Comparative safety for cardiovascular outcomes of DPP-4 inhibitors versus glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes: A retrospective cohort study

Risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease with the use of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, and telmisartan in patients

There is a lack of studies comparing the risk of cardio-cerebrovascular disease between angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) of different half-lives. We aimed to compare the risks of myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), and cerebrovascular disease with the use of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, and telmisartan with different half-lives in a national claim-based retrospective cohort of patients aged ≥ 40 years with hypertension. To establish a cohort exposed to valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, or telmisartan, we performed propensity score (PS) matching and used an as-treated approach to evaluate exposure. The Cox regression model was employed to calculate hazard ratios, which were based on the incidence rate for each newly occurring event of MI, heart failure, or cerebrovascular disease. These hazard ratios were calculated to compare the risk of MI, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease associated with valsartan, losartan, and irbesartan in comparison to telmisartan. A PS-matched cohort of 148,229 patients was established for each of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, or telmisartan. The matched cohort analysis showed that the adjusted hazard ratio (aHRs, 95% confidence interval) for MI was higher for valsartan use (1.39, 1.33-1.45) and losartan use (1.10, 1.05-1.15) but lower for irbesartan use (0.90, 0.86-0.94) compared with the reference (telmisartan). The aHRs for HF were not different among these ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers). The aHR for cerebrovascular disease was lower for valsartan use (0.85, 0.83-0.87) and losartan use (0.80, 0.78-0.82) but higher for irbesartan use (1.11, 1.09-1.13) compared with the reference. We found differences in the risk of MI and cerebrovascular disease with the use of different ARBs compared to telmisartan use. Valsartan, and losartan with a short half-life, which showed a higher risk of MI, had a lower risk of cerebrovascular disease. Conversely, irbesartan with a long half-life, which showed a lower risk of MI, had a higher risk of cerebrovascular disease.

Association Between DPP4 Inhibitor Use and the Incidence of Cirrhosis, ESRD, and Some Cancers in Patients With Diabetes

CONTEXT

There are relatively few data on noncardiovascular (non-CV) long-term clinical outcomes of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP4i) treatment.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate some non-CV effects of DPP4is in patients with diabetes.

METHODS

Based on data from the National Health Insurance Service database in Korea (2007-2018), we conducted 3 pairwise comparisons of metformin-combined antidiabetic therapies in adult patients with diabetes: DPP4is vs (1) all other oral antidiabetic agents, (2) sulfonylureas/glinides, and (3) thiazolidinediones (TZDs). Major outcomes were liver cirrhosis, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and cancers in the liver, kidney, and pancreas. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the outcomes were estimated using an adjusted Cox model.

RESULTS

Of the 747 124 patients included, 628 217 had received DPP4i therapy for a mean duration of 33.8 ± 25.0 months. Compared with TZD therapy, DPP4i therapy was associated with higher adjusted HRs [95% CIs] for liver cirrhosis (1.267 [1.108-1.449]), ESRD (1.596 [1.139-2.236]), liver cancer (1.117 [1.011-1.235]), and pancreatic cancer (1.158 [1.040-1.290]). Furthermore, apart from liver cirrhosis, a higher risk of each of these outcomes was associated with DPP4i use than with non-DPP4i use. The higher adjusted HRs associated with DPP4i use further increased when patients with long-term exposure to DPP4is were analyzed.

CONCLUSION

DPP4i therapy in patients with diabetes was associated with a higher risk of liver cirrhosis and cancer, ESRD, and pancreatic cancer than TZD therapy and, except for liver cirrhosis, the risk of these outcomes was greater with DPP4i treatment than with non-DPP4i treatment.

Cardiovascular outcomes of type 2 diabetic patients treated with DPP‑4 inhibitors versus sulphonylureas as add-on to metformin in clinical practice

DPP-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) and sulphonylureas remain the most widely prescribed add-on treatments after metformin. However, there is limited evidence from clinical practice comparing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients prescribed these treatments, particularly among those without prior history of MACE and from vulnerable population groups. Using electronic health records from UK primary care, we undertook a retrospective cohort study with people diagnosed type-2 diabetes mellitus, comparing incidence of MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke, major cardiovascular surgery, unstable angina) and all-cause mortality among those prescribed DPP-4i versus sulphonylureas as add-on to metformin. We stratified analysis by history of MACE, age, social deprivation and comorbidities and adjusted for HbA1c, weight, smoking-status, comorbidities and medications. We identified 17,570 patients prescribed sulphonylureas and 6,267 prescribed DPP-4i between 2008-2017. Of these, 16.3% had pre-existing MACE. Primary incidence of MACE was similar in patients prescribed DPP-4i and sulphonylureas (10.3 vs 8.5 events per 1000 person-years; adjusted Hazard Ratio (adjHR): 0.94; 95%CI 0.80-1.14). For those with pre-existing MACE, rates for recurrence were higher overall, but similar between the two groups (21.8 vs 17.2 events per 1000 person-years; adjHR: 0.93; 95%CI 0.69-1.24). For those aged over 75 and with BMI less than 25 kg/m2 there was a protective effect for DPP-I, warranting further investigation. Patients initiating a DPP-4i had similar risk of cardiovascular outcomes to those initiating a sulphonylurea. This indicates the choice should be based on safety and cost, not cardiovascular prognosis, when deciding between a DPP-4i or sulphonylurea as add-on to metformin.

Cardiovascular safety of evogliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes: A nationwide cohort study

AIM

To assess whether the use of evogliptin, a novel dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i), was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events compared with glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cohort study using South Korea's nationwide healthcare database from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018. We identified a base cohort of patients with T2D who newly initiated metformin monotherapy, from which we identified a study cohort of patients who either added or switched to glimepiride or DPP-4is (including evogliptin). Patients were followed up from initiation of DPP-4is or glimepiride until the earliest of either outcome occurrence or 31 December 2018. Our primary outcome was hospitalization or an emergency visit for cardiovascular events, a composite endpoint comprised of cerebrovascular events, heart failure, myocardial infarction, transient ischaemic attack, angina pectoris and revascularization procedures; secondary outcomes were the individual components of the primary outcome. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the risk of study outcomes associated with evogliptin compared with glimepiride.

RESULTS

Our base and study cohorts had 317,307 and 128,788 patients, respectively, of which 100,038 were DPP-4i users (2946 were evogliptin users) and 28,750 were glimepiride users within the study cohort. The median follow-up was 195 days for evogliptin and 113 days for glimepiride users. Compared with glimepiride, evogliptin was associated with a reduced risk of the primary outcome (aHR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.95) and cerebrovascular events (aHR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.78) but showed non-significant associations for myocardial infarction (aHR 0.63, 95% CI 0.27-1.46), heart failure (aHR 0.35, 95% CI 0.09-1.47), transient ischaemic attack (aHR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03-1.72) and angina pectoris (aHR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82-2.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this population-based cohort study provide novel real-world evidence that the use of evogliptin, compared with glimepiride, did not increase the risk of cardiovascular events, including cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction, heart failure, transient ischaemic attack and angina pectoris.

Effect of Teneligliptin versus Sulfonylurea on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Real-World Study in Korea

BACKGROUND

Results regarding the cardiovascular (CV) effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are inconsistent. This study aimed to assess the effects of teneligliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, on the risk of major CV outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients compared to sulfonylurea.

METHODS

From January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. A total of 6,682 T2DM patients who were newly prescribed DPP-4 inhibitors or sulfonylurea were selected and matched in a 1:1 ratio by propensity score. The hazard ratios (HRs) for all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), all-cause mortality or HHF, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and hypoglycemia were assessed.

