Search

Introduction: Since 2008 United State (US) food drug administration mandate, several newer anti-diabetic drugs (ADD) have undergone a mandatory cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial (CVOT) in type diabetes (T2DM) patients with high CV risk. These includes CVOT done with dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RAs). Several double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled CVOT have been presented and published in the last decade (2008-2018). Aims and Objectives: We systematically searched the database of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018 using specific key words. Subsequently, we pooled the data of different cardiovascular endpoints and made a comparative forest plot using GraphPad software Inc. Prism Version 8, US. Results and Conclusion: Saxagliptin, alogliptin, sitagliptin and linagliptin are CV neutral drugs. Saxagliptin showed a significantly higher hospitalization due to heart failure (HHF). Empagliflozin and canagliflozin have shown a significant reduction in composite of 3-point major cardiac adverse events (3P-MACE). Additionally, empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin significantly reduced the HHF and the composite of CV death or HHF. Moreover, empagliflozin showed significant reduction in CV- and all-cause death in patients with T2DM with established CV disease. While both exendin-backbone-based GLP-1RAs such as lixisenatide and extended-release exenatide were CV neutral; GLP-1-backbone-based GLP-1RAs such as liraglutide, semaglutide and albiglutide shown a significant reduction in the composite of 3-P MACE. Additionally, liraglutide shown a significant reduction in CV- and all-cause death. Moreover, semaglutide reduced non-fatal stroke and albiglutide reduced myocardial infarction, while extended-release exenatide reduced all-cause death; however, P value of significance for these outcomes should be considered nominal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently reported cardiovascular outcome studies on empagliflozin (EMPA-REG) and liraglutide (LEADER) have spurred interest in this field of diabetology. This commentary compares and contrasts these studies with two equally important outcome trials conducted using blood pressure lowering agents. A comparison with MICROHOPE (using ramipril) and ADVANCE (using perindopril + indapamide) blood pressure arms throws up interesting facts. The degree of blood pressure lowering, dissociation between cardiovascular and cerebrovascular benefits, and discordance between renal and retinal outcomes are surprisingly similar in these trials, conducted using disparate molecules. The time taken to achieve such benefits is similar for all drugs except empagliflozin. Such discussion helps inform rational and evidence-based choice of therapy and forms the framework for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]