Key result
Early initiation of alogliptin did not significantly reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events compared to conventional treatment (HR 0.92) in patients with type 2 diabetes over a 520-week follow-up.
Why the study?
This study investigated whether early alogliptin initiation improved long-term cardiovascular outcomes in subjects with type 2 diabetes and no history of cardiovascular disease.
Does early initiation of alogliptin reduce major cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and no history of cardiovascular disease?
Cohort (n=302)
Open-label
Yes
Does early initiation of alogliptin reduce major cardiovascular events in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and no history of cardiovascular disease?
Hazard Ratio: 0.92 (95% CI 0.34–2.46)
Absolute Event Rate: 5.4% vs 5.9%
p-value: p=0.86
Early initiation of alogliptin did not significantly reduce long-term cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes, though the study was limited by a low event rate and high crossover to DPP-4 inhibitors in the control group.
We previously reported in the study of preventive effects of alogliptin on diabetic atherosclerosis (SPEAD-A) that alogliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, attenuated the progression of carotid atherosclerosis in subjects with type 2 diabetes and no history of cardiovascular disease. This extension study of the SPEAD-A trial investigated whether early alogliptin initiation improved long-term cardiovascular outcomes. The SPEAD-A trial randomized 341 subjects with type 2 diabetes to either alogliptin or conventional treatment to investigate the effects of alogliptin on atherosclerosis. All subjects who completed that trial were eligible for this prospective, observational cohort study. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of a major cardiovascular event, defined as death due to any cause, acute myocardial infarction, or stroke. During the 520-week follow-up period, composite primary outcome events occurred in only a few subjects in each group [8 (5.4%) in the alogliptin group and 9 in the conventional treatment group (5.9%)]. There were no significant differences in the incidence rate of the primary outcome between the two groups. Post hoc Poisson regression analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence rate of composite recurrence events for the same outcomes as the primary endpoint. On the other hand, this incidence rate was significantly lower in subjects who received DPP-4 inhibitors before an initial cardiovascular event than in those who did not (5.8 vs. 13.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively, p = 0.04). Early initiation of alogliptin was not associated with a reduced risk of composite cardiovascular disease, which could be attributed to fewer events and/or the addition of DPP-4 inhibitors during the follow-up period.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mita et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Type 2 diabetes (n=302). Alogliptin vs. Conventional treatment was evaluated on First occurrence of a major cardiovascular event (death due to any cause, acute myocardial infarction, or stroke) (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.46, p=0.86). Early initiation of alogliptin did not significantly reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events compared to conventional treatment (HR 0.92) in patients with type 2 diabetes over a 520-week follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: