Why the study?
Do dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors improve central systolic blood pressure and arterial stiffness in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?
Do dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors improve central systolic blood pressure and arterial stiffness in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?
In patients with type 2 diabetes, 12 weeks of treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors significantly improved central blood pressure, arterial stiffness, lipid profiles, and inflammation markers independently of glycemic control.
May support vascular benefits of DPP-4i beyond glycemia; leaves open causality and clinical relevance pending randomized data.
BACKGROUND: This uncontrolled open label study evaluated the effect of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i): sitagliptin and vildagliptin on augmentation index standardized for 75 beats per minute (cAiX@75), blood pressure (BP), lipid profile and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Fifty-one well-regulated T2DM patients were randomly assigned to either sitagliptin or vildagliptin (100 mg/day) for 3 months continuing their previous treatment. Lipid profile, cAiX@75, hsCRP, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were measured at baseline at 4, 8 and 12th week were accessed. cAiX@75 and pulse wave velocity (PWV) were determined by SphygmoCor device. RESULTS: Following DPP-4 treatment there was a significant reduction in total serum cholesterol (5.18 vs 4.62 mmol/L), low-density lipoprotein (2.89 vs 2.54 mmol/L), hsCRP (3.21 vs 1.95 mg/L), cAiX@75 (24.5 vs 22.3) and central systolic BP (131.8 vs 119.5 mmHg). The sitagliptin treated group reached cAiX@75 reduction earlier in the study period while neither sitagliptin or vildagliptin use resulted in the significant HbA1c reduction. CONCLUSION: The treatment with DPP-4i: sitagliptin and vildagliptin provides favorable metabolic and vascular effects beyond glucose-control. Further studies are required to elucidate their implication in metabolic pathways.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duvnjak et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: