CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE AND DIABETES Diabetes Care Volume 39, May 2016 735 DPP-4 Inhibitors and Heart Kristian B. Filion and Samy Suissa Failure: Some Reassurance, Some Uncertainty Diabetes Care 2016;39:735–737 | DOI: 10.2337/dci15-0036 The American Diabetes Association’s or placebo (5) (Table 1). Patients ran- data across all three cardiovascular out- Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd domly assigned to saxagliptin unexpect- come trials results in an HR of 1.15 (95% 2016 recommends the use of dipeptidyl edly had a significantly higher risk of CI 0.98–1.34) (Fig. 1). peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in combina- hospitalization for HF (hazard ratio [HR] The safety signal raised by the SAVOR- tion with metformin as a second- or third- 1.27 [95% CI 1.07–1.51]), a prespecified TIMI 53 trial has led to several observa- line treatment for type 2 diabetes (1). component of the secondary composite tional studies that produced somewhat Owing to their relatively high costs, end point. This increased risk was clus- conflicting results (10–17). In this issue many jurisdictions restrict their use to tered in the first year of follow-up (HR of Diabetes Care, Fu et al. (18) report the patients whose glycemia remains poorly 1.46 [95% CI 1.15–1.88]) with no increase results of a retrospective cohort study controlled on metformin–sulfonylurea thereafter (6). that compared the risk of hospitalization combination therapy. By inhibiting DPP-4 The increased HF risk in SAVOR-TIMI for HF with DPP-4 inhibitors to that of activity, these agents increase postpran- 53 was not observed in subsequent tri- sulfonylureas and, in secondary analy- dial incretin concentrations, thereby in- als (Table 1). In the Examination of Car- ses, directly compared the HF risks of creasing insulin secretion and decreasing diovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin saxagliptin and sitagliptin. Exposure glucagon secretion (1). With intermediate versus Standard of Care (EXAMINE) trial, was defined using an as-treated ap- efficacy, a low risk of hypoglycemia, neu- 5,380 patients with type 2 diabetes proach, in which patients were censored tral effects on body weight, and relatively and a recent hospitalization for acute upon discontinuation of their cohort en- rare adverse effects (1), their use has in- coronary syndrome were randomly as- try therapy or switching to the other creased considerably since their 2006 en- signed to alogliptin (Nesina in the U.S. drug. Using propensity score matching, try into the U.S. market (2). Nevertheless, and Vipidia in Europe) or placebo (7). the authors found no evidence of an in- concerns remain regarding their potential Overall, alogliptin was not associated creased risk of hospitalization for HF with association with serious adverse effects with an increased risk of hospitalization DPP-4 inhibitors among patients with including acute pancreatitis (3), pancre- for HF (HR 1.19 [95% CI 0.90–1.58]), but CVD history at baseline (HR 0.95 [95% CI atic cancer (3), and heart failure (HF) (4). the risk differed among patients with 0.78–1.15]) and with no CVD history (HR The potential increased risk of HF (HR 1.00 [95% CI 0.71–1.42]) and with- 0.59 [95% CI 0.38–0.89]). Similarly, no dif- with DPP-4 inhibitors was reported in out (HR 1.76 [95% CI 1.07–2.90]) a his- ference was observed when comparing the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular tory of HF (P for interaction = 0.068) (8). saxagliptin to sitagliptin (HR 0.95 [95% Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Most recently, the Trial Evaluating Car- CI 0.70–1.28] and HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.56– Diabetes Mellitus–Thrombolysis in Myo- diovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin 1.75], respectively). cardial Infarction 53 (SAVOR-TIMI 53) (TECOS) randomized 14,671 patients to The study by Fu et al. (18) has several trial, which randomized 16,492 patients sitagliptin (Januvia) or placebo and ob- strengths. These include a large sample with type 2 diabetes and either a history served no difference in the risk of size of 218,556 patients and the use of of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple hospitalization for HF (adjusted HR propensity scores to minimize confound- CVD risk factors to saxagliptin (Onglyza) 1.00 [95% CI 0.83–1.20]) (9). Pooling ing. Furthermore, the head-to-head Center for Clinical Epidemiology, Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; and Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Corresponding author: Samy Suissa, [email protected]. ©2016 by the American Diabetes Association.Readersmay use this article as long as thework is properly cited, the useis educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See accompanying articles, pp. 664, 668, 677, 686, 694, 701, 709, 717, 726, and 738. 736 Commentary Diabetes Care Volume 39, May 2016 Table 1—Data from randomized placebo-controlled trials of DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of HF Hospitalization for HF Rate (no. per 100 PYs) Sample Median follow-up Study Year DPP-4 inhibitor Population size (years) DPP-4 inhibitor Placebo HR (95% CI) SAVOR-TIMI 2013, 2014 Saxagliptin CVD or multiple 16,492 2.1 1.71* 1.36* 1.27 (1.07–1.51) 53 (5,6) CVD risk factors EXAMINE (7,8) 2013, 2015 Alogliptin Post-ACS 5,380 1.5 2.69† 2.28† 1.19 (0.90–1.58) With history of HF 1,533 5.60† 5.85† 1.00 (0.71–1.42) With no history of HF 3,847 1.53† 0.86† 1.76 (1.07–2.90) TECOS (9) 2015 Sitagliptin CVD 14,671 3.0 1.07 1.09 1.00 (0.83–1.20)‡ ACS, acute coronary syndrome; PYs, person-years. *Estimated using the total person-years of follow-up reported for each group (16,884 for saxagliptin and 16,761 for placebo). †Estimated using the median duration of follow-up for the trial. ‡Adjusted for baseline history of HF. comparison of saxagliptin and sitagliptin light on this potential issue. In addition, There are several potential explana- represents an important addition to the despite matching on propensity score, tions for the discordance in data from literature particularly in light of the con- the potential for confounding remains, trials and observational studies regard- flicting trial evidence on this issue. In ad- particularly from formulary restrictions ing DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of HF. dition, given the inherent differences with DPP-4 inhibitors in place in many First, it is possible that the safety signal between patients who participate in jurisdictions, which can result in impor- observed in SAVOR-TIMI 53 (5,6) and clinical trials and those seen in everyday tant bias in pharmacoepidemiologic re- in the post hoc subgroup analyses of clinical practice (19,20), these data search (21). Finally, although the study EXAMINE (8) are chance findings due should provide some reassurance to restricted the cohort to new users of to multiple testing. Second, it is possible practicing clinicians and patients with the study drugs, the recommended ap- that the increased risk of HF is specificto type 2 diabetes. proach to avoid bias from the inclusion of saxagliptin, the DPP-4 inhibitor examined This study also has important limita- prevalent users (22), the exclusion of in SAVOR-TIMI 53. Although Fu et al. com- tions, many of which are acknowledged patients who previously used sulfonyl- pared the HF risks of saxagliptin and sita- by the authors. With a mean follow-up ureas can be highly restrictive, even gliptin, with a mean follow-up of 6 months, of only 6 months (median 3 months), the more so than many randomized trials. theiranalysis in patients with a history of duration of follow-up may have been in- This is a potential major limitation of CVD (the population studied in SAVOR- adequate to fully assess the HF risk of this approach; its scope can be far re- TIMI 53) was underpowered, as they DPP-4 inhibitors. Concerns regarding this moved from the real-world data expected only ruled out HRs above 1.75 (18). Fi- limitation are partially mitigated by the from such studies. Moreover, given the nally, the heterogeneity in comparators earlyriskidentified in SAVOR-TIMI 53 (6), progressive nature of type 2 diabetes and their corresponding HF risks must but it remains important in interpreting and its multistep treatment, the study be considered. All three trials were pla- these data. Informative censoring upon of antidiabetes drugs is a challenging cebo-controlled but encouraged the use discontinuation of study medication must area in pharmacoepidemiology that of nonstudy medications to maintain also be considered; the inclusion of an is particularly ripe for selection and glycemic control; differences in the dis- analysis analogous to an intention-to- time-related biases (23). Despite these tribution of use of these drugs (and treat approach where exposure is de- limitations, this study (18) joins several their HF risks) may explain some het- fined at cohort entry and patients are observational studies that have found no erogeneity in risk estimates. On the followed for a fixed duration of follow- evidence of an increased HF risk with other hand, many of the observational up (e.g., 6 or 12 months) could shed DPP-4 inhibitors (13–17). studies used sulfonylureas as the comparator, a drug class that has been associated with increased cardiovascu- lar risk (24). The observational study by Fu et al. (18) provides some welcome reassurance re- garding the HF risk of DPP-4 inhibitors.