Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina

Clinical Science 

Impact of Systemic Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor Use in Diabetic Macular Edema

Ehsan Rahimy, MD; Keith Baker, MD; Desmond Thompson, PhD; Namrata Saroj, OD; On behalf of the VIVID and VISTA Study Investigators

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate impact of baseline systemic dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use in diabetic macular edema (DME).

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

This was a post hoc exploratory analysis of previously completed randomized, controlled clinical trials (VISTA and VIVID) in patients with DME evaluating intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI) every 4 weeks (2q4) or every 8 weeks (2q8) or macular laser photocoagulation.

RESULTS:

Overall, a small number of patients (12.2% [n = 35], 9.7% [n = 28], and 15.4% [n = 44]) in the laser control, 2q4, and 2q8 groups reported baseline DPP-4 inhibitor use. There were no differences in changes from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity, central subfield thickness, or rates of 2-or-greater-step improvement in Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale score based on DPP-4 inhibitor use within each treatment group.

CONCLUSION:

DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline did not influence the magnitude of visual and anatomic benefit in patients with DME being treated with IAI or laser.

[Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2020;51:226–234.]

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate impact of baseline systemic dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use in diabetic macular edema (DME).

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

This was a post hoc exploratory analysis of previously completed randomized, controlled clinical trials (VISTA and VIVID) in patients with DME evaluating intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI) every 4 weeks (2q4) or every 8 weeks (2q8) or macular laser photocoagulation.

RESULTS:

Overall, a small number of patients (12.2% [n = 35], 9.7% [n = 28], and 15.4% [n = 44]) in the laser control, 2q4, and 2q8 groups reported baseline DPP-4 inhibitor use. There were no differences in changes from baseline in best-corrected visual acuity, central subfield thickness, or rates of 2-or-greater-step improvement in Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale score based on DPP-4 inhibitor use within each treatment group.

CONCLUSION:

DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline did not influence the magnitude of visual and anatomic benefit in patients with DME being treated with IAI or laser.

[Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2020;51:226–234.]

Introduction

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are an emerging class of oral hypoglycemic agents increasingly being used in the treatment of diabetes. The primary function of DPP-4 is to enzymatically degrade peripheral incretin hormones, such as glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 and gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP).1,2 Thus, suppression of this enzyme helps regulate blood glucose levels by increasing circulating incretin levels, promoting insulin secretion from the pancreatic β cells and suppressing glucagon secretion from the αcells.1,2

DPP-4 inhibitors have been demonstrated to be highly effective in lowering hemoglobin A1c levels, either as monotherapy or in combination therapy.1–3 Furthermore, several large cardiovascular outcome trials have established their protective effect on major adverse cardiac events in type 2 diabetics with an established cardiovascular risk profile.4–6 The impact of this medication class on systemic microvascular complications, however, is less well understood. Limited, but growing evidence recently has suggested that systemic DPP-4 inhibitor use may be protective against the development or progression of diabetic retinopathy (DR) independent of its glucose-lowering effects.7–9

These studies did not control for the possible effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on therapies used to treat DR and/or diabetic macular edema (DME), such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors and laser photocoagulation. Here, we conducted a post hoc analysis to evaluate whether patients with DME taking systemic DPP-4 inhibitors differed in baseline characteristics as well as if there was a protective effect on treatment outcomes in the VISTA and VIVID studies, two large phase 3 studies evaluating intravitreal aflibercept injection (IAI) (Eylea; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, NY).

Patients and Methods

Study Design

This was a post hoc exploratory analysis of previously completed prospective phase 3 clinical trials, VISTA (NCT01363440) and VIVID (NCT01331681). Both trials were similarly designed, randomized, double-masked, and active controlled and followed patients for 148 weeks. Each clinical site's respective institutional review board/ethics committee approved the study. All patients provided written informed consent prior to the enrollment. The studies were conducted in compliance with the International Conference on Harmonization guidelines and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.10,11

Study design and patient eligibility for VISTA and VIVID have been described previously by Korobelink et al.12 Briefly, eligible patients were adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus who presented with central involved DME (defined as retinal thickening involving the central 1 mm, measured by spectral-domain optical coherence tomography central subfield thickness [CST]). Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the study eye was required to be between 73 and 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters (approximately 20/40 to 20/320 Snellen equivalent). Only one eye per patient was eligible for enrollment. Eyes were randomized 1:1:1 to receive IAI 2 mg every 4 weeks (2q4), IAI 2 mg every 8 weeks after five initial monthly doses (2q8), or macular laser photocoagulation at baseline and at visits in which patients met any of the laser retreatment criteria (laser control group). Study eyes in all treatment groups were assessed for laser retreatment if criteria were met beginning of Week 12.13 If criteria were met, study eyes in the 2q4 and 2q8 groups received sham laser and those in the laser control group received active laser, no more frequently than every 12 weeks.

