{"title":"Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors and Risk of Heart Failure in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and End-Stage Renal Disease Requiring Dialysis.","authors":"Tzu-Han Lin, Tung-Ying Hung, Liang-Yu Lin, Tzu-Chieh Lin, Ying-Jay Liou, Yu-Juei Hsu, Meng-Ting Wang","doi":"10.1002/pds.70138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Evidence on the safety of antidiabetic agents in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients requiring dialysis, a group often excluded from randomized controlled trials, is scant. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), widely used for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management in this group, have raised concerns regarding the risk of heart failure (HF). However, real-world evidence on HF risk with DPP-4i in dialysis-dependent diabetic patients is limited. We aimed to assess HF safety of DPP-4i compared with sulfonylureas (SU)/meglitinides in a nationwide T2DM population with ESRD requiring dialysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A new user, active comparator cohort study employing propensity score-inverse probability of treatment weighting was conducted utilizing Taiwan's nationwide healthcare claims database (2012-2020). Evaluated outcomes included hospitalizations for HF or cardiovascular death as the primary outcome, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, and severe hypoglycemia as secondary outcomes, using weighted Cox proportional hazards models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 6882 patients initiating DPP-4i and 6174 starting SU/meglitinides, with a mean age of 66.4 years and 53.1% male. Initiation of DPP-4i versus SU/meglitinide was not associated with increased risks of HF hospitalizations, cardiovascular death, MACEs, or all-cause mortality, but was significantly tied to a 44% reduced risk of severe hypoglycemia.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study's findings indicate that in T2DM patients with ESRD requiring dialysis, DPP-4i do not elevate the risk of hospitalizations for HF, cardiovascular death, or all-cause mortality, but significantly lower the risk of severe hypoglycemia compared with SUs/meglitinides. This supports the preference for DPP-4i over SUs or meglitinides for managing T2DM in dialysis patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 4","pages":"e70138"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70138","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Evidence on the safety of antidiabetic agents in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients requiring dialysis, a group often excluded from randomized controlled trials, is scant. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), widely used for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management in this group, have raised concerns regarding the risk of heart failure (HF). However, real-world evidence on HF risk with DPP-4i in dialysis-dependent diabetic patients is limited. We aimed to assess HF safety of DPP-4i compared with sulfonylureas (SU)/meglitinides in a nationwide T2DM population with ESRD requiring dialysis.
Methods: A new user, active comparator cohort study employing propensity score-inverse probability of treatment weighting was conducted utilizing Taiwan's nationwide healthcare claims database (2012-2020). Evaluated outcomes included hospitalizations for HF or cardiovascular death as the primary outcome, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, and severe hypoglycemia as secondary outcomes, using weighted Cox proportional hazards models.
Results: The study included 6882 patients initiating DPP-4i and 6174 starting SU/meglitinides, with a mean age of 66.4 years and 53.1% male. Initiation of DPP-4i versus SU/meglitinide was not associated with increased risks of HF hospitalizations, cardiovascular death, MACEs, or all-cause mortality, but was significantly tied to a 44% reduced risk of severe hypoglycemia.
Conclusions: This study's findings indicate that in T2DM patients with ESRD requiring dialysis, DPP-4i do not elevate the risk of hospitalizations for HF, cardiovascular death, or all-cause mortality, but significantly lower the risk of severe hypoglycemia compared with SUs/meglitinides. This supports the preference for DPP-4i over SUs or meglitinides for managing T2DM in dialysis patients.
期刊介绍:
The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report.
Particular areas of interest include:
design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology;
comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world;
methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology;
assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy;
patterns of drug utilization;
relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines;
evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.