function, both in type 2 diabetic and non-diabetic individuals. To understand the exact impact of these drugs on cardiorenal protection and underlying mechanisms, we conducted a comprehensive review of recent large-scale clinical trials and basic research focusing on SGLT2i, GLP-1RAs, and DPP-4i. Accumulating evidence highlights the diverse mechanisms including glucose-dependent and independent pathways, and revealing their potential cardiorenal protection in diabetic and non-diabetic cardiorenal disease. This review provides critical insights into the cardiorenal protective effects of SGLT2i, GLP-1RAs, and DPP-4i and underscores the importance of these medications in mitigating the progression of cardiovascular and renal complications, and their broader clinical implications beyond glycemic management.

Rethinking the Impact and Management of Diabetes in Heart Failure Patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The following overview article summarizes the most important aspects of diagnosis and screening and provides an overview on the current evidence of glucose-lowering and heart failure treatment in patients with diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with diabetes exhibit an increased risk to develop heart failure and the presence of both comorbidities has a major impact on the prognosis of these patients. Thus, it is of utmost importance to detect heart failure in patients with diabetes and to screen all patients with heart failure for the presence of diabetes. Moreover, the diagnosis of heart failure in diabetes often requires an adjustment of medical therapy. The presence of the 2 comorbidities, heart failure and diabetes, in a given patient which has a major impact on the prognosis and implementation of guideline-directed therapies to reduce cardiovascular risk in this high-risk population is of critical importance.

Targeting cluster of differentiation 26 / dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (CD26/DPP4) in organ fibrosis

Cluster of differentiation 26 (CD26)/dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) is an exopeptidase that is expressed as a transmembrane protein in many organs but also present in a circulating soluble form. Beyond its enzymatic and costimulatory activity, CD26/DPP4 is involved in the pathogenesis of chronic fibrotic diseases across many organ types, such as liver cirrhosis, kidney fibrosis and lung fibrosis. Organ fibrosis is associated with a high morbidity and mortality, and there are no causative therapies that can effectively attenuate the progress of the disease. Growing evidence suggests that inhibiting CD26/DPP4 can modulate the profibrotic tissue microenvironment and thus reduce fibrotic changes within affected organs. This review summarizes the role of CD26/DPP4 in fibroproliferative disorders and highlights new opportunities for an antifibrotic treatment by CD26/DPP4 inhibition. As a major advantage, CD26/DPP4 inhibitors have been in safe and routine clinical use in type 2 diabetes for many years and thus qualify for repurposing to repurpose as a promising therapeutic against fibrosis. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue on Translational Advances in Fibrosis as a Therapeutic Target. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v180.22/issuetoc.

Re-evaluation of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in patients with heart failure and diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVES

The question of whether dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) should be preferred as new glucose-lowering agents in heart failure is controversial. This studyaimed to evaluate the effects of DPP-4i treatment on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

We searched for available studies of DPP-4i therapy in heart failure and performed a pooled analysis. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), acute coronary syndrome, and acute myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

Treatment with DPP-4i did not reduce the risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or hospitalization for heart failure. Subgroup analyses showed that DPP-4i significantly reduced all-cause mortality in trials with >40% female patients (OR 0.30, 95% CI [0.16, 0.58], P=0.0003) and in trials with >20% patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (OR 0.34, 95% CI [0.19, 0.60], P=0.0003). Changes in LVEF and LVEDV showed no statistical differences between the 2 groups. Accordingly, DPP-4i did not alter the risk of acute coronary syndrome and acute myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

DPP-4i may reduce all-cause mortality in heart failure patients in subgroups of women and HFpEF and has a high coronary safety profile.

Epicardial Fat in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: Bad Actor or Just Lying Around?

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is increasingly recognised to be strongly associated with obesity and abnormalities in fat distribution. Epicardial fat has been associated with abnormal haemodynamics in HFpEF, with potential for direct mechanical effects on the heart causing constriction-like physiology and local myocardial remodelling effects from secretion of inflammatory and profibrotic mediators. However, patients with epicardial fat generally have more systemic and visceral adipose tissue making determination of causality between epicardial fat and HFpEF complex. In this review, we will summarise the evidence for epicardial fat being either directly causal in HFpEF pathogenesis or merely being a correlate of worse systemic inflammatory and generalised adiposity. We will also discuss therapies that directly target epicardial fat and may have potential for treating HFpEF and elucidating the independent role of epicardial fat in its pathogenesis.

Beneficial Effects of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors on Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors have been shown to exert pleiotropic effects on heart failure (HF) in animal experiments.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate the impact of DPP-4 inhibitors on HF patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS

We analyzed hospitalized patients with HF and DM enrolled in the JROADHF (Japanese Registry Of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) registry, a nationwide registry of acute decompensated HF. Primary exposure was the use of a DPP-4 inhibitor. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization during the median follow-up of 3.6 years according to left ventricular ejection fraction.

RESULTS

Out of 2,999 eligible patients, 1,130 had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), 572 had heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and 1,297 had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In each cohort, 444, 232, and 574 patients received a DPP-4 inhibitor, respectively. A multivariable Cox regression model showed that DPP-4 inhibitor use was associated with a lower composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization in HFpEF (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.55-0.87; P = 0.002) but not in HFmrEF and HFrEF. Restricted cubic spline analysis demonstrated that DPP-4 inhibitors were beneficial in patients with higher left ventricular ejection fraction. In HFpEF cohort, propensity score matching yielded 263 pairs. DPP-4 inhibitor use was associated with a lower incidence rate of the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (19.2 vs 25.9 events per 100 patient-years; rate ratio: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57-0.97; P = 0.027) in matched patients.

CONCLUSIONS

DPP-4 inhibitor use was associated with better long-term outcomes in HFpEF patients with DM.

Diabetes and cardiovascular risk according to sex: An overview of epidemiological data from the early Framingham reports to the cardiovascular outcomes trials

Male sex is a major cardiovascular risk factor in the general population, with men showing higher age-adjusted prevalence of cardiovascular disease than women. Diabetes, another major cardiovascular risk factor, affects cardiovascular risk differentially between men and women. Data from prospective observational studies showed that women with diabetes had greater relative risk of cardiovascular events than men with diabetes, leading to a smaller difference between diabetic men and women than between non-diabetic men and women in terms of cardiovascular disease. This excess relative risk concerns cardiovascular death, coronary heart disease, stroke and heart failure. It is greatest in the youngest age group and decreases gradually with age. Although many mechanisms have been proposed to explain the greater cardiovascular burden in women with diabetes, little is known about the impact of diverse anti-hyperglycemic drugs on cardiovascular events according to sex. Hence, cardiovascular outcomes trials provide a unique opportunity to study the impact of novel anti-hyperglycemic drugs on cardiovascular outcomes in men and women with type-2 diabetes. Here, we present an overview of the epidemiological data concerning sex-related differences in cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes, with a focus on the effects of novel anti-hyperglycemic drugs on cardiovascular outcomes in men and women. In addition, we summarize proposed mechanisms to explain these differences, with relevant references for the interested reader.