Beginning at Week 24, study eyes in all treatment groups were assessed for additional “rescue” treatment based on protocol-defined criteria.13 Rescue treatment for study eyes enrolled in the 2q4 and 2q8 groups was active laser, and study eyes that were enrolled in the laser control group received five doses of 2 mg IAI every 4 weeks followed by dosing every 8 weeks.12,13

Outcome Measures

This post hoc analysis evaluated the impact of baseline use of systemic DPP-4 inhibitors on baseline characteristics and improvements in BCVA, CST, and Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) score through Week 100.

Statistical Methods

The analysis integrated data from VISTA and VIVID. The combined population was assigned to one of two subgroups, +DPP-4 inhibitor or –DPP-4 inhibitor, based on the status of reported DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline, respectively. A list of DPP-4 inhibitors included in this analysis are listed in Table 1. Visual and anatomic outcomes were analyzed within each treatment group (2q4, 2q8, and laser control) every 4 weeks through Week 100. In patients receiving rescue treatment, data were censored from the time rescue treatment was given, and the last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was used to impute missing data. In this post hoc analysis, BCVA and CST were analyzed using one-way analysis of covariance. Odds ratios and Chi-squared tests were used to assess the association between DRSS improvement and subgroups. Confidence intervals (CIs) and P values were calculated based on the subgroup difference [+DPP-4 vs –DPP-4] within each treatment group of the least squares (LS) mean change. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

DPP-4 Inhibitors Included in Analysis

Table 1:

DPP-4 Inhibitors Included in Analysis

Results

Demographic and Baseline Characteristics

Of 865 eyes randomized and treated in VISTA and VIVID, 862 were included in this integrated post hoc analysis. Three eyes were excluded because of the lack of a post-baseline BCVA assessment. Overall, 12.2% (n = 35), 9.7% (n = 28), and 15.4% (n = 44) of patients in the laser control, 2q4, and 2q8 groups, respectively, reported DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline (Figure 1). A small number of patients who were not using a DPP-4 inhibitor at baseline initiated DPP-4 therapy during the study: 15 (6.0%) in the laser control, nine (3.4%) in the 2q4 group, and 17 (7.0%) in the 2q8 group.

Proportion of patients by reported dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use at baseline. 2q4 = intravitreal aflibercept injection, 2 mg every 4 weeks; 2q8 = intravitreal aflibercept injection, 2 mg every 8 weeks after five initial monthly doses.

Figure 1.

Proportion of patients by reported dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use at baseline. 2q4 = intravitreal aflibercept injection, 2 mg every 4 weeks; 2q8 = intravitreal aflibercept injection, 2 mg every 8 weeks after five initial monthly doses.

Baseline characteristics by baseline DPP-4 inhibitor use are summarized in Table 2 and were similar across treatment groups and DPP-4 inhibitor subgroups. In the +DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup, baseline mean BCVA was 62.3, 59.5, and 62.0 letters in the laser control, 2q4, and 2q8 groups, respectively. These results were similar to those observed for eyes in the –DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup with 60.0, 59.8, and 58.6 letters in the laser control, 2q4, and 2q8 groups, respectively. In addition, eyes in both DPP-4 inhibitor subgroups had similar CST and DR severity at baseline.

Baseline Characteristics of Each Treatment Group Based on Reported DPP-4 Inhibitor Use at Baseline

Table 2:

Baseline Characteristics of Each Treatment Group Based on Reported DPP-4 Inhibitor Use at Baseline

Impact of Baseline DPP-4 Inhibitor Use on Treatment Outcomes

Visual Acuity: In the +DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup, the mean changes from baseline BCVA in the laser control, 2q4, and 2q8 groups at Week 100 were 1.1, 13.4, and 9.7 letters, respectively. Similarly, for eyes in the –DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup, the mean changes from baseline BCVA at Week 100 were 0.7, 11.3, and 10.4 letters in the laser control, 2q4, and 2q8 groups, respectively (Figure 2A). Comparing BCVA outcomes after adjusting by differences in baseline values per treatment group, no differences in LS mean BCVA change were observed within each treatment group at Weeks 52 and 100 when comparing eyes in the +DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup with eyes in the –DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup (Figure 2B).

Visual outcome by reported dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use at baseline. (A) Mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement through 100 weeks by reported DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline. (B) Difference (–DPP-4 inhibitor versus +DPP-4 inhibitor) in BCVA change at Weeks 52 and 100 by DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline. Missing data were imputed using last observation carried forward. 2q4 = intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 4 weeks; 2q8 = intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 8 weeks after five initial monthly doses; CI = confidence interval; ETDRS = Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study; LS = least square

Figure 2.

Visual outcome by reported dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use at baseline. (A) Mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement through 100 weeks by reported DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline. (B) Difference (–DPP-4 inhibitor versus +DPP-4 inhibitor) in BCVA change at Weeks 52 and 100 by DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline. Missing data were imputed using last observation carried forward. 2q4 = intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 4 weeks; 2q8 = intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 8 weeks after five initial monthly doses; CI = confidence interval; ETDRS = Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study; LS = least square

Central Subfield Thickness: In the +DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup, mean CST changes from baseline in the laser control, 2q4, and 2q8 groups at Week 100 were −81.2, −220.7, and −195.1 μm, respectively. Corresponding CST changes from baseline for eyes in the –DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup were −85.2, −198.9, and −193.0 μm, respectively (Figure 3A). No difference in LS mean CST change was observed within each treatment group at Weeks 52 and 100 when comparing eyes in the +DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup with eyes in the –DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup (Figure 3B).

Central subfield thickness (CST) outcome by reported dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use at baseline. (A) Mean CST reduction through 100 Weeks by reported DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline. (B) Difference in least square mean (95% CI) change in CST at Weeks 52 (top) and 100 (bottom) in –DPP-4 inhibitor versus +DPP-4 inhibitor subgroups. Missing data were imputed using last observation carried forward. 2q4 = intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 4 weeks; 2q8 = intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 8 weeks after five initial monthly doses; CI = confidence interval

Figure 3.

Central subfield thickness (CST) outcome by reported dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use at baseline. (A) Mean CST reduction through 100 Weeks by reported DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline. (B) Difference in least square mean (95% CI) change in CST at Weeks 52 (top) and 100 (bottom) in –DPP-4 inhibitor versus +DPP-4 inhibitor subgroups. Missing data were imputed using last observation carried forward. 2q4 = intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 4 weeks; 2q8 = intravitreal aflibercept injection 2 mg every 8 weeks after five initial monthly doses; CI = confidence interval

Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Score

The proportion of eyes with a 2-or-greater-step DRSS score improvement are summarized in Figure 4A. In the +DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup, 19%, 38%, and 29% of eyes in the laser control, 2q4, and 2q8 groups, respectively, demonstrated a 2-or-greater-step improvement from baseline in DRSS score at Week 52. The corresponding outcomes for the –DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup were 12%, 36%, and 30%, respectively. The proportions of eyes in the +DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup with a 2-or-greater-step improvement from baseline in DRSS score at Week 100 were 19%, 44%, and 40%, respectively, in the laser control, 2q4, and 2q8 groups (Figure 4A). Corresponding proportions of eyes in the –DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup were 13%, 35%, and 36%, respectively. Although the odds of having a 2-or-more-step improvement in DRSS score were not significantly different between the DPP-4 inhibitor subgroups within each treatment group at Week 52 or 100 (Figure 4B), it should be noted that a larger proportion of eyes experienced an improvement in DRSS score in the IAI treatment groups from Week 52 to 100 in the +DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup, but not the –DPP-4 inhibitor subgroup.

Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) score improvement by reported dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use at baseline. Proportion of eyes with a 2-or-greater-step DRSS score improvement at Weeks 52 and 100 in +DPP-4 (A) or –DPP-4 (B) inhibitor subgroups. (C) Odds ratio (–DPP-4 inhibitor versus +DPP-4 inhibitor) for a 2-or-greater-step improvement in DRSS score at Weeks 52 and 100 by DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline. Missing data were imputed using last observation carried forward. 2q4 = intravitreal aflibercept injection, 2 mg every 4 weeks; 2q8 = intravitreal aflibercept injection, 2 mg every 8 weeks after five initial monthly doses; CI = confidence interval; SD = standard deviation

Figure 4.

Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (DRSS) score improvement by reported dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor use at baseline. Proportion of eyes with a 2-or-greater-step DRSS score improvement at Weeks 52 and 100 in +DPP-4 (A) or –DPP-4 (B) inhibitor subgroups. (C) Odds ratio (–DPP-4 inhibitor versus +DPP-4 inhibitor) for a 2-or-greater-step improvement in DRSS score at Weeks 52 and 100 by DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline. Missing data were imputed using last observation carried forward. 2q4 = intravitreal aflibercept injection, 2 mg every 4 weeks; 2q8 = intravitreal aflibercept injection, 2 mg every 8 weeks after five initial monthly doses; CI = confidence interval; SD = standard deviation

Discussion

Intensive glycemic control has been well established as a method of mitigating the negative effects of type 1 and type 2 diabetes on both the microvasculature and macrovasculature.14,15 Although DPP-4 inhibitors are known to improve glycemic control in diabetes in general, their specific influence on microvascular tissues, such as the retina, remains the subject of ongoing research. This post hoc analysis of VISTA and VIVID demonstrated that baseline characteristics and functional and anatomical treatment outcomes, did not appear to differ significantly between patients who were or were not using a DPP-4 inhibitor at baseline. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate whether there is a correlation between concomitant use of DPP-4 inhibitors and DME outcomes with anti-VEGF treatment; prior investigations have focused on the presence/absence or level of severity of DR.7–9

Earlier studies suggested that DPP-4 inhibitors may exacerbate, rather than improve, DR. In a murine model of DR, Lee et al. observed that DPP-4 inhibitors increased retinal vascular leakage through activation of the stromal cell-derived factor-1β (SDF-1α)–Src-family tyrosine kinase–vascular endothelial (VE)-cadherin signaling pathway, known to be increased in proliferative DR.16,17 Animals overexpressing SDF-1β were shown to be more prone to developing neovascularization in ischemic tissues.18 Separately, in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) evaluating 14,671 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, the incidence of DR increased by 21.4% in the DPP-4 arm compared with placebo.6

More recent experimental studies have suggested a protective effect of the DPP-4 inhibitor class on DR. Goncalves et al. demonstrated that the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin ameliorated retinal endothelial cell dysfunction triggered by the proinflammatory cytokine TNFβ in vitro.19 Similarly, DPP-4 suppression reduced blood–retinal barrier breakdown, inflammation, and neuronal cell death in animal models of type 1 and type 2 diabetes.20,21 Dietrich et al. observed that a different DPP-4 inhibitor, linagliptin, exhibited a protective effect on the diabetic retinal vasculature in an experimental rat model, which they concluded was due to a combination of neuroprotective and antioxidative effects of the agent.22 One proposed mechanism is through the upregulation of GLP-1, which has been shown to block the overproduction of reactive oxygen species and downstream proinflammatory cytokines by endothelial cells exposed to hyperglycemic conditions.23 In diabetic animal models, GLP-1 promotes antioxidative effects on the vasculature, reducing cellular apoptosis and increasing cell survival.24,25 Intravitreal injection of GLP-1 in diabetic rats has also been shown to transiently improve neuronal function and reduce glutamate toxicity.26 In addition, in a mouse model of oxygen induced retinopathy, Kolibabka et al. showed that linagliptin exerted anti-angiogenic effects through the inhibition of VEGF receptor signalling.27

A limited number of large clinical studies confirmed the positive experimental findings in patients with diabetes. Ott et al. conducted a double-blind, controlled, cross-over trial of 50 patients with type 2 diabetes without clinical signs of microvascular disease, who were randomized to receive 5 mg saxagliptin or placebo for a 6-week study period.7 Retinal arteriolar structure and retinal capillary flow at baseline and during flicker-light exposure were measured and after 6 weeks, the vasodilatory capacity had increased two-fold with saxagliptin treatment, implying improved retinal circulation with DPP-4 therapy. Chung et al. retrospectively reviewed 82 patients with type 2 diabetes, investigating associations between baseline risk factors and progression of DR.8 The investigators found that treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors was the only independent protective factor against the progression of DR, aside from improving glycemic control. A comparison by Kolaczynski et al. of microvascular outcomes between vildagliptin and a traditional sulfonylurea found that treatment with vildagliptin was associated with a significantly lower incidence of DR.9