RESULTS

During 641 days of follow-up, the use of teneligliptin was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.19), HHF (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.14), all-cause mortality or HHF (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.14), MI (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.20), and stroke (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.17) compared to the use of sulfonylurea. However, it was associated with a significantly lower risk of hypoglycemia (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94) compared to sulfonylurea therapy.

CONCLUSION

Among T2DM patients, teneligliptin therapy was not associated with an increased risk of CV events including HHF, but was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycemia compared to sulfonylurea therapy.

A prospective cohort study on effects of gemigliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (OPTIMUS study)

This study was performed to evaluate the long-term cardiovascular safety of gemigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). After screening, eligible patients with T2DM were enrolled, received gemigliptin, and were followed up for a median of 2.50 years. The primary outcome was a composite of confirmed cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal ischemic stroke (3-point major adverse cardiovascular event [MACE]). The key secondary outcomes were incidence of all-cause mortality and any other cardiovascular events. A total of 5179 patients were included in the study and 5113 were treated with gemigliptin. Overall, the primary outcome occurred in 26 patients within 12 months (estimated incidence by Cox proportional hazard model 0.49%, 95% CI 0.29–0.69%) and in 54 patients within 54 months (estimated incidence from Cox proportional hazard model 1.35%, 95% CI 0.92–1.77%). During the study period, the incidence rates of each component of the primary composite outcome were 0.04% (0.2 events per 1000 person-years) for cardiovascular death, 0.51% (2.2 events per 1000 person-years) for nonfatal myocardial infarction, and 0.61% (2.5 events per 1000 person-years) for nonfatal ischemic stroke. The incidence of all-cause mortality was 0.82% (3.2 events per 1000 person-years) and the incidences of other cardiovascular events were all less than 0.3%. In conclusion, T2DM patients who received gemigliptin exhibited a low incidence of the primary composite MACE and all-cause mortality. Therefore, the use of gemigliptin is expected to be safe without an increase in cardiovascular risk.

Trial registration: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02290301).

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects on Cardiovascular Diseases With Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors Versus Sulfonylureas in Type 2 Diabetes Patients

This study explored heterogeneous treatment effects (HTEs) of the real-world use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) vs. sulfonylureas (SUs) on cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. Utilizing Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, 19,853 propensity score-matched pairs of DPP-4i and SU stable users were identified. Classification and regression tree analyses and Cox models were applied to explore HTEs, according to various patient characteristics, on the composite CVDs, three-point major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), and all-cause mortality. The absolute risk difference (ARD), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated for comparing treatment effects. CVD history, ischemic stroke, or transient ischemic attack (IS/TIA) history, and age at treatment initiation were significant treatment effect modifiers. Patients with prior IS/TIA but without any other prior CVDs benefited most in reduced risks of composite CVDs from using DPP-4i vs. SU (ARD -4.31%, 95% CI -7.48% to -1.14%, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 0.95), followed by those without prior IS/TIA and CVDs and initiated with DPP-4i at age < 69.3 years (ARD -0.90%, 95% CI -1.47% to -0.32%, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 ~ 0.97). Patients with prior IS/TIA benefited most in reduced risks of three-point MACE from using DPP-4i vs. SU (ARD -4.22%, 95% CV -6.66% to -1.78%, HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 ~ 0.93), followed by those without prior IS/TIA and initiated with DPP-4i at age < 69.3 years (ARD -0.68%, 95% CI -1.08% to -0.29%, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 ~ 0.93). Consideration of CVD and IS/TIA histories and age could facilitate individualized diabetes management of using DPP-4i vs. SU. Future studies are warranted given the hypothesis-generating nature in this exploratory research.