Effects of DPP4 Inhibitor in Platelet Reactivity and Other Cardiac Risk Markers in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background: The management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) presents several challenges in patients with diabetes, among them the higher rate of recurrent thrombotic events, hyperglycemia and risk of subsequent heart failure (HF). The objective of our study was to evaluate effects of DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) on platelet reactivity (main objective) and cardiac risk markers. Methods: We performed a single-center double-blind randomized trial. A total of 70 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) with AMI Killip ≤2 on dual-antiplatelet therapy (aspirin plus clopidogrel) were randomized to receive sitagliptin 100 mg or saxagliptin 5 mg daily or matching placebo. Platelet reactivity was assessed at baseline, 4 days (primary endpoint) and 30 days (secondary endpoint) after randomization, using VerifyNow Aspirin™ assay, expressed as aspirin reaction units (ARUs); B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) in pg/mL was assessed at baseline and 30 days after (secondary endpoint). Results: Mean age was 62.6 ± 8.8 years, 45 (64.3%) male, and 52 (74.3%) of patients presented with ST-segment elevation MI. For primary endpoint, there were no differences in mean platelet reactivity (p = 0.51) between the DPP-4i (8.00 {−65.00; 63.00}) and placebo (−14.00 {−77.00; 52.00}) groups, as well in mean BNP levels (p = 0.14) between DPP-4i (−36.00 {−110.00; 15.00}) and placebo (−13.00 {−50.00; 27.00}). There was no difference between groups in cardiac adverse events. Conclusions: DPP4 inhibitor did not reduce platelet aggregation among patients with type 2 diabetes hospitalized with AMI. Moreover, the use of DPP-4i did not show an increase in BNP levels or in the incidence of cardiac adverse events. These findings suggests that DPP-4i could be an option for management of T2DM patients with acute MI.

Unraveling the interplay between dipeptidyl peptidase 4 and the renin-angiotensin system in heart failure

AIMS

Emerging evidence suggests the existence of a crosstalk between dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) and the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). Therefore, combined inhibition of DPP4 and RAS may produce similar pharmacological effects rather than being additive. This study tested the hypothesis that combining an inhibitor of DPP4 with an angiotensin II (Ang II) receptor blocker does not provide additional cardioprotection compared to monotherapy in heart failure (HF) rats.

MAIN METHODS

Male Wistar rats were subjected to left ventricle (LV) radiofrequency ablation or sham operation. Six weeks after surgery, radiofrequency-ablated rats who developed HF were assigned into four groups and received vehicle (water), vildagliptin, valsartan, or both drugs, for four weeks by oral gavage.

KEY FINDINGS

Vildagliptin and valsartan in monotherapy reduced LV hypertrophy, alleviated cardiac interstitial fibrosis, and improved systolic and diastolic function in HF rats, with no additional effect of combination treatment. HF rats displayed higher cardiac and serum DPP4 activity and abundance than sham. Surprisingly, not only vildagliptin but also valsartan in monotherapy downregulated the catalytic function and expression levels of systemic and cardiac DPP4. Moreover, vildagliptin and valsartan alone or in combination comparably upregulate the components of the cardiac ACE2/Ang-(1-7)/MasR while downregulating the ACE/Ang II/AT1R axis.

SIGNIFICANCE

Vildagliptin or valsartan alone is as effective as combined to treat cardiac dysfunction and remodeling in experimental HF. DPP4 inhibition downregulates classic RAS components, and pharmacological RAS blockade downregulates DPP4 in the heart and serum of HF rats. This interplay between DPP4 and RAS may affect HF progression and pharmacotherapy.

Heart Failure: An Underappreciated Complication of Diabetes. A Consensus Report of the American Diabetes Association

Heart failure (HF) has been recognized as a common complication of diabetes, with a prevalence of up to 22% in individuals with diabetes and increasing incidence rates. Data also suggest that HF may develop in individuals with diabetes even in the absence of hypertension, coronary heart disease, or valvular heart disease and, as such, represents a major cardiovascular complication in this vulnerable population; HF may also be the first presentation of cardiovascular disease in many individuals with diabetes. Given that during the past decade, the prevalence of diabetes (particularly type 2 diabetes) has risen by 30% globally (with prevalence expected to increase further), the burden of HF on the health care system will continue to rise. The scope of this American Diabetes Association consensus report with designated representation from the American College of Cardiology is to provide clear guidance to practitioners on the best approaches for screening and diagnosing HF in individuals with diabetes or prediabetes, with the goal to ensure access to optimal, evidence-based management for all and to mitigate the risks of serious complications, leveraging prior policy statements by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

Re-adjudication of the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) with study-level meta-analysis of hospitalization for heart failure from cardiovascular outcomes trials with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors

Background

Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) assessed the cardiovascular (CV) safety of sitagliptin versus placebo on CV outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and CV disease and found sitagliptin noninferior to placebo. Subsequently, based on feedback from FDA, the Sponsor of the trial, Merck & Co., Inc., engaged a separate academic research organization, the TIMI Study Group, to re‐adjudicate a prespecified set of originally adjudicated events.

Methods

TIMI adjudicated in a blinded fashion all potential hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) events, all potential MACE+ events previously adjudicated as not an endpoint event, and a random subset (~10%) of MACE+ events previously adjudicated as an endpoint event. An updated study‐level meta‐analysis of four randomized, placebo‐controlled, CV outcomes trials with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP‐4) inhibitors was then performed.

Results

After re‐adjudication of potential HHF events in the intent‐to‐treat population, there were 224 patients with a confirmed event in the sitagliptin arm (1.05/100 person‐years) and 239 patients in the placebo arm (1.13/100 person‐years), corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.78–1.13, p = .49). Concordance between the outcome of the original adjudication and the re‐adjudication for HHF events was 82.7%. The meta‐analysis of CV outcomes trials with DPP‐4 inhibitors with placebo and involving 43 522 patients yielded an HR of 1.07 (95% CI: 0.83–1.39), with moderate heterogeneity (p = .45, I² = 62.07%).

Conclusion

The results of this independent re‐adjudication process and analyses of CV outcomes from TECOS were consistent with the original adjudication results and overall study findings. An updated study‐level meta‐analysis showed no overall significant risk for HHF with DPP‐4 inhibitors, but with statistical heterogeneity.

Validation of the WATCH-DM and TRS-HFDM Risk Scores to Predict the Risk of Incident Hospitalization for Heart Failure Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Multicohort Analysis

Background The WATCH-DM (weight [body mass index], age, hypertension, creatinine, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes control [fasting plasma glucose], ECG QRS duration, myocardial infarction, and coronary artery bypass grafting) and TRS-HF_DM (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] risk score for heart failure in diabetes) risk scores were developed to predict risk of heart failure (HF) among individuals with type 2 diabetes. WATCH-DM was developed to predict incident HF, whereas TRS-HF_DM predicts HF hospitalization among patients with and without a prior HF history. We evaluated the model performance of both scores to predict incident HF events among patients with type 2 diabetes and no history of HF hospitalization across different cohorts and clinical settings with varying baseline risk. Methods and Results Incident HF risk was estimated by the integer-based WATCH-DM and TRS-HF_DM scores in participants with type 2 diabetes free of baseline HF from 2 randomized clinical trials (TECOS [Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin], N=12 028; and Look AHEAD [Look Action for Health in Diabetes] trial, N=4867). The integer-based WATCH-DM score was also validated in electronic health record data from a single large health care system (N=7475). Model discrimination was assessed by the Harrell concordance index and calibration by the Greenwood-Nam-D'Agostino statistic. HF incidence rate was 7.5, 3.9, and 4.1 per 1000 person-years in the TECOS, Look AHEAD trial, and electronic health record cohorts, respectively. Integer-based WATCH-DM and TRS-HF_DM scores had similar discrimination and calibration for predicting 5-year HF risk in the Look AHEAD trial cohort (concordance indexes=0.70; Greenwood-Nam-D'Agostino P>0.30 for both). Both scores had lower discrimination and underpredicted HF risk in the TECOS cohort (concordance indexes=0.65 and 0.66, respectively; Greenwood-Nam-D'Agostino P<0.001 for both). In the electronic health record cohort, the integer-based WATCH-DM score demonstrated a concordance index of 0.73 with adequate calibration (Greenwood-Nam-D'Agostino P=0.96). TRS-HF_DM score could not be validated in the electronic health record because of unavailability of data on urine albumin/creatinine ratio in most patients in the contemporary clinical practice. Conclusions The WATCH-DM and TRS-HF_DM risk scores can discriminate risk of HF among intermediate-risk populations with type 2 diabetes.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Comparison of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitor and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor on the Risks of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation, Stroke and Mortality in Diabetic Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Study in Hong Kong

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) on adverse outcomes in diabetic patients in Hong Kong.