The above-mentioned studies provided the rationale to conduct this post hoc analysis of the VISTA and VIVID population; however, the hypothesis of a beneficial effect of DPP-4 agents on DR progression was not confirmed. DPP-4 inhibitors also did not increase leakage in eyes with DME. Our results are consistent with a population-based study in Korea by Kim et al., who reported that during a median follow-up of 28.4 months, DPP-4 inhibitor use at any time was not found to be associated with either beneficial or negative effects on the risk of composite DR events as compared with no prior use.28 Interestingly, a subanalysis did suggest that during the first year of DPP-4 inhibitor therapy (treatment < 12 months), there was a greater risk of DR events compared with other glucose-lowering agents over the same period.28

The relatively low number of patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors in VISTA and VIVID (9.7% to 15.4%) was notable given how prevalent their use is currently in the management of diabetes. The first agent of the class to obtain U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval was sitagliptin (Januvia; Merck, Kenilworth, NJ) in 2006; however, the subsequent members to gain marketing approval became available either during or towards the conclusion of the VISTA/VIVID study period (2011–2014). This could help to explain the low number of patients we observed using this medication class in these studies. It would be interesting to investigate baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes with concurrent DPP-4 inhibitor use from a more recent DR clinical trial. Alternatively, it cannot be ruled out that patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors may be less prone to develop visual impairment due to DME, which was the major eligibility criterion in VIVID and VISTA.

There are additional limitations to this study. First, as with any post hoc analysis, interpretation of these data is inherently limited. Second, we are unable to ascertain whether any potential impact of concurrent DPP-4 inhibitor use is generalizable to the entire therapy class, or whether effects may be directly attributable to a specific agent as some of the other reported studies discussed here have suggested. Finally, the impact of duration of DPP-4 treatment could not be analyzed. Self-reporting at the time of enrollment was dependent on patients among those using DPP-4 medications.

The strength of the post hoc analysis lies in the dataset acquired from two large, prospective, randomized clinical trials with fixed dosing. Masked personnel measured BCVA and anatomic parameters were graded by masked reading centers.

In summary, DPP-4 inhibitor use at baseline in VISTA and VIVID did not appear to influence the degree of visual gain, anatomical benefit as evidenced by CST reduction, or 2-or-greater-step improvement in DRSS scores in patients with DME treated with IAI or laser control through Week 100. The results of this study help strengthen the limited but growing body of literature regarding the interaction between DPP-4 inhibitors and microvascular complications of diabetes, such as DR. Further investigations are required to help better elucidate whether this class of medication does indeed exert a protective effect on DR progression.

References

  1. Deacon CF, Holst JJ. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: comparison, efficacy and safety. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2013;14(15):2047–2058. doi:10.1517/14656566.2013.824966 [CrossRef] PMID:23919507
  2. Bae EJ. DPP-4 inhibitors in diabetic complications: role of DPP-4 beyond glucose control. Arch Pharm Res. 2016;39(8):1114–1128. doi:10.1007/s12272-016-0813-x [CrossRef] PMID:27502601
  3. Mishriky BM, Cummings DM, Tanenberg RJ. The efficacy and safety of DPP4 inhibitors compared to sulfonylureas as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2015;109(2):378–388. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2015.05.025 [CrossRef] PMID:26059071
  4. Scirica BM, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E, et al. SAVOR-TIMI 53 Steering Committee and Investigators. Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(14):1317–1326. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1307684 [CrossRef] PMID:23992601
  5. White WB, Cannon CP, Heller SR, et al. EXAMINE Investigators. Alogliptin after acute coronary syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(14):1327–1335. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1305889 [CrossRef] PMID:23992602
  6. Green JB, Bethel MA, Armstrong PW, et al. TECOS Study Group. Effect of sitagliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(3):232–242. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1501352 [CrossRef] PMID:26052984
  7. Ott C, Raff U, Schmidt S, et al. Effects of saxagliptin on early microvascular changes in patients with type 2 diabetes. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2014;13(1):19. doi:10.1186/1475-2840-13-19 [CrossRef] PMID:24423149
  8. Chung YR, Park SW, Kim JW, Kim JH, Lee K. Protective effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on progression of diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Retina. 2016;36(12):2357–2363. doi:10.1097/IAE.0000000000001098 [CrossRef] PMID:27285457
  9. Kolaczynski WM, Hankins M, Ong SH, Richter H, Clemens A, Toussi M. Microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with vildagliptin vs. sulfonylurea: a retrospective study using German electronic medical records. Diabetes Ther. 2016;7(3):483–496. doi:10.1007/s13300-016-0177-8 [CrossRef] PMID:27262995
  10. ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline. Guideline for good clinical practice; 1996. http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/efficacy/article/efficacy-guidelines.html. Accessed August 28, 2019.
  11. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The Privacy Act. https://www.hhs.gov/foia/privacy/index.html. Accessed August 28, 2019.
  12. Korobelnik JF, Do DV, Schmidt-Erfurth U, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept for diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(11):2247–2254. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2014.05.006 [CrossRef] PMID:25012934
  13. Brown DM, Schmidt-Erfurth U, Do DV, et al. Intravitreal aflibercept for diabetic macular edema: 100-week results from the VISTA and VIVID studies. Ophthalmology. 2015;122(10):2044–2052. doi:10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.06.017 [CrossRef] PMID:26198808
  14. Lachin JM, Genuth S, Cleary P, Davis MD, Nathan DMDiabetes Control and Complications Trial/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications Research Group. Retinopathy and nephropathy in patients with type 1 diabetes four years after a trial of intensive therapy. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(6):381–389. doi:10.1056/NEJM200002103420603 [CrossRef] PMID:10666428
  15. Chew EY, Ambrosius WT, Davis MD, et al. ACCORD Eye Study Group. Effects of medical therapies on retinopathy progression in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(3):233–244. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1001288 [CrossRef] PMID:20587587
  16. Lee CS, Kim YG, Cho HJ, et al. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor increases vascular leakage in retina through VE-cadherin phosphorylation. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):29393. doi:10.1038/srep29393 [CrossRef] PMID:27381080
  17. Butler JM, Guthrie SM, Koc M, et al. SDF-1 is both necessary and sufficient to promote proliferative retinopathy. J Clin Invest. 2005;115(1):86–93. doi:10.1172/JCI22869 [CrossRef] PMID:15630447
  18. Deshane J, Chen S, Caballero S, et al. Stromal cell-derived factor 1 promotes angiogenesis via a heme oxygenase 1-dependent mechanism. J Exp Med. 2007;204(3):605–618. doi:10.1084/jem.20061609 [CrossRef] PMID:17339405
  19. Gonçalves A, Almeida L, Silva AP, et al. The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor sitagliptin ameliorates retinal endothelial cell dysfunction triggered by inflammation. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018;102:833–838. doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2018.03.144 [CrossRef] PMID:29605771
  20. Gonçalves A, Marques C, Leal E, et al. Dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibition prevents blood-retinal barrier breakdown, inflammation and neuronal cell death in the retina of type 1 diabetic rats. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1842(9):1454–1463. doi:10.1016/j.bbadis.2014.04.013 [CrossRef] PMID:24769045
  21. Gonçalves A, Leal E, Paiva A, et al. Protective effects of the dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor sitagliptin in the blood-retinal barrier in a type 2 diabetes animal model. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012;14(5):454–463. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1326.2011.01548.x [CrossRef] PMID:22151893
  22. Dietrich N, Kolibabka M, Busch S, et al. The DPP4 inhibitor linagliptin protects from experimental diabetic retinopathy. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0167853. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0167853 [CrossRef] PMID:27942008
  23. Ishibashi Y, Matsui T, Takeuchi M, Yamagishi S. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) inhibits advanced glycation end product (AGE)-induced up-regulation of VCAM-1 mRNA levels in endothelial cells by suppressing AGE receptor (RAGE) expression. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2010;391(3):1405–1408. doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.12.075 [CrossRef] PMID:20026306
  24. Oeseburg H, de Boer RA, Buikema H, van der Harst P, van Gilst WH, Silljé HH. Glucagon-like peptide 1 prevents reactive oxygen species-induced endothelial cell senescence through the activation of protein kinase A. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2010;30(7):1407–1414. doi:10.1161/ATVBAHA.110.206425 [CrossRef] PMID:20448207
  25. Noyan-Ashraf MH, Momen MA, Ban K, et al. GLP-1R agonist liraglutide activates cytoprotective pathways and improves outcomes after experimental myocardial infarction in mice. Diabetes. 2009;58(4):975–983. doi:10.2337/db08-1193 [CrossRef] PMID:19151200
  26. Zhang Y, Zhang J, Wang Q, et al. Intravitreal injection of exendin-4 analogue protects retinal cells in early diabetic rats. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011;52(1):278–285. doi:10.1167/iovs.09-4727 [CrossRef] PMID:20688733
  27. Kolibabka M, Dietrich N, Klein T, Hammes HP. Anti-angiogenic effects of the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin via inhibition of VEGFR signalling in the mouse model of oxygen-induced retinopathy. Diabetologia. 2018;61(11):2412–2421. doi:10.1007/s00125-018-4701-4 [CrossRef] PMID:30097694
  28. Kim NH, Choi J, Kim NH, et al. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor use and risk of diabetic retinopathy: A population-based study. Diabetes Metab. 2018;44(4):361–367. doi:10.1016/j.diabet.2018.03.004 [CrossRef] PMID:29752167

