Efficacy and safety of DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes: Meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for type 2 diabetes (T2D) recommend reducing HbA1c through lifestyle interventions and glucose-lowering drugs (metformin, then combination with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors [DPP-4Is] among other glucose-lowering drugs). However, no double-blind randomized clinical trial (RCT) compared with placebo has so far demonstrated that DDP-4Is reduce micro- and macrovascular complications in T2D. Moreover, the safety of DPP-4Is (with increased heart failure and acute pancreatitis) remains controversial. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature (PubMed, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL] and https://clinicaltrials.gov), including all RCTs vs placebo published up to May 2015 and the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS), published June 2015, was performed. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and death from cardiovascular causes; secondary endpoints were macrovascular and microvascular events. Safety endpoints were acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, serious adverse events and severe hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: A total of 36 double-blind RCTs were included, allowing analyses of 54,664 patients. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (RR=1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.95-1.12), cardiovascular mortality (RR=1.02, 95% CI=0.92-1.12), myocardial infarction (RR=0.98, 95% CI=0.89-1.08), strokes (RR=1.02, 95% CI=0.88-1.17), renal failure (RR=1.06, 95% CI=0.88-1.27), severe hypoglycaemia (RR=1.14, 95% CI=0.95-1.36) and pancreatic cancer (RR=0.54, 95% CI=0.28-1.04) with the use of DPP-4Is. However, DDP-4Is were associated with an increased risk of heart failure (RR=1.13, 95% CI=1.01-1.26) and of acute pancreatitis (RR=1.57, 95% CI=1.03-2.39). CONCLUSION: There is no significant evidence of short-term efficacy of DPP-4Is on either morbidity/mortality or macro-/microvascular complications in T2D. However, there are warning signs concerning heart failure and acute pancreatitis. This suggests a great need for additional relevant studies in future.

Is HbA1c a valid surrogate for macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes?

Recent recommendations regarding type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients' treatments have focused on personalizing glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) targets. Because the relationship between HbA1c and diabetes prognosis has been established from large prospective cohorts, it is valid to question the extrapolation from population-based risk reduction estimations to individual predictions. Our study aimed to investigate the relationship between HbA1c reductions and clinical outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), using a meta-regression approach. Included were RCTs comparing intensive vs. standard glucose-lowering regimens for cardiovascular events and microvascular complications in T2D patients. Eight studies (33,396 patients) providing data for HbA1c reductions were found. In our meta-regression, HbA1c decreases were not significantly associated with reductions in our main study outcomes: total and cardiovascular mortality. They were also not associated with any of the secondary endpoints, including myocardial infarction, stroke and severe hypoglycaemia. Sensitivity analysis showed a significant correlation only between HbA1c-lowering and severe hypoglycaemia (P = 0.014). Meta-regression analysis could find no significant association between HbA1c-lowering and a decrease in clinical outcomes, thereby questioning the use of HbA1c as a surrogate outcome for T2D-related complications. Thus, RCTs vs. placebo are urgently required to evaluate the risk-benefit ratios of therapeutic strategies beyond HbA1c control in T2D patients.