Risk for Hospitalized Heart Failure Among New Users of Saxagliptin, Sitagliptin, and Other Antihyperglycemic Drugs (original) (raw)

Sitagliptin and heart failure hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes

Oncotarget, 2015

This study evaluated the risk of heart failure hospitalization in a 1:1 matched pair sample of sitagliptin ever and never users derived from the Taiwan's National Health Insurance. A total of 85,859 ever users and 85,859 never users matched on 8 digits of propensity score were followed for the first event of heart failure hospitalization until December 31, 2011. The treatment effect (forever versus never users, and for tertiles of cumulative duration of therapy) was estimated by Cox regression incorporated with the inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity score. Additionally, adjusted hazard ratios for heart failure were estimated for the baseline characteristics in sitagliptin ever users. Results showed that the incidence of heart failure hospitalization was 1,020.16 and 832.54 per 100,000 personyears, respectively, for ever and never users, with an overall hazard ratio (95% confidence intervals) of 1.262 (1.167-1.364). While compared to never users, the respective hazard ratio for the first, second, and third tertile of cumulative duration < 3.7, 3.7-10.3 and >10.3 months was 2.721 (2.449-3.023), 1.472 (1.318-1.645) and 0.515 (0.447-0.594). Older age, longer diabetes duration, male sex, and use of insulin, sulfonylurea, calcium channel blockers, aspirin, ticlopidine, clopidogrel and dipyridamole were significantly associated with a higher risk in sitagliptin users, but dyslipidemia and use of metformin and statin were protective. In conclusion, sitagliptin increases the risk of heart failure hospitalization within one year of its use, but reduces the risk thereafter. Some factors predisposing to sitagliptin-related heart failure are worthy of attention in clinical practice.

Sitagliptin Use in Patients With Diabetes and Heart Failure

JACC: Heart Failure, 2014

The study objective was to evaluate the effects of sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND There is uncertainty in the literature about whether dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors cause harm in patients with HF and T2D. METHODS We analyzed data from a national commercially insured U.S. claims database. Patients with incident HF were identified from individuals with T2D initially treated with metformin or sulfonylurea and followed over time. Subjects subsequently using sitagliptin were compared with those not using sitagliptin in the 90 days before our primary outcome of all-cause hospital admission or death using a nested case-control analysis after adjustment for demographics and clinical and laboratory data. HF-specific hospital admission or death also was assessed. RESULTS A total of 7,620 patients with diabetes and incident HF met our inclusion criteria. Mean (SD) age was 54 years (9), and 58% (3,180) were male. Overall, 887 patients (12%) were exposed to sitagliptin therapy (521 patient years of exposure) after incident HF. Our primary composite endpoint occurred in 4,137 patients (54%). After adjustment, sitagliptin users were not at an increased risk for the primary endpoint (7.

Prospective Postmarketing Surveillance of Acute Myocardial Infarction in New Users of Saxagliptin: A Population-Based Study

Diabetes Care, 2017

The cardiovascular safety of saxagliptin, a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor, compared with other antihyperglycemic treatments is not well understood. We prospectively examined the association between saxagliptin use and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We identified patients aged ‡18 years, starting from the approval date of saxagliptin in 2009 and continuing through August 2014, using data from 18 Mini-Sentinel data partners. We conducted seven sequential assessments comparing saxagliptin separately with sitagliptin, pioglitazone, second-generation sulfonylureas, and long-acting insulin, using disease risk score (DRS) stratification and propensity score (PS) matching to adjust for potential confounders. Sequential testing kept the overall chance of a false-positive signal below 0.05 (one-sided) for each pairwise comparison. RESULTS We identified 82,264 saxagliptin users and more than 1.5 times as many users of each comparator. At the end of surveillance, the DRS-stratified hazard ratios (HRs) (95% CI) were 1.08 (0.90-1.28) in the comparison with sitagliptin, 1.11 (0.87-1.42) with pioglitazone, 0.79 (0.64-0.98) with sulfonylureas, and 0.57 (0.46-0.70) with long-acting insulin. The corresponding PS-matched HRs were similar. Only one interim analysis of 168 analyses met criteria for a safety signal: the PS-matched saxagliptin-pioglitazone comparison from the fifth sequential analysis, which yielded an HR of 1.63 (1.12-2.37). This association diminished in subsequent analyses. CONCLUSIONS We did not find a higher AMI risk in saxagliptin users compared with users of other selected antihyperglycemic agents during the first 5 years after U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug. Saxagliptin is an antihyperglycemic drug of the dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor class approved in 2009. To better understand the cardiovascular profiles of new antihyperglycemic treatments, regulatory agencies now require more rigorous assessments of cardiovascular risks during the pre-and postmarketing phases of the drug approval process (1-3). The Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (SAVOR-TIMI 53) trial (4)

Heart failure, saxagliptin, and diabetes mellitus: observations from the SAVOR-TIMI 53 randomized trial

Circulation, 2014

Diabetes mellitus and heart failure frequently coexist. However, few diabetes mellitus trials have prospectively evaluated and adjudicated heart failure as an end point. A total of 16 492 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a history of, or at risk of, cardiovascular events were randomized to saxagliptin or placebo (mean follow-up, 2.1 years). The primary end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. Hospitalization for heart failure was a predefined component of the secondary end point. Baseline N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide was measured in 12 301 patients. More patients treated with saxagliptin (289, 3.5%) were hospitalized for heart failure compared with placebo (228, 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence intercal, 1.07-1.51; P=0.007). Corresponding rates at 12 months were 1.9% versus 1.3% (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.88; P=0.002), with no significant difference thereafter (time-varyin...

Association Between Sitagliptin Use and Heart Failure Hospitalization and Related Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

JAMA Cardiology, 2016

; for the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin (TECOS) Study Group IMPORTANCE Previous trial results have suggested that dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP4i) use might increase heart failure (HF) risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The DPP4i sitagliptin has been shown to be noninferior to placebo with regard to primary and secondary composite atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin (TECOS). OBJECTIVE To assess the association of sitagliptin use with hospitalization for HF (hHF) and related outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS TECOS was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the CV safety of sitagliptin vs placebo, each added to usual antihyperglycemic therapy and CV care among patients with T2DM and prevalent atherosclerotic vascular disease. The median follow-up was 2.9 years. The setting was 673 sites in 38 countries. Participants included 14 671 patients with T2DM and atherosclerotic vascular disease. The study dates were December 2008 through March 2015. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to sitagliptin vs placebo added to standard care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Prespecified secondary analyses compared the effect on hHF, hHF or CV death, and hHF or all-cause death composite outcomes overall and in prespecified subgroups. Supportive analyses included total hHF events (first plus recurrent) and post-hHF death. Meta-analyses evaluated DPP4i effects on hHF and on hHF or CV death. RESULTS Of 14 671 patients, 7332 were randomized to sitagliptin and 7339 to placebo. Hospitalization for HF occurred in 3.1% (n = 228) and 3.1% (n = 229) of the sitagliptin and placebo groups, respectively (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83-1.19). There was also no difference in total hHF events between the sitagliptin (n = 345) and placebo (n = 347) groups (unadjusted hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80-1.25). Post-hHF all-cause death was similar in the sitagliptin and placebo groups (29.8% vs 28.8%, respectively), as was CV death (22.4% vs 23.1%, respectively). No heterogeneity for the effect of sitagliptin on hHF was observed in subgroup analyses across 21 factors (P > .10 for all interactions). Meta-analysis of the hHF results from the 3 reported DPP4i CV outcomes trials revealed moderate heterogeneity (I 2 = 44.9, P = .16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Sitagliptin use does not affect the risk for hHF in T2DM, both overall and among high-risk patient subgroups. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00790205

Safety of saxagliptin: rationale for and design of a series of postmarketing observational studies

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2012

Purpose To describe the design and rationale of a series of postmarketing studies to examine the safety of saxagliptin, an oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, in real-world settings. Methods We are conducting a series of retrospective cohort studies using two UK (General Practice Research Database, and The Health Improvement Network) and two US (Medicare, HealthCore Integrated Research Database SM) data sources. The primary outcomes of interest will include (i) hospitalization with acute liver failure, (ii) hospitalization for acute kidney injury, (iii) hospitalization for severe hypersensitivity reactions, (iv) hospitalization for severe infections, (v) hospitalization with infections associated with T-lymphocyte dysfunction (i.e., herpes zoster, tuberculosis, or nontuberculous mycobacteria), and (vi) major cardiovascular events. Diagnosis codes for the outcomes of interest will be validated by medical record review within each data source. Projected use and estimated incidence rates of outcomes of interest suggest there will be at least 80% statistical power to detect a minimum hazard ratio of 1.5 for major cardiovascular events, 2.0 for acute kidney injury and severe infections, 2.4 for acute liver failure, and 4.0 for severe hypersensitivity reactions. Results Forthcoming. Conclusions This postmarketing safety assessment will provide important information regarding the safety of saxagliptin and could potentially identify important dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor class effects. The methods described may be useful to others planning similar evaluations.

Saxagliptin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate or Severe Renal Impairment: Observations From the SAVOR-TIMI 53 Trial

Diabetes Care, 2014

The glycemic management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and renal impairment is challenging, with few treatment options. We investigated the effect of saxagliptin in the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (SAVOR)-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 53 trial according to baseline renal function. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients with T2DM at risk for cardiovascular events were stratified as having normal or mildly impaired renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] >50 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ; n = 13,916), moderate renal impairment (eGFR 30-50 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ; n = 2,240), or severe renal impairment (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ; n = 336) and randomized to receive saxagliptin or placebo. The primary end point was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. RESULTS After a median duration of 2 years, saxagliptin neither increased nor decreased the risk of the primary and secondary composite end points compared with placebo, irrespective of renal function (all P for interactions ‡0.19). Overall, the risk of hospitalization for heart failure among the three eGFR groups of patients was 2.2% (referent), 7.4% (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.38 [95% CI 1.95-2.91], P < 0.001), and 13.0% (adjusted HR 4.59 [95% CI 3.28-6.28], P < 0.001), respectively. The relative risk of hospitalization for heart failure with saxagliptin was similar (P for interaction = 0.43) in patients with eGFR >50 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (HR 1.23 [95% CI 0.99-1.55]), eGFR 30-50 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (HR 1.46 [95% CI 1.07-2.00]), and in patients with eGFR <30 (HR 0.94 [95% CI 0.52-1.71]). Patients with renal impairment achieved reductions in microalbuminuria with saxagliptin (P = 0.041) that were similar to those of the overall trial population. CONCLUSIONS Saxagliptin did not affect the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events, increased the risk of heart failure hospitalization, and reduced progressive albuminuria, irrespective of baseline renal function.