METHODS

This was a retrospective population-based cohort study of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients (n = 72,746) treated with SGLT2I or DPP4I between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, in Hong Kong. Patients with exposure to both DPP4I and SGLT2I therapy, without complete demographics or mortality data, or who had prior atrial fibrillation (AF) were excluded. The study outcomes were new-onset AF, stroke/transient ischemic attack, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) between SGLT2I and DPP4I users was performed.

RESULTS

The unmatched study cohort included 21,713 SGLT2I users and 39,510 DPP4I users (total: n = 61,233 patients; 55.37% males, median age: 62.7 years [interquartile range (IQR): 54.6-71.9 years]). Over a median follow-up of 2030 (IQR: 1912-2117) days, 2496 patients (incidence rate [IR]: 4.07%) developed new-onset AF, 2179 patients (IR: 3.55%) developed stroke/transient ischemic attack, 1963 (IR: 3.20%) died from cardiovascular causes and 6607 patients (IR: 10.79%) suffered from all-cause mortality. After propensity score matching (SGLT2I: n = 21,713; DPP4I: n = 21,713), SGLT2I users showed lower incidence of new-onset AF (1.96% vs. 2.78%, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.05), stroke (1.80% vs. 3.52%, SMD = 0.11), cardiovascular mortality (0.47% vs. 1.56%, SMD = 0.11) and all-cause mortality (2.59% vs. 7.47%, SMD = 0.22) compared to DPP4I users. Cox regression found that SGLT2I users showed lower risk of new-onset AF (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.56, 0.83], P = 0.0001), stroke (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: [0.53, 0.79], P < 0.0001), cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.39, 95% CI: [0.27, 0.56], P < 0.0001) and all-cause mortality (HR: 0.44, 95% CI: [0.37, 0.51], P < 0.0001) after adjusting for significant demographics, past comorbidities, medications and laboratory tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on real-world data of type 2 diabetic patients in Hong Kong, SGLT2I use was associated with lower risk of incident AF, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality outcomes compared to DPP4I use.

Cardiovascular Effects of Incretin-Based Therapies: Integrating Mechanisms With Cardiovascular Outcome Trials

As the worldwide prevalence of diabetes and obesity continues to rise, so does the risk of debilitating cardiovascular complications. Given the significant association between diabetes and cardiovascular risk, the actions of glucose-lowering therapies within the cardiovascular system must be clearly defined. Incretin hormones, including GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide 1) and GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide), are gut hormones secreted in response to nutrient intake that maintain glycemic control by regulating insulin and glucagon release. GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ras) and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) represent two drug classes used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) that improve glucose regulation through stimulating the actions of gut-derived incretin hormones or inhibiting their degradation, respectively. Despite both classes acting to potentiate the incretin response, the potential cardioprotective benefits afforded by GLP-1Ras have not been recapitulated in cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) evaluating DPP-4is. This review provides insights through discussion of clinical and preclinical studies to illuminate the physiological mechanisms that may underlie and reconcile observations from GLP-1Ra and DPP-4i CVOTs. Furthermore, critical knowledge gaps and areas for further investigation will be emphasized to guide future studies and, ultimately, facilitate improved clinical management of cardiovascular disease in T2DM.

Ketogenic diet ameliorates lipid dysregulation in type 2 diabetic mice by downregulating hepatic pescadillo 1

Background

Previous reports implied a possible link between PES1 and lipid metabolism. However, the role of PES1 in regulating T2DM related lipid metabolism and the effect of ketogenic diet (KD) on PES1 have not been reported. The aim of present study is to explore the role of PES1 in effects of KD on diabetic mice and its mediated mechanism.

Methods

Male C57BL/6J and KKA^y mice were fed with standard diet (SD) and KD, respectively. Simultaneously, McArdle 7777 cells were treated by β-hydroxybutyric acid (β-HB), Pes1 siRNA or Pes1 overexpression plasmid, respectively. Additionally, liver-conditional knockout (CKO) of Pes1 in vivo was applied.

Results

Hepatic PES1 expression in diabetic mice was markedly increased, which was suppressed by KD feeding with an accompanying reduction of hepatic and plasma triglycerides (TG). In mice with CKO of Pes1, the protein levels of p300, SREBP1c, FASN, SCD1, Caspase1, NLRP3 and GSDMD were dramatically downregulated in livers, and the plasma and hepatic TG, IL-1β and IL-18 were decreased as well. The similar outcomes were also observed in β-HB and Pes1 knockdown treated hepatocytes. By contrast, Pes1 overexpression in cultured hepatocytes showed that these levels were significantly enhanced, which were, however reduced under β-HB treatment. Mechanistically, we discovered that β-HB decreased CHOP binding to the Pes1 promoters, resulting in the downregulation of PES1, thereby reducing PES1 binding to p300 and Caspase1 promoters. The inhibition of p300 and Caspase1 expression elicited the dramatic suppression of acetylation of SREBP1c via its interaction with p300, and the decreased GSDMD levels. Besides, knockdown of Caspase1 also alleviated the TG levels in cultured hepatocytes.

Conclusion

KD may improve lipid dysregulation in type 2 diabetic mice by downregulating hepatic PES1 expression.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10020-021-00429-6.

Comparative Safety of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and Sudden Cardiac Arrest and Ventricular Arrhythmia: Population-Based Cohort Studies

In vivo studies suggest that arrhythmia risk may be greater with less selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, but evidence from population-based studies is missing. We aimed to compare saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and linagliptin with regard to risk of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA)/ventricular arrhythmia (VA). We conducted high-dimensional propensity score (hdPS) matched, new-user cohort studies. We analyzed Medicaid and Optum Clinformatics separately. We identified new users of saxagliptin, sitagliptin (both databases), and linagliptin (Optum only). We defined SCA/VA outcomes using emergency department and inpatient diagnoses. We identified and then controlled for confounders via a data-adaptive, hdPS approach. We generated marginal hazard ratios (HRs) via Cox proportional hazards regression using a robust variance estimator while adjusting for calendar year. We identified the following matched comparisons: saxagliptin vs. sitagliptin (23,895 vs. 96,972) in Medicaid, saxagliptin vs. sitagliptin (48,388 vs. 117,383) in Optum, and linagliptin vs. sitagliptin (36,820 vs. 78,701) in Optum. In Medicaid, use of saxagliptin (vs. sitagliptin) was associated with an increased rate of SCA/VA (adjusted HR (aHR), 2.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-3.25). However, in Optum data, this finding was not present (aHR, 0.79, 95% CI 0.41-1.51). Further, we found no association between linagliptin (vs. sitagliptin) and SCA/VA (aHR, 0.65, 95% CI 0.36-1.17). We found discordant results regarding the association between SCA/VA with saxagliptin compared with sitagliptin in two independent datasets. It remains unclear whether these findings are due to heterogeneity of treatment effect in the different populations, chance, or unmeasured confounding.

Cluster Analysis of Cardiovascular Phenotypes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Established Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Potential Approach to Precision Medicine

OBJECTIVE

Phenotypic heterogeneity among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is ill defined. We used cluster analysis machine-learning algorithms to identify phenotypes among trial participants with T2DM and ASCVD.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used data from the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) study (n = 14,671), a cardiovascular outcome safety trial comparing sitagliptin with placebo in patients with T2DM and ASCVD (median follow-up 3.0 years). Cluster analysis using 40 baseline variables was conducted, with associations between clusters and the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina) assessed by Cox proportional hazards models. We replicated the results using the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) trial.

RESULTS

Four distinct phenotypes were identified: cluster I included Caucasian men with a high prevalence of coronary artery disease; cluster II included Asian patients with a low BMI; cluster III included women with noncoronary ASCVD disease; and cluster IV included patients with heart failure and kidney dysfunction. The primary outcome occurred, respectively, in 11.6%, 8.6%, 10.3%, and 16.8% of patients in clusters I to IV. The crude difference in cardiovascular risk for the highest versus lowest risk cluster (cluster IV vs. II) was statistically significant (hazard ratio 2.74 [95% CI 2.29-3.29]). Similar phenotypes and outcomes were identified in EXSCEL.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2DM and ASCVD, cluster analysis identified four clinically distinct groups. Further cardiovascular phenotyping is warranted to inform patient care and optimize clinical trial designs.

Energy metabolism homeostasis in cardiovascular diseases

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the general population. Energy metabolism disturbance is one of the early abnormalities in CVDs, such as coronary heart disease, diabetic cardiomyopathy, and heart failure. To explore the role of myocardial energy homeostasis disturbance in CVDs, it is important to understand myocardial metabolism in the normal heart and their function in the complex pathophysiology of CVDs. In this article, we summarized lipid metabolism/lipotoxicity and glucose metabolism/insulin resistance in the heart, focused on the metabolic regulation during neonatal and ageing heart, proposed potential metabolic mechanisms for cardiac regeneration and degeneration. We provided an overview of emerging molecular network among cardiac proliferation, regeneration, and metabolic disturbance. These novel targets promise a new era for the treatment of CVDs.

Effects of Dapagliflozin Compared with Sitagliptin and Metformin in Drug-Naïve Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A 12-Week, Open-Label, Randomized, Active-Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of dapagliflozin with those of sitagliptin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes who have never received glucose-lowering agents.

METHODS

In this randomized, 12-week, open-label, active-controlled trial, 32 patients were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin 5 mg, sitagliptin 50 mg, or metformin 1000 mg per day for 12 weeks. At baseline and at week 12, the patients underwent a meal tolerance test (MTT).

RESULTS

After 12 weeks of treatment, the changes in fasting and postprandial plasma glucose and plasma glucose area under the curve (AUC)_0-120 min levels during the MTT from baseline were significantly improved in the three study groups, and there were no significant differences among the three study groups (P < 0.05). The mean changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 12 were - 0.96%, - 1.24%, and - 1.40% in the dapagliflozin, sitagliptin, and metformin groups, respectively. Although there was no significant difference among the three study groups, the lowering effect of HbA1c tended to be greater in the metformin group than in the dapagliflozin group. In contrast, the insulin AUC_0-120 min levels at week 12 significantly decreased only in the dapagliflozin group (P = 0.049). Similarly, body weight was significantly reduced only in the dapagliflozin group (- 2.1 kg [- 2.7%], P = 0.047). Moreover, dapagliflozin significantly improved serum adiponectin levels (P = 0.003). However, there were no significant differences in the changes in these glycemic and metabolic parameters among the three study groups. No serious adverse events were documented in any group.

CONCLUSIONS

Dapagliflozin exerted beneficial effects similar to sitagliptin and metformin on glycemic parameters. In addition, dapagliflozin significantly reduced body weight and insulin AUC levels and improved serum adiponectin levels. Therefore, we suggest that these three hypoglycemic agents could be viable first-line medications for drug-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000024427).

The role of hyperglycaemia in the development of diabetic cardiomyopathy

Diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disorder with a chronic hyperglycaemic state. Cardiovascular diseases are the primary cause of mortality in patients with diabetes. Increasing evidence supports the existence of diabetic cardiomyopathy, a cardiac dysfunction with impaired cardiac contraction and relaxation, independent of coronary and/or valvular complications. Diabetic cardiomyopathy can lead to heart failure. Several preclinical and clinical studies have aimed to decipher the underlying mechanisms of diabetic cardiomyopathy. Among all the co-factors, hyperglycaemia seems to play an important role in this pathology. Hyperglycaemia has been shown to alter cardiac metabolism and function through several deleterious mechanisms, such as oxidative stress, inflammation, accumulation of advanced glycated end-products and upregulation of the hexosamine biosynthesis pathway. These mechanisms are responsible for the activation of hypertrophic pathways, epigenetic modifications, mitochondrial dysfunction, cell apoptosis, fibrosis and calcium mishandling, leading to cardiac stiffness, as well as contractile and relaxation dysfunction. This review aims to describe the hyperglycaemic-induced alterations that participate in diabetic cardiomyopathy, and their correlation with the severity of the disease and patient mortality, and to provide an overview of cardiac outcomes of glucose-lowering therapy.

Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials of Incretin-Based Therapies

The cardiovascular (CV) safety of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists has been established in robust cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk. The GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide, dulaglutide, and injectable semaglutide demonstrated a significant CV benefit in these trials and now have indications to reduce the risk of major adverse CV events, including CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in adult patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or high CV risk (dulaglutide). The dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors have also demonstrated CV safety in dedicated CVOTs but have not been associated with any CV benefit. Guidelines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have evolved from a glucocentric focus to one that now focuses on reducing overall CV risk by personalizing therapy and using drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists with proven CV benefits.

Cardiovascular Safety and Benefits of Noninsulin Antihyperglycemic Drugs for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Part 2

Ideal drugs to improve outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are those with antiglycemic efficacy, as well as cardiovascular safety that has to be determined in appropriately designed cardiovascular outcome trials as mandated by regulatory agencies. The more recent antihyperglycemic medications have shown promise with regards to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction in T2DM patients at a high cardiovascular risk. Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are associated with better cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in T2DM patients than are dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitors, leading to the Food and Drug Administration's approval of empagliflozin to reduce mortality, and of liraglutide to reduce CVD risk in high-risk T2DM patients. For heart failure outcomes, sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors are beneficial, while glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are neutral. Ongoing and planned randomized controlled trials of these newer drugs should clarify the possibility of class effects and of CVD risk reduction benefits in low-moderate cardiovascular risk patients. While we eagerly await the results on ongoing studies, these medications should be appropriately prescribed in T2DM patients with baseline CVD or those at a high CVD risk after carefully evaluating the elevated risk for adverse events like gastrointestinal disturbances, bladder cancer, genital infections, and amputations. Studies to understand the pleotropic and novel pathophysiological mechanisms demonstrated by the sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors will shed light on the effects of the modulation of microvascular, inflammatory, and thrombotic milieu for improving the CVD risk in T2DM patients. This is part 2 of the series on noninsulin antihyperglycemic drugs for the treatment of T2DM.

Cardiovascular Outcome Trials with Glucose-Lowering Drugs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) with glucose-lowering drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

The majority of recent CVOTs with glucose-lowering drugs have tested dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptors agonists (GLP1-RA), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), but studies have also been performed with other agents including thiazolidinediones and insulin. All CVOTs with DPP4-I, GLP1-RA, and SGLT2-i have demonstrated the cardiovascular (CV) safety of these agents compared to usual care. However, certain GLP1-RAs (liraglutide, subcutaneous semaglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide) and SGLT2-i (empagliflozin, canagliflozin) have demonstrated a CV benefit, showing significant reductions in composite cardiovascular outcomes. Furthermore, all SGLT2-i also significantly decreased the risk for hospitalization for heart failure. Results from these studies have altered clinical guidelines worldwide and have resulted in new indications for some glucose-lowering drugs. In patients with T2D and high risk for CVD, GLP-1RA or SGLT2-i with proven cardiovascular benefit are recommended, irrespective of glycemic control.

Treating heart failure in patients with diabetes: The view of the cardiologist

Diabetes is a very important comorbidity in patients with heart failure. When both diseases coexist cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is greatly increased. Therefore, it is of clinical importance to treat both diseases as early as possible with an optimal therapy. Hitherto, heart failure therapy did not differ if a patient had concomitant diabetes. However, with SGLT-2 inhibitors having demonstrated to reduce hospitalization of heart failure independent of diabetes state and expected to be included into the ESC heart failure treatment guidelines in 2021 coexisting diabetes potentially will make a difference when to start therapy. In this article we provide an overview of current recommendations and also provide clinical considerations for the therapy of heart failure with concomitant diabetes.

The impact of diabetes on heart failure development: The cardio-renal-metabolic connection

Heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are often associated in type 2 diabetes (T2D), aggravate each other and exert synergistic effects to increase the risk of cardiac and renal events. The risks of renal worsening in HF patients and HF in CKD patients need to be evaluated to tailor preventive therapy. The recent CV and renal trials enriched our knowledge about the natural history of HF and CKD in T2D and provided evidence for the benefit of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in HF and renal decline prevention. SGLT-2is are the best choice in patients with HFrEF to improve CV prognosis and HF-related outcomes and also to prevent kidney-related outcomes, and in CKD patients to slow down renal failure and also reduce hospitalization for HF and CV death. In both situations the number of patients to treat in order to prevent such events in one patient is lower than in the general T2D population at high CV risk. GLP1-receptor agonists could be an alternative in a patient who is intolerant or has a contraindication to SGLT-2is. A tight collaboration between diabetologists, nephrologists and cardiologists should be encouraged for a holistic and effective strategy to reduce the burden of cardio-renal-metabolic interaction.

The effects of saxagliptin on cardiac structure and function using cardiac MRI (SCARF)

PURPOSE

A recent large cardiovascular outcome trial in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) demonstrated excess heart failure hospitalization with saxagliptin. We sought to evaluate the impact of saxagliptin on cardiac structure and function using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in patients with T2DM without pre-existing heart failure.

METHODS

In this prospective study, patients with T2DM without heart failure were prescribed saxagliptin as part of routine guideline-directed management. Clinical assessment, CMR imaging and biomarkers were assessed in a blinded fashion and compared following 6 months of continued treatment. The primary outcome was the change in left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) after 6 months of therapy. Key secondary outcomes included changes in LV and right ventricular (RV) end-diastolic volume, ventricular mass, LV global strain and cardiac biomarkers [N terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP)] over 6 months.

RESULTS

The cohort (n = 16) had a mean age of 59.9 years with 69% being male. The mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 8.3%. Mean baseline LVEF was 57% ± 3.4, with no significant change over 6 months (- 0.2%, 95% CI - 2.5, 2.1, p = 0.86). Detailed CMR analyses that included LV/RV volumes, LV mass, and feature tracking-derived strain showed no significant change (all p > 0.50). NT-proBNP and hsCRP levels did not significantly change (p > 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of stable ambulatory patients with T2DM without heart failure, saxagliptin treatment was not associated with adverse ventricular remodeling over 6 months as assessed using CMR and biomarkers.

Effects of anti-diabetes medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes: a rapid evidence assessment and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

The cardiovascular and kidney safety of glucose-lowering drugs is a key concern in type 2 diabetes (T2D). We evaluated cardiorenal outcomes with glucose-lowering drugs in Asian patients, who comprise over half of T2D cases globally.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A rapid evidence assessment was conducted for phase III or IV, double-blind, randomized clinical trials of glucose-lowering drugs reporting cardiovascular or kidney outcomes for Asian T2D patients (Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library databases: 1 January 2008-14 June 2020).

RESULTS

Fifty-four publications reported exploratory data for Asians from 18 trials of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and insulin analogs. SGLT2 inhibitors and several GLP-1 receptor agonists were associated with reduced cardiovascular risk in Asian T2D patients, while DPP-4 inhibitors exhibited cardiovascular safety. SGLT2 inhibitors also appeared to reduce renal risk; however, kidney outcomes were lacking for DPP-4 inhibitors other than linagliptin and GLP-1 receptor agonists in Asian patients. Insulin data were inconclusive as the only trial conducted used different types of insulin as both treatment and comparator.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiorenal outcomes with glucose-lowering drugs in Asian T2D patients were similar to outcomes in the overall multinational cohorts of these trials. DPP-4 inhibitors appear to demonstrate cardiovascular safety in Asians, while SGLT2 inhibitors and some GLP-1 receptor agonists may reduce cardiorenal and cardiovascular risk, respectively.

The Relationship Between Type 2 Diabetes, NAFLD, and Cardiovascular Risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are strongly associated. Both also associate with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies have provided evidence that NAFLD could be an independent CVD risk factor. Given the strong association between NAFLD and T2DM, assessing the independent CV effect of these two conditions remains challenging. However, patients with T2DM and NAFLD exhibit higher risk of CVD compared with T2DM without NAFLD suggesting a potential synergistic increase of CV risk in patients with both T2DM and NAFLD supported by several shared pathophysiological pathways. Several anti-diabetic therapies have shown beneficial effect on both NAFLD and CVD. Patients with T2DM and NAFLD should be considered at high risk of CVD and could benefit from more intensive CV prevention. Additional long-term follow-up is needed to demonstrate that the treatment of NAFLD effectively reduces the risk of CVD.

Stress-Induced Hyperglycaemia in Non-Diabetic Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: From Molecular Mechanisms to New Therapeutic Perspectives

Stress-induced hyperglycaemia (SIH) at hospital admission for acute coronary syndrome is associated with poor outcome, especially in patients without known diabetes. Nevertheless, insulin treatment in these subjects was not correlated with the reduction of mortality. This is likely due to the fact that SIH in the context of an acute coronary syndrome, compared to that in known diabetes, represents an epiphenomenon of other pathological conditions, such as adrenergic and renin-angiotensin system over-activity, hyperglucagonaemia, increase of circulating free fatty acids and pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction, which are not completely reversed by insulin therapy and so worsen the prognosis. Thus, SIH may be considered not only as a biomarker of organ damage, but also as an indicator of a more complex therapeutic strategy in these subjects. The aim of this review is to analyse the molecular mechanisms by which SIH may favour a worse prognosis in non-diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome and identify new therapeutic strategies, in addition to insulin therapy, for a more appropriate treatment and improved outcomes.

