Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Gliptins 'have no effect' on cardiovascular outcomes

Gliptins do not have any impact on the risk of major cardiovascular events compared with placebo, say researchers.

In results described as ‘disappointing’, two large, placebo-controlled trials found the drugs did not impact on the risk of major CV events, with one of them suggesting additional caution may be needed over heart failure and severe hypoglycaemia.  

The trials – unveiled at the European Society of Cardiology and published in the New England Journal of Medicine this month– were primarily designed to satisfy a US Food and Drug Administration requirement for new diabetes drugs to undergo CVD safety studies, set up in the wake of controversies over rosiglitazone.

Both saxagliptin and alogliptin showed non-inferiority to placebo in terms of their effect on combined major CV endpoints.

The SAVOR-TIMI 53 (Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53) study included 16,492 patients with type 2 diabetes and either a history CVD or multiple CVD risk factors.

Over the two-year trial, similar numbers of patients assigned to saxagliptin and placebo (7.3% and 7.2%, respectively) experienced the primary endpoint, a composite of CV death, myocardial infarction (MI) and ischemic stroke.

However, there was a small but highly significant increase in the rate of hospitalisations with heart failure in the saxagliptin group, at 3.5% compared with 2.8% in the placebo group, equating to a 27% increased relative risk of this endpoint.

And hypoglycaemia was significantly more common with saxagliptin than placebo; although this was mainly due to minor events, the risk of major hypoglycaemic events requiring intervention was also statistically higher.

The authors concluded: ‘In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, the DPP-4 inhibitor saxagliptin neither reduced nor increased the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke, when added to the standard of care in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events, thus meeting the criterion for noninferiority to placebo but not providing any cardioprotective benefit.’

They added that the increased risk of hospitalisation from heart disease ‘merits further investigation’.

The other trial, the EXAMINE (Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Acute Coronary Syndrome) study, included 5,380 patients with a recent acute coronary event.

Over the median 18-month follow-up, there was again no difference between the alogliptin and placebo groups in terms of the primary combined endpoint, this time defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI or nonfatal stroke.

In this study, however, there was no increase in hypoglycaemic events. Neither saxagliptin nor alogliptin was associated with any increased risk of pancreatic adverse events – which have become the bugbear of the glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 type incretin mimetics.

NICE guidance currently recommends DPP-4 inhibitors as second- or third-line options for patients struggling to control glucose levels.

Dr Alan Begg, member of the SIGN guidelines steering committee and a GP in Montrose, told Pulse the findings were ‘disappointing’ and that GPs should be mindful of the potential heart failure hospitalisation risk.

He said: ‘The heart failure issue is important and needs further assessment – we all need to be aware of this potential problem. Overall the trials were disappointing in respect of not improving cardiovascular outcomes.

However, he added: ‘Improving glycaemic control is more important for microvascular disease.’

Dr Terry McCormack, editor of the British Journal of Cardiology and a GP in Whitby, said: ‘Basically these [trials] showed there was no evidence they were harmful in terms of cardiovascular outcomes such as MIs and strokes.

‘Yes there was a signal of more problems with heart failure, but that was always a problem with the glitazones. Also it’s difficult to know to be sure of this, because it depends how you diagnose heart failure.’

He added: ‘It was reassuring there was no signal for pancreatic cancer.’

This article was updated to reflect that the increase in heart failure hospitalisations was seen in the saxagliptin study, and not the other study

 

Readers' comments (4)

  • Diabetes is a cardiovascular disease. These drugs have now been shown to be without benefit - why continue to prescribe them?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Whilst this is interesting data, you really can't expect to see a positive effect from cardiovascular mortality in only two years. It took a 15 year study to demonstrate this benefit for metformin, and it has not been convincingly demonstrated for SUs or insulin. Remember, this was powered to be a non-inferiority trial to placebo i.e. checking the drugs didn't increase risks.

    The heart failure risk needs careful monitoring, but only longer term studies can tell us about potential benefits for cardiovascular disease (or the lack of them).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Not surprising that there was no benefit on cardiovascular risk as glycaemic control only helps microvascular rather than macrovacular complications . The only exception is metformin .
    Heart failure risk is another repeat of the story of glitazone perhaps. Otherwise , there was a sigh of relief for pancreatic complications .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Even the evidence for benefits of glycaemic control in microvascular disease barely reaches clinical significance.The NNT figures aren't impressive.We've got the wrong target

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say