This article provides commentary on the article by Zhang et al. In this original research, Zhang et al investigated the therapeutic potential of teneligliptin for diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM), which was mediated by targeting the NOD-like receptor protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome. Through the use of both in vivo and in vitro models, the study demonstrated that teneligliptin alleviates cardiac hypertrophy, reduces myocardial injury, and mitigates the inflammatory responses associated with DCM. These findings suggest that teneligliptin's cardioprotective effects are mediated through the inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome activation, positioning it as a promising therapeutic option for managing DCM in diabetic patients.

In this editorial, we comment on the article by Zhang et al. Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disorder associated with several complications like cardiomyopathy, neuropathy, and retinopathy. Diabetes prevalence is increasing worldwide. Multiple diabetes medications are prescribed based on individual patients' needs. However, the exact mechanisms by which many of these drugs exert their pro-tective effects remain unclear. Zhang et al elucidates molecular mechanisms undelaying cardioprotective effect of the dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitor, teneligliptin. Briefly, teneligliptin alleviates the activation of NOD-like receptor protein 3 inflammasome, a multiprotein complex that plays a pivotal role in regulating the innate immune system and inflammatory signaling. Suppression of NOD-like receptor protein 3 inflammasome activity reduces the expression of cytokines, oxygen radicals and inflammation. These findings highlight teneligliptin as an anti-diabetic cardioprotective reagent.

New antidiabetic therapy that includes sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors showed significant benefit on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus, and this was particularly confirmed for SGLT2 inhibitors in subjects with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Their role on patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is still not elucidated, but encouraging results coming from the clinical studies indicate their beneficial role. The role of GLP-1R agonists and particularly DPP-4 inhibitors is less clear and debatable. Findings from the meta-analyses are sending positive message about the use of GLP-1R agonists in HFrEF therapy and revealed the improvement of left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in HFpEF. Nevertheless, the relevant medical societies still consider their effect as neutral or insufficiently investigated in HF patients. The impact of DPP-4 inhibitors in HF is the most controversial due to conflicting data that range from negative impact and increased risk of hospitalization due to HF, throughout neutral effect, to beneficial influence on LV diastolic dysfunction. However, this is a very heterogeneous group of medications and some professional societies made clear discrepancy between saxagliptin that might increase risk of HF hospitalization and those DPP-4 inhibitors that have no effect on hospitalization. The aim of this review is to summarize current clinical evidence about the effect of new antidiabetic medications on LV diastolic function and their potential benefits in HFpEF patients.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD.

To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis.

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status.

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes.

Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope.

We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality.

Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.

The role of Saxagliptin in diabetes-associated cardiovascular complications is controversial. This study aimed to investigate whether Saxagliptin could prevent Isoproterenol-induced myocardial changes in diabetic rats and to identify the possible mechanism as well. The high-fat diet/low-dose Streptozotocin-induced type 2 diabetic rats were divided into 3 groups: the control group (0.25% CMC for 28 days), the Isoproterenol group (85 mg/kg Isoproterenol for the last 2 days plus 0.25% CMC for 28 days), and the treatment group (10 mg/kg Saxagliptin for 28 days plus 85 mg/kg Isoproterenol for the last 2 days). Hemodynamic measurements were performed, and samples were examined for RAGE and NF-κB expressions, histopathological and ultrastructural changes, AGEs level, myocardial injury markers, oxidative stress, and apoptosis. Saxagliptin significantly recovered cardiac function (p < .001), reverted myocardial injury and oxidative stress levels back to the control value (p < .05 to p < .001). Saxagliptin alleviates Isoproterenol-induced myocardial injury in diabetic rats by suppressing AGE-RAGE pathway.