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).