DPP-4 Inhibitors Included in Analysis

Januvia (sitagliptin)
Onglyza (saxagliptin)
Tradjenta (linagliptin)
Nesina (alogliptin)
Janumet (combination of sitagliptin and metformin)
Jentadueto (combination of linagliptin and metformin)
Kazano (combination of alogliptin and metformin)
Komboglyze (combination of saxagliptin and metformin)
Oseni (combination of alogliptin and pioglitazone)
Juvisync (combination of sitagliptin and simvastatin)

Baseline Characteristics of Each Treatment Group Based on Reported DPP-4 Inhibitor Use at Baseline

+DPP-4 Inhibitor−DPP-4 Inhibitor

Laser Control (n = 35)2q4 (n = 28)2q8 (n = 44)Laser Control (n = 251)2q4 (n = 262)2q8 (n = 242)
BCVA, ETDRS Letters, Mean (SD)62.3 (9.6)59.5 (10.9)62.0 (8.4)60.0 (10.9)59.8 (10.8)58.6 (11.4)

CST, μm, Mean (SD)502.5 (117.9)507.8 (146.7)476.6 (117.8)510.7 (159.7)491.6 (151.2)501.4 (157.2)

DRSS Score, n (%)
  Low risk (DRSS ≤ 43)11 (31.4)11 (39.3)17 (38.6)97 (38.6)85 (32.4)80 (33.1)
  Moderate risk (DRSS = 47)5 (14.3)4 (14.3)8 (18.2)45 (17.9)40 (15.3)51 (21.1)
  High risk (DRSS ≥ 53)19 (54.3)13 (46.4)19 (43.2)109 (43.4)137 (52.3)111 (45.9)
Authors

From Palo Alto Medical Foundation, Palo Alto, California (ER); and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, New York (KB, DT, NS).

The VISTA and VIVID studies were funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (Tarrytown, New York), and Bayer AG (Berlin, Germany). The sponsors participated in the design of the study, data analysis, and preparation of the manuscript.

Dr. Rahimy was a paid consultant for Allergan through the Fostering Innovative Retina Stars (FIRST) program at the time of this study and is currently an employee of Palo Alto Medical Foundation (Palo Alto, California). Dr. Thompson is a paid consultant for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (Tarrytown, New York). Dr. Baker is an employee of and stockholder in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Saroj was an employee of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals at the time of the study and is currently a paid consultant for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Saroj is also a consultant for Aerie, Allegro, Apellis, Adverum, and SamaCare, and is an equity owner of Allegro, Pr3vent, and SamaCare, outside the submitted work.

Medical writing support was provided by Melissa Purves of Prime (Knutsford, UK), in accordance with Good Publication Practice guidelines and was funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions.

Address correspondence to Ehsan Rahimy, MD, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 795 El Camino Real, Jamplis Building, Level 2, Palo Alto, CA 94301; email: erahimy@gmail.com.

Received: September 05, 2019
Accepted: February 25, 2020

10.3928/23258160-20200326-04

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents