Why the study?
Does dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor treatment improve all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure?
Does dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor treatment improve all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure?
DPP-4 inhibitors do not increase the risk of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes and heart failure, and may offer prognostic benefits specifically in those with preserved ejection fraction.
DPP-4i appear safe in DM with HF; leaves open possible HFpEF benefit pending randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Although experimental animal studies report many pleiotropic effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), their prognostic value has not been demonstrated in clinical trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 838 prospectively enrolled heart failure (HF) patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF, 79 treated with DPP-4i were compared with 79 propensity score-matched non-DPP-4i diabetes mellitus (DM) patients. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality; the secondary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and hospitalization. During follow-up (423±260 days), 8 patients (10.1%) in the DPP-4i group and 13 (16.5%) in the non-DPP-4i group died (log-rank, P=0.283). The DPP-4i group did not have a significantly higher rate of all-cause mortality (log-rank, P=0.283), or cardiovascular death or hospitalization (log-rank, P=0.425). In a subgroup analysis of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; n=75), the DPP-4i group had a significantly better prognosis than the non-DPP-4i group regarding the primary endpoint (log-rank, P=0.021) and a tendency to have better prognosis regarding the secondary endpoint (log-rank, P=0.119). In patients with HF with reduced EF (n=83), DPP-4i did not result in better prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: DPP-4i did not increase the risk of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with DM and HF. DPP-4i may be beneficial in HFpEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yamamoto et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: