Key result
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were associated with a 13% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to sulfonylureas (aHR 0.87) and a similar risk compared to metformin.
Why the study?
Cardiovascular safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes without cardiovascular or renal disease, who are often excluded from clinical trials, is poorly understood.
Do dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors reduce major adverse cardiovascular events in patients aged 35-65 with type 2 diabetes without cardiovascular or renal disease compared to sulfonylureas or metformin?
Cohort (n=445,701)
Yes
Do dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors reduce major adverse cardiovascular events in patients aged 35-65 with type 2 diabetes without cardiovascular or renal disease compared to sulfonylureas or metformin?
Hazard Ratio: 0.87 (95% CI 0.78–0.98)
Absolute Event Rate: 21.45% vs 24.87%
In low-risk patients with type 2 diabetes, DPP-4i initiation is associated with a lower risk of MACE compared to sulfonylureas and a similar risk compared to metformin.
May suggest lower MACE risk with DPP-4i in low-risk T2DM; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitors (DPP-4i) in patients without cardiovascular or renal disease, a majority of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes often excluded from clinical trials on this association, is poorly understood. Thus, we investigate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) associated with DPP-4i in low-risk patients with diabetes. METHODS: Using a new-user retrospective cohort derived from IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters (2010-2015), we identified patients aged 35-65 with type 2 diabetes, without cardiovascular or renal disease, initiating DPP-4i, sulfonylureas, or metformin. Primary composite outcome of time to first MACE was defined as the first of any of the following: myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, coronary artery bypass graft, coronary angioplasty, heart failure, and stroke. Secondary outcomes were time to first heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke. We compared outcomes for DPP-4i versus sulfonylurea and DPP-4i versus metformin using propensity score weighted Cox proportional hazards, adjusting for demographics, baseline comorbidities, concomitant medications, and cumulative exposure. RESULTS: Of 445,701 individuals, 236,431 (53.0%) were male, median age was 51 (interquartile range: [44, 57]), 30,267 (6.79%) initiated DPP-4i, 52,138 (11.70%) initiated sulfonylureas, and 367,908 (82.55%) initiated metformin. After adjustment, DPP-4i was associated with lower risk of MACE than sulfonylurea (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.98), and similar risk to metformin (aHR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.18). Risk for acute myocardial infarction (aHR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.96), stroke (aHR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.79), and heart failure (aHR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.79) with DPP-4i was lower compared to sulfonylureas. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that for this cohort of low-risk patients newly treated for type 2 diabetes, DPP-4i exhibited 13% lower risk for MACE compared to sulfonylureas and similar risk for MACE compared to metformin, suggesting DPP-4i is a low cardiovascular risk option for low-risk patients initiating antihyperglycemic treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baksh et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Type 2 diabetes without cardiovascular or renal disease (n=445,701). Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) vs. Sulfonylureas and metformin was evaluated on Time to first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE: myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, coronary artery bypass graft, coronary angioplasty, heart failure, and stroke) (aHR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-0.98). Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors were associated with a 13% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to sulfonylureas (aHR 0.87) and a similar risk compared to metformin.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: