DPP-4 inhibitors and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Expectations, observations and perspectives

•Cardiovascular disease (CVD) safety, if not a CVD benefit, is certainly required for all antidiabetic agents.•Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors are largely used in diabetes care and their potential impact on CVD should be known.•DPP-4 inhibitors showed favorable effects on CVD risk factors and intermediate endpoints but did not reduced major CVD events.•Most alternative antidiabetic agents do not possess a better and some have a worse CVD risk profile than DPP-4 inhibitors.•The selection of antidiabetic agents with the most favorable CVD profile is mandatory but still challenging in diabetes care.

AimsCardiovascular disease (CVD) is the greatest burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in terms of morbility, mortality and costs for individuals and societies. Therefore, its prevention is a major goal in diabetes care. Optimal treatment of hyperglycemia is certainly instrumental to CVD prevention. Optimal treatment means both establishing the most appropriate glycemic target for the given individual and selecting the medication(s) with the most favourable benefit/safety ratio. CVD safety, if not a clear CVD benefit, is certainly required for all antidiabetic agents.Dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are among the classes of antidiabetic agents most recently made available for diabetes care. A major question to be addressed is the effect of these compounds on CVD. Expectations were high for their mechanism of action, which targets also post-prandial glucose and minimize hypoglycemia risk, thereby providing a sort of global glucose control, and for some potentially beneficial extra-glycemic effects. This article reviews the existing literature on this issue.Data synthesisData published so far document that DPP-4 inhibitors have a wide spectrum of glycemic and extra-glycemic effects potentially reducing the risk of CVD as well as favourable effects on intermediate or surrogate CVD endpoints. These data heralded a better CVD outcome. Accordingly, pooling CVD safety data from phase 3 and 4 studies conducted with DPP-4 inhibitors suggested that their use might translate into a better CVD outcome. Data from three CVD outcome RCTs with alogliptin, saxagliptin and sitagliptin documented no harm but did not show any benefit on major CVD events. A modest but significant increased risk of hospitalization for heart failure was observed with saxagliptin and with alogliptin (only in subjects with no history of heart failure before randomization) but not with sitagliptin. A study currently in progress with linagliptin will provide further insights in the issue of CVD safety and benefit.ConclusionsIt should be considered that most alternative oral antidiabetic agents generally do not possess a better CVD risk profile than DPP-4 inhibitors and that some of them, indeed, should be used with caution because of potentially adverse effects on heart and vasculature. Overall, the selection of antidiabetic agent(s) with the most favourable CVD profile is mandatory but still challenging in diabetes care.