Impact of vildagliptin on vascular and fibrotic remodeling of myocardium in experimental diabetic cardiomyopathy

The effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) on myocardium in diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM) remains a matter of debate. In the current study we investigated the effect of vildagliptin (VILDA, 3 mg/kg/d) on myocardium of DCM focusing on coronary microcirculation as well as on endothelial stress markers (ICAM and VCAM). We divided animals equally into 4 groups; nondiabetic (ND), VILDA per se, DCM and DCM + VILDA and their myocardium was evaluated for the fibro-vascular remodeling immunohistochemically as well as for molecular changes. VILDA had reversed the histological changes occurred in DCM including the disintegration, degeneration, and steatosis of cardiomyocytes with disappearance of the edema fluid. In addition VILDA significantly increased (p < 0.05) density of the coronary microcirculation and relieved endothelial stress. However, it did not prevent the development of fibrotic remodeling including the increased collagen deposition and the significantly upregulated (p < 0.05) corresponding genes. Therefore VILDA may have a positive impact on the microvascular remodeling, but not on fibrotic changes, in DCM.

Heart Failure in Diabetes Mellitus: An Updated Review

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and heart failure (HF) are comorbid conditions associated with significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite the availability of novel and effective therapeutic options and intensive glycaemic control strategies, mortality and hospitalisation rates continue to remain high and the incidence of HF persists. In this review, we described the impact of currently available glucose-lowering therapies in DM with a focus on HF clinical outcomes. Non-conventional modes of management and alternative pathophysiological mechanisms with the potential for therapeutic targeting are also discussed.

The perceptions of natural compounds against dipeptidyl peptidase 4 in diabetes: from in silico to in vivo

Dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-4), an incretin glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) degrading enzyme, contains two forms and it can exert various physiological functions particular in controlling blood glucose through the action of GLP-1. In diabetic use, the DPP-4 inhibitor can block the DDP-4 to attenuate GLP-1 degradation and prolong GLP-1 its action and sensitize insulin activity for the purpose of lowering blood glucose. Nonetheless the adverse effects of DPP-4 inhibitors severely hinder their clinical applications, and notably there is a clinical demand for novel DPP-4 inhibitors from various sources including chemical synthesis, herbs, and plants with fewer side effects. In this review, we highlight various strategies, namely computational biology (in silico), in vitro enzymatic and cell assays, and in vivo animal tests, for seeking natural DPP-4 inhibitors from botanic sources including herbs and plants. The pros and cons of all approaches for new inhibitor candidates or hits will be under discussion.

Review of the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the clinical relevance of the CAROLINA trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) is a well-recognized complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and there is a clinical need for glucose-lowering therapies that do not further increase CV risk in this population. Although sulfonylureas (SUs) may be used as second-line therapy for patients requiring additional therapy after first-line metformin to improve glycemic control, their long-term effects on CV outcomes remain uncertain, and a wide range of alternative agents exist including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODS

Literature searches in PubMed (2013-2018) were conducted with terms for DPP-4 inhibitors combined with CV terms, with preference given to cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs). Reference lists from retrieved articles and diabetes guidelines were also considered.

RESULTS

This narrative review discusses current evidence for the CV safety of these agents, describes the long-term CV effects of DPP-4 inhibitors, including effects on CV events, mortality, the risk for heart failure hospitalization, and highlights the need for further research into the CV effects of SU therapy. Although SUs remain a treatment option for T2DM, the long-term effects of these agents on CV outcomes are unclear, and further long-term studies are required. For DPP-4 inhibitors, uncertainties have been raised about their long-term effect on hospitalization for heart failure in light of the results of SAVOR-TIMI 53, although the findings of other DPP-4 inhibitor CVOTs in T2DM and data analyses have suggested these agents do not increase the occurrence of adverse CV outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on recent CVOTs and guideline updates, the choice of add-on to metformin therapy for patients with T2DM and established CV disease should be a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist with proven CV benefit. Additional treatment options for those individuals who require therapy intensification, as well as in patients with T2DM and without established CVD include DPP-4 inhibitors and SUs. Since few head-to-head trials have compared the effects of different oral glucose-lowering agents on CV outcomes in T2DM, with most CVOTs using placebo as a comparator, the CAROLINA trial will provide important information on the comparative CV safety of a commonly prescribed SU and a DPP-4 inhibitor.

The Effect of Linagliptin versus Metformin Treatment-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

There have been no studies directly comparing the effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors with that of metformin on treatment-related quality of life (QOL) when used as first-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This study is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter, parallel-group, comparative study. Forty-four participants who failed to achieve target glycemic control with diet and exercise therapy were randomly allocated to receive linagliptin or metformin therapy. We compared treatment-related QOL among the two groups using the Oral Hypoglycemic Agent Questionnaire, version 2 (OHA-Q version 2) and the self-administered Diabetes Therapy-Related QOL (DTR-QOL) questionnaire.

RESULTS

After randomization, 21 patients in the linagliptin group and 22 patients in the metformin treatment group were included in the full analysis set. Biochemical parameters, incidence of adverse effects, and rate of adherence to medication were comparable between the two groups. Over the 24-week treatment period, no significant differences in overall OHA-Q scores between the groups were observed, although the subscale 1 (treatment convenience) score was significantly higher in the linagliptin group than in the metformin group. The overall DTR-QOL score did not differ between the two groups; however, the DTR-QOL scores significantly improved after 24 weeks of linagliptin treatment, but not after metformin treatment.

CONCLUSION

We did not find significantly better treatment-related QOL with linagliptin among Japanese patients with T2DM. In terms of treatment convenience, our data showed that linagliptin was superior to metformin.

FUNDING

This study was financially supported by Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co., Ltd. and Eli Lilly and Company. The journal's article processing fees were covered by a research fund from Juntendo University.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000022953.

A Review on Cardiovascular Outcome Studies of Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a guidance for pharmaceutical industry defining preapproval and postapproval requirements for the demonstration of cardiovascular (CV) safety for all new medications developed for glycemic management in type 2 diabetes. However, results published from the studies of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are conflicting with regard to different CV endpoints. Upcoming CV outcome studies perhaps will be able to provide additional insights related to diabetes management and help to provide the answers to some of these concerns. This article provides a brief overview regarding how various CV safety evidence of DPP-4 inhibitor evolved over time that highlights possible implication in clinical practice and translates them into effective diabetes management.

Risk of heart failure hospitalization among users of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

Background

Incretin-based therapies including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are novel medications for type 2 diabetes management. Several studies have found cardioprotective effects of incretin-based therapies; however, it remains unclear whether there is any difference in heart failure (HF) risk between the two incretin-based therapies (DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists). We aimed to assess the risk of hospitalization due to HF with the use of DPP-4 inhibitors compared to GLP-1 receptor agonists.

Methods

Using Truven Health Marketscan data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with type 2 diabetes, who were newly initiated on DPP-4 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists. Follow-up continued from drug initiation until the first occurrence of: HF hospitalization (primary outcome), discontinuation of therapy (i.e. no fill for 7 days), switch to the comparator, end of enrollment, or end of study (December 2013). Cox proportional hazards models with propensity-score-matching were used to compare the risk of HF hospitalization between DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists.

Results

A total of 321,606 propensity score-matched patients were included in the analysis (n = 160,803 for DPP-4 inhibitors; n = 160,803 for GLP-1 agonists). After adjusting for baseline characteristics and disease risk factors, the use of DPP-4 inhibitors was associated with a 14% decreased risk of HF hospitalization compared to GLP-1 agonists use [hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 0.90]. The results were consistent in patients without baseline HF (HR, 0.85; 95% CI 0.82, 0.89), but the association was not statistically significant for patients with baseline HF (HR, 0.90; 95% CI 0.74, 1.07).

Conclusion

In this retrospective matched cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes, the use of DPP-4 inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of HF hospitalization compared to GLP-1 agonists. However, the association was not statistically significant in patients who had HF prior to the use of DPP-4 inhibitors.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12933-018-0746-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recent progress of the development of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Diabetes is a fast growing chronic metabolic disorder around the world. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) is a new promising target during type 2 diabetes glycemic control. Thus, a number of potent DPP-4 inhibitors were developed and play a rapidly evolving role in the management of type 2 diabetes in recent years. This article reviews the development of synthetic and natural DPP-4 inhibitors from 2012 to 2017 and provides their physico-chemical properties, biological activities against DPP-4 and selectivity over dipeptidyl peptidase-8/9. Moreover, the glucose-lowering mechanisms and the active site of DPP-4 are also discussed. We also discuss strategies and structure-activity relationships for identifying potent DPP-4 inhibitors, which will provide useful information for developing potent DPP-4 drugs as type 2 diabtes treatments.

The role of dipeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitors in management of cardiovascular disease in diabetes; focus on linagliptin

Multiple population based analyses have demonstrated a high incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality in subjects with T2DM that reduces life expectancy by as much as 15 years. Importantly, the CV system is particularly sensitive to the metabolic and immune derangements present in obese pre-diabetic and diabetic individuals; consequently, CV dysfunction is often the initial CV derangement to occur and promotes the progression to end organ/tissue damage in T2DM. Specifically, diabetic CVD can manifest as microvascular complications, such as nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy, as well as, macrovascular impairments, including ischemic heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, and cerebrovascular disease. Despite some progress in prevention and treatment of CVD, mainly via blood pressure and dyslipidemia control strategies, the impact of metabolic disease on CV outcomes is still a major challenge and persists in proportion to the epidemics of obesity and diabetes. There is abundant pre-clinical and clinical evidence implicating the DPP-4-incretin axis in CVD. In this regard, linagliptin is a unique DPP-4 inhibitor with both CV and renal safety profiles. Moreover, it exerts beneficial CV effects beyond glycemic control and beyond class effects. Linagliptin is protective for both macrovascular and microvascular complications of diabetes in preclinical models, as well as clinical models. Given the role of endothelial-immune cell interactions as one of the key events in the initiation and progression of CVD, linagliptin modulates these cell–cell interactions by affecting two important pathways involving stimulation of NO signaling and potent inhibition of a key immunoregulatory molecule.

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

INTRODUCTION

In the SAVOR-TIMI trial, the risk of heart failure (HF) was increased by 27% in T2D patients randomized to the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) saxagliptin. Other studies have provided inconsistent results regarding this association. Herein, we performed a pharmacovigilance analysis of the rate of HF associated with DPP4is, focusing on stimulated reporting and moderation by drug-drug interactions.

METHODS

We mined the FDA adverse event (AE) reporting system (FAERS) from 2004q1 to 2017q3, including a total of 9906,642 AE reports. Rates (/1000 reports) of HF within the reports for DPP4is and reports for other antidiabetic drugs were calculated for the period up to 2013q3 (date of publication of the SAVOR-TIMI trial results) and from 2013q4 to 2017q3. Analyses were refined by filtering according to therapeutic area, concomitant diseases and drugs, and competing AEs.

RESULTS

The rate of HF among the AE reports filed for DPP4is significantly increased after 2013q3, especially for saxagliptin. When compared to non-insulin non-glitazone antidiabetic drugs, the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) of HF for DPP4is was 0.62 (95% CI 0.56-0.68) up to 2013q3 and 2.12 (95% CI 1.96-2.28) from 2013q4 to 2017q3. This stimulated reporting was consistent in subanalyses based on the presence/absence of cardiac disorders and after controlling for competing AEs. The rate of HF among AE reports for DPP4is was modestly moderated by the concomitant use of metformin (- 15%) and strongly moderated by the concomitant use of SGLT2 inhibitors (- 63%), even after excluding competing AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the FAERS, the association between HF and DPP4is was biased by stimulated reporting, implying that the publication of the SAVOR-TIMI trial and the subsequent regulatory warnings primed clinicians to report HF events in DPP4i users as drug-related AEs. The rate of HF associated with DPP4is was moderated when they were used in combination with SGLT2 inhibitors.