Therapies for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease Associated with Type 2 Diabetes and Dyslipidemia

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide and is the clinical manifestation of the atherosclerosis. Elevated LDL-cholesterol levels are the first line of therapy but the increasing prevalence in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has positioned the cardiometabolic risk as the most relevant parameter for treatment. Therefore, the control of this risk, characterized by dyslipidemia, hypertension, obesity, and insulin resistance, has become a major goal in many experimental and clinical studies in the context of CVD. In the present review, we summarized experimental studies and clinical trials of recent anti-diabetic and lipid-lowering therapies targeted to reduce CVD. Specifically, incretin-based therapies, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, and proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9 inactivating therapies are described. Moreover, the novel molecular mechanisms explaining the CVD protection of the drugs reviewed here indicate major effects on vascular cells, inflammatory cells, and cardiomyocytes, beyond their expected anti-diabetic and lipid-lowering control. The revealed key mechanism is a prevention of acute cardiovascular events by restraining atherosclerosis at early stages, with decreased leukocyte adhesion, recruitment, and foam cell formation, and increased plaque stability and diminished necrotic core in advanced plaques. These emergent cardiometabolic therapies have a promising future to reduce CVD burden.

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.

Predicting heart failure events in patients with coronary heart disease and impaired glucose tolerance: Insights from the Acarbose Cardiovascular Evaluation (ACE) trial

AIMS

Heart failure is a fatal complication of type 2 diabetes but little is known about its incidence in people with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). We used Acarbose Cardiovascular Evaluation (ACE) trial data to identify predictors of hospitalisation for heart failure (hHF) or cardiovascular (CV) death in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and IGT randomised to acarbose or placebo.

METHODS

Independent hHF/CV death risk factors were determined using Cox proportional hazards models, with participants censored at first hHF event, CV death, or end of follow-up.

RESULTS

During median 5-year follow-up, the composite outcome of hHF/CV death occurred in 393 (6.0%) participants. Significant hHF/CV death multivariate predictors were higher age and plasma creatinine, and prior heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke. Acarbose, compared with placebo, did not reduce hHF/CV death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.64-1.24, P = 0.48) or hHF (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74-1.10, P = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CHD and IGT at greater risk of hHF/CV death were older with higher plasma creatinine, prior HF, MI, AF or stroke. Addition of acarbose to optimised CV therapy to reduce post-prandial glucose excursions did not reduce the risk of hHF/CV death or hHF.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00829660, and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, number ISRCTN91899513.

Effects of empagliflozin on first and recurrent clinical events in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a secondary analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease are at high clinical risk. We assessed the effect of the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, on total cardiovascular events and admissions to hospital in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial.

METHODS

The EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial of patients (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease done between August, 2010, and April, 2015. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg, or placebo. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events: a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal stroke, or non-fatal myocardial infarction. As prespecified, the effects of pooled empagliflozin versus placebo were assessed on total (first plus recurrent) events of major adverse cardiovascular events, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal or non-fatal stroke, and admission to hospital for heart failure. We also did post-hoc analyses on additional cardiovascular and admission to hospital outcomes. We used statistical models that preserve randomisation and account for correlation of recurrent events, including negative binomial regression, as prespecified for the primary analyses. The EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01131676, and is closed to accrual.

FINDINGS

In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, 7020 patients were randomly assigned and treated with empagliflozin 10 mg (n=2345), empagliflozin 25 mg (n=2342), or placebo (n=2333) and followed up for a median of 3·2 years (IQR 2·2 to 3·6) in the pooled empagliflozin group and 3·1 years (2·2 to 3·5) in the placebo group. Analysing total (first plus recurrent) events, empagliflozin versus placebo reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (rate ratio [RR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·67 to 0·91]; p=0·0020; 12·88 [95% CI 3·74 to 22·02] events prevented per 1000 patient-years); fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (0·79 [0·62 to 0·998]; p=0·049; 4·97 [-0·68 to 10·61] events prevented per 1000 patient-years); the composite of fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularisation (0·80 [0·67 to 0·95]; p=0·012; 11·65 [1·25 to 22·05] events prevented per 1000 patient-years); admission to hospital for heart failure (0·58 [0·42 to 0·81]; p=0·0012; 9·67 [3·07 to 16·28] events prevented per 1000 patient-years); and all-cause admission to hospital (0·83 [0·76 to 0·91]; p<0·0001; 50·41 [26·20 to 74·63] events prevented per 1000 patient-years). For outcomes significantly reduced with empagliflozin, risk reductions were numerically larger for total events than for first events. Total fatal or non-fatal stroke was not significantly different between treatment groups (RR 1·10 [95% CI 0·82 to 1·49]; p=0·52).

INTERPRETATION

Empagliflozin reduced the total burden of cardiovascular complications and all-cause admission to hospital in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

FUNDING

The Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly Alliance.

Novel Antidiabetic Agents: Cardiovascular and Safety Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Concerns of elevated cardiovascular risk with some anti-diabetic medications warranted trials on the cardiovascular outcome to demonstrate cardiovascular safety of newly marketed anti-diabetic drugs. Although these trials were initially designed to evaluate safety, some of these demonstrated significant cardiovascular benefits.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We reviewed the cardiovascular and safety outcomes of novel antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or at high risk of it. We included the outcomes of safety trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, large cohort studies, and real-world data, which highlighted the cardiovascular profile of DPP-4is, GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is.

CONCLUSION

Although DPP-4is demonstrated non-inferiority to placebo, gaining cardiovascular safety, as well market authorization, SGLT-2is and most of the GLP-1RAs have shown impressive cardiovascular benefits in patients with T2D and established CVD or at high risk of it. These favorable effects of novel antidiabetic agents on cardiovascular parameters provide novel therapeutic approaches in medical management, risk stratification and prevention.

Efficacy of Ertugliflozin on Heart Failure-Related Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Established Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: Results of the VERTIS CV Trial

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). We assessed the effect of ertugliflozin on HHF and related outcomes.

Methods:

VERTIS CV (Evaluation of Ertugliflozin Efficacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial), a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease to once-daily ertugliflozin 5 mg, 15 mg, or placebo. Prespecified secondary analyses compared ertugliflozin (pooled doses) versus placebo on time to first event of HHF and composite of HHF/CV death, overall and stratified by prespecified characteristics. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used with the Fine and Gray method to account for competing mortality risk, and Andersen-Gill modeling to analyze total (first+recurrent) HHF and total HHF/CV death events.

Results:

A total of 8246 patients were randomly assigned to ertugliflozin (n=5499) or placebo (n=2747); n=1958 (23.7%) had a history of heart failure (HF) and n=5006 (60.7%) had pretrial ejection fraction (EF) available, including n=959 with EF ≤45%. Ertugliflozin did not significantly reduce first HHF/CV death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88 [95% CI, 0.75–1.03]). Overall, ertugliflozin reduced risk for first HHF (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54–0.90]; P=0.006). Previous HF did not modify this effect (HF: HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.44–0.90]; no HF: HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.54–1.15]; P interaction=0.40). In patients with HF, the risk reduction for first HHF was similar for those with reduced EF ≤45% versus preserved EF >45% or unknown. However, in the overall population, the risk reduction tended to be greater for those with EF ≤45% (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.30–0.76]) versus EF >45% (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.58–1.29]). Effect on risk for first HHF was consistent across most subgroups, but greater benefit of ertugliflozin was observed in 3 populations: baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL·min^–1·1.73 m^–2, albuminuria, and diuretic use (each P interaction <0.05). Ertugliflozin reduced total events of HHF (rate ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.56–0.87]) and total HHF/CV death (rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.72–0.96]).

Conclusions:

In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, ertugliflozin reduced the risk for first and total HHF and total HHF/CV death, adding further support for the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in primary and secondary prevention of HHF.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01986881.

Cardiovascular outcomes trials with incretin-based medications: a critical review of data available on GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are so called "incretin-based therapies" (IBTs) that represent innovative therapeutic approaches and are commonly used in clinical practice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have provided useful information that has helped to shape changes in clinical practice guidelines for the management of T2DM. At the same time, the mechanisms that may explain the nonglycemic and cardiovascular (CV) benefits of these medications are still being explored. A summary of the main findings from CVOTs performed to-date with particular emphasis on various outcomes and inconsistencies observed in the trials is provided. Overall, available data is favourable to the early deployment of GLP-1RAs in clinical practice, fully in line with recommendations from international scientific guidelines, and based on their effects on glucose metabolism parameters, body weight reduction and CV outcomes. Evidence further suggest that the CV benefits of GLP-1RAs may not be a class effect, with GLP-1 analogues having a greater benefit rather than exendin-based agents.

DPP-4 Inhibitors: Renoprotective Potential and Pharmacokinetics in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients with Renal Impairment

The continuously increasing incidence of diabetes worldwide has attracted the attention of the scientific community and driven the development of a novel class of antidiabetic drugs that can be safely and effectively used in diabetic patients. Of particular interest in this context are complications associated with diabetes, such as renal impairment, which is the main cause of high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in diabetic patients. Intensive control of glucose levels and other risk factors associated with diabetes and metabolic syndrome provides the foundations for both preventing and treating diabetic nephropathy. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors represent a highly promising novel class of oral agents used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus that may be successfully combined with currently available antidiabetic therapeutics in order to achieve blood glucose goals. Beyond glycemic control, emerging evidence suggests that DPP-4 inhibitors may have desirable off-target effects, including renoprotection. All type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with impaired renal function require dose adjustment of any DPP-4 inhibitor administered except for linagliptin, for which renal excretion is a minor elimination pathway. Thus, linagliptin is the drug most frequently chosen to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with renal failure.

Adverse event profiles of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: data mining of the public version of the FDA adverse event reporting system

BACKGROUND

To describe and analyze the patterns of adverse events associated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) (sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, vildagliptin, and alogliptin) from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and to highlight areas of safety concerns.

METHODS

Adverse events spontaneously submitted to the FAERS between 2004 Q1 to 2019 Q2 were included. The online tool OpenVigil 2.1 was used to query the database. The research relied on definitions of preferred terms (PTs) specified by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) and the standardized MedDRA Queries (SMQ). The reporting odds ratio (ROR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for disproportionality analysis.

RESULTS

Over 16 years, a total of 9706 adverse event reports were identified. Alogliptin was excluded from further analysis due to insufficient sample size. Compared with the non-insulin antidiabetic drugs, the four DPP-4is were all disproportionately associated with four SMQs: "gastrointestinal nonspecific inflammation and dysfunctional conditions," "hypersensitivity," "severe cutaneous adverse reactions," and "noninfectious diarrhoea". As for PT level analyses, DPP-4is are associated with higher reporting of the gastrointestinal tract, pancreas, malignancies, infection, musculoskeletal disorders, general disorders, hypersensitivity, and skin AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Data mining of the FAERS is useful for examining DPP-4 inhibitors-associated adverse events. The findings of the present study are compatible with clinical experience, and it provides valuable information to decision-makers and healthcare providers in clinical practice.

Non-insulin antihyperglycaemic drugs and heart failure: an overview of current evidence from randomized controlled trials

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is highly prevalent in the general population and especially in patients with heart failure (HF). It is not only a risk factor for incident HF, but is also associated with worse outcomes in prevalent HF. Therefore, antihyperglycaemic management in patients at risk of or with established HF is of importance to reduce morbidity/mortality. Following revision of the drug approval process in 2008 by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency, several cardiovascular outcome trials on antihyperglycaemic drugs have recently investigated HF endpoints. Signals of harm in terms of increased risk of HF have been identified for thiazolidinediones and the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor saxagliptin, and therefore, these drugs are not currently recommended in HF. Sulfonylureas also have an unfavourable safety profile and should be avoided in patients at increased risk of/with HF. Observational studies have assessed the use of metformin in patients with HF, showing potential safety and potential survival/morbidity benefits. Overall use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists has not been linked with any clear benefit in terms of HF outcomes. Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have consistently shown to reduce risk of HF-related outcomes in T2DM with and without HF and are thus currently recommended to lower risk of HF hospitalization in T2DM. Recent findings from the DAPA-HF trial support the use of dapagliflozin in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and, should ongoing trials with empagliflozin, sotagliflozin, and canagliflozin prove efficacy, will pave the way for SGLT2i as HF treatment regardless of T2DM.

Cardiovascular Effects of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists: a Review for the General Cardiologist

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Results from cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials have revealed important insights into the CV safety and efficacy of glucose-lowering agents, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA).

RECENT FINDINGS

Among patients with T2DM, DPP-4i have no significant effect on risk of major adverse CV events (MACE: CV death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) with mixed results regarding risk for heart failure (HF). While sitagliptin and linagliptin have neutral effects on HF risk, saxagliptin significantly increases the risk of HF. The CV safety of the GLP-1RA class of medications has been clearly demonstrated, and select agents, such as liraglutide, semaglutide, albiglutide, and dulaglutide, reduce the risk of MACE in patients with T2DM and established CV disease. CV outcome trials have demonstrated CV safety but not incremental efficacy for DPP-4i in most cases. Select GLP-1RA have proven efficacy for MACE and should be considered by cardiologists for CV risk mitigation in the care of patients with T2DM and established CV disease.

The efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to other oral glucose-lowering medications in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is), which belong to the class of incretin-based medications, are recommended as second or third-line therapies in guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. They have a favorable drug tolerability and safety profile compared to other glucose-lowering agents.

OBJECTIVE

This review discusses data concerning the use of DPP-4is and their cardiovascular profile, and gives an updated comparison with the other oral glucose-lowering medications with regards to safety and efficacy. Currently available original studies, abstracts, reviews articles, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the review.

DISCUSSION

DPP4is are moderately efficient in decreasing the HbA1c by an average of 0.5% as monotherapy, and 1.0% in combination therapy with other drugs. They have a good tolerability and safety profile compared to other glucose-lowering drugs. However, there are possible risks pertaining to acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSION

Cardiovascular outcome trials thus far have proven the cardiovascular safety for ischemic events in patients treated with sitagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, linagliptin and vildagliptin. Data showing increased rate of hospitalisation in the case of saxagliptin did not seem to be a class effect.

Association between glycated haemoglobin levels and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease: a secondary analysis of the TECOS randomized clinical trial

AIMS

Whether glycaemic control is associated with cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is unclear. Consequently, we assessed the relationship between glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c ) and cardiovascular outcomes in a placebo-controlled randomized trial which demonstrated no cardiovascular effect of sitagliptin in patients with T2D and atherosclerotic vascular disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Secondary analysis of 14 656 TECOS participants with time to event analyses using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. During a median 3.0 (interquartile range 2.3-3.8) year follow-up, 456 (3.1% of 14 656) patients had first hospitalization for heart failure (HF), 1084 (11.5%) died, 1406 (9.6%) died or were hospitalized for HF, and 1689 (11.5%) had a non-HF cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina). Associations between baseline or time-varying HbA_1c and cardiovascular outcomes were U-shaped, with the lowest risk when HbA_1c was around 7%. Each one-unit increase in the time-varying HbA_1c above 7% was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.21 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11-1.33] for first HF hospitalization, 1.11 (1.03-1.21) for all-cause death, 1.18 (1.09-1.26) for death or HF hospitalization, and 1.10 (1.02-1.17) for non-HF cardiovascular events. Each one-unit decrease in the time-varying HbA_1c below 7% was associated with an adjusted HR of 1.35 (95% CI 1.12-1.64) for first HF hospitalization, 1.37 (1.16-1.61) for death, 1.42 (1.23-1.64) for death or HF hospitalization, and 1.22 (1.06-1.41) for non-HF cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSION

Glycated haemogobin exhibits a U-shaped association with cardiovascular outcomes in patients with T2D and atherosclerotic vascular disease, with nadir around 7%.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00790205.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors as new tools for cardioprotection

Previous studies have demonstrated that individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a two- to fourfold propensity to develop cardiovascular disease (CVD) than nondiabetic population, making CVD a major cause of death and disability among people with T2DM. The present treatment options for management of diabetes propose the earlier and more frequent use of new antidiabetic drugs that could control hyperglycaemia and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. Findings from basic and clinical studies pointed out DPP-4 inhibitors as potentially novel pharmacological tools for cardioprotection. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that these drugs have ability to protect the heart against acute ischaemia-reperfusion injury as well as reduce the size of infarction. Consequently, the prevention of degradation of the incretin hormones by the use of DPP-4 inhibitors represents a new strategy in the treatment of patients with T2DM and reduction of CV events in these patients. Here, we discuss the cardioprotective effects of DPP-4 inhibitors as well as proposed pathways that these hypoglycaemic agents target in the cardiovascular system.

Add-on therapy in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk: a nationwide study

BACKGROUND

In randomised clinical trials, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors reduced cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular risk, as compared to standard care. However, data comparing these agents in patients with T2D who are at moderate risk is sparse.

METHODS

From Danish national registries, we included patients with T2D previously on metformin monotherapy, who started an additional glucose-lowering agent [GLP-1 RA, SGLT-2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, sulfonylurea (SU), or insulin] in the period 2010-2016. Patients with a history of cardiovascular events [heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke] were excluded. Patients were followed for up to 2 years. Cause-specific adjusted Cox regression models were used to compare the risk of hospitalisation for HF, a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (MI, stroke or cardiovascular death), and all-cause mortality for each add-on therapy. Patients who initiated DPP-4 inhibitors were used as reference.

RESULTS

The study included 46,986 T2D patients with a median age of 61 years and of which 59% were male. The median duration of metformin monotherapy prior to study inclusion was 5.3 years. Add-on therapy was distributed as follows: 13,148 (28%) GLP-1 RAs, 2343 (5%) SGLT-2 inhibitors, 15,426 (33%) DPP-4 inhibitors, 8917 (19%) SUs, and 7152 (15%) insulin. During follow-up, 623 (1.3%, range 0.8-2.1%) patients were hospitalised for HF-hazard ratios (HR) were 1.11 (95% CI 0.89-1.39) for GLP-1 RA, 0.84 (0.52-1.36) for SGLT-2 inhibitors, 0.98 (0.77-1.26) for SU and 1.54 (1.25-1.91) for insulin. The composite MACE endpoint occurred in 1196 (2.5%, range 1.5-3.6%) patients, yielding HRs of 0.82 (0.69-0.97) for GLP-1 RAs, 0.79 (0.56-1.12) for SGLT-2 inhibitors, 1.22 (1.03-1.49) for SU and 1.23 (1.07-1.47) for insulin. 1865 (3.9%, range 1.9-9.0%) died from any cause during follow-up. HRs for all-cause mortality were 0.91 (0.78-1.05) for GLP-1 RAs, 0.79 (0.58-1.07) for SGLT-2 inhibitors, 1.13 (0.99-1.31) for SU and 2.33 (2.08-2.61) for insulin.

CONCLUSION

In a nationwide cohort of metformin-treated T2D patients and no history of cardiovascular events, the addition of either GLP-1 RA or SGLT-2 inhibitor to metformin treatment was associated with a similar risk of hospitalisation for HF and death, and a lower risk of MACE for GLP-1 RA when compared with add-on DPP-4 inhibitors. By contrast, initiation of treatment with SU and insulin were associated with a higher risk of MACE. Additionally, insulin was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for HF.

2020 Consensus of Taiwan Society of Cardiology on the pharmacological management of patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases

The global incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes have been escalating in recent decades. The total diabetic population is expected to increase from 415 million in 2015 to 642 million by 2040. Patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). About two-thirds of patients with type 2 diabetes died of ASCVD. The association between hyperglycemia and elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk has been demonstrated in multiple cohort studies. However, clinical trials of intensive glucose reduction by conventional antidiabetic agents did not significantly reduce macrovascular outcomes.In December 2008, U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a mandate that every new antidiabetic agent requires rigorous assessments of its CV safety. Thereafter, more than 200,000 patients have been enrolled in a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These trials were initially designed to prove noninferiority. It turned out that some of these trials demonstrated superiority of some new antidiabetic agents versus placebo in reducing CV endpoints, including macrovascular events, renal events, and heart failure. These results are important in clinical practice and also provide an opportunity for academic society to formulate treatment guidelines or consensus to provide specific recommendations for glucose control in various CV diseases.In 2018, the Taiwan Society of Cardiology (TSOC) and the Diabetes Association of Republic of China (DAROC) published the first joint consensus on the "Pharmacological Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases." In 2020, TSOC appointed a new consensus group to revise the previous version. The updated 2020 consensus was comprised of 5 major parts: (1) treatment of diabetes in patients with multiple risk factors, (2) treatment of diabetes in patients with coronary heart disease, (3) treatment of diabetes in patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease, (4) treatment of diabetes in patients with a history of stroke, and (5) treatment of diabetes in patients with heart failure. The members of the consensus group thoroughly reviewed all the evidence, mainly RCTs, and also included meta-analyses and real-world evidence. The treatment targets of HbA1c were finalized. The antidiabetic agents were ranked according to their clinical evidence. The consensus is not mandatory. The final decision may need to be individualized and based on clinicians' discretion.

Contemporary Trends in Prescription of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors in the Context of US Food and Drug Administration Warnings of Heart Failure Risk

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are one of the most widely used antihyperglycemic therapeutic classes in type 2 diabetes mellitus management. In April 2016 and August 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced sequential labelling requirements regarding heart failure risk related to DPP-4i. We explored longitudinal trends in prescription of DPP-4i before and after these FDA warnings in a multicenter health system. We identified all first-time prescriptions of DPP4i or their combinations across the Partners HealthCare system (Boston, MA) from October 2006 (FDA approval of first DPP-4i) to December 2018. Overall, 11,830 patients were newly prescribed DPP-4i during the study period. Primary care physicians (31.5%) were the most common prescribing specialty. Overall, 8.4%, 20.4%, and 11.6% had heart failure, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease, respectively. Median number of background antihyperglycemic therapies was 2 [25th to 75th percentiles 1 to 2], commonly metformin (65.4%) and/or insulin (36.4%). The vast majority of prescriptions were sitagliptin (85.7%), followed by linagliptin (9.5%), saxagliptin (4.7%), and alogliptin (0.2%). Quarterly prescriptions rose gradually from 2006 to mid-2016, and have decreased consistently since then for each of the 4 DPP-4i. Declines in DPP-4i among high-risk groups and those initiated by endocrinologists were most pronounced. In conclusion, although DPP-4i remain a dominant oral antihyperglycemic therapy in clinical practice, new prescriptions have declined recently. These data may reflect relatively swift health system response to broad FDA safety communications regarding heart failure risk, which appeared to impact the entire DPP-4i class, including specific drugs that have not demonstrated any increased risk of heart failure.