By Darren K. McGuire, M.D., M.H.Sc.
Distinguished Teaching Professor of Internal Medicine
Since
2008, the U.S. FDA and regulatory agencies around the world have required that
all medications being developed for glucose control in type 2 diabetes undergo
formal clinical trial evaluation to prove cardiovascular (CV) safety. This has
led to a series of international mega-trials over the past decade with the
primary focus of CV assessment of such medications. These trials have focused
primarily on three new classes of diabetes medications: the dipeptidyl
peptidase (DPP) 4 inhibitors (DPP4is); glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor
agonists (GLP1-RAs); and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is).
Four trials of four different GLP1-RAs (injectables) and four trials of three
different SGLT2is (tablets) have not only demonstrated CV safety but also
proved superiority versus placebo, each added to usual diabetes care, on
reducing risk for major adverse CV outcomes including CV death, myocardial
infarction (MI), stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure.
There
are four DPP4is approved for use in the U.S., each administered as a once-daily
tablet: sitagliptin, saxagliptin, alogliptin, and linagliptin. Three prior
trials with three different DPP4is demonstrated CV safety but not incremental
efficacy with saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and alogliptin. A major difference
across the results from these trials was that saxagliptin increased risk of
hospitalization for heart failure (hHF); alogliptin was associated with
numerical excess of hHF events that did not achieve statistical significance;
and sitagliptin had no effect on hHF. In this context, we analyzed hHF and
related outcomes for the fourth such DPP4i trial, known as CARMELINA
(Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin in
Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus).