Premium
Effects of dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor linagliptin versus sulphonylurea glimepiride on systemic haemodynamics in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes: A secondary analysis of an 8‐week, randomized, controlled, double‐blind trial
Author(s) -
Kraaijenhof Jordan,
Muskiet Marcel H. A.,
Tonneijck Lennart,
Ouwens D. Margriet,
Kramer Mark H. H.,
Raalte Daniël H.,
Smits Mark M.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
diabetes, obesity and metabolism
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.445
H-Index - 128
eISSN - 1463-1326
pISSN - 1462-8902
DOI - 10.1111/dom.14107
Subject(s) - linagliptin , glimepiride , medicine , postprandial , hemodynamics , blood pressure , type 2 diabetes , cardiology , diabetes mellitus , endocrinology
Aim To determine the glucose‐independent effect of the dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitor linagliptin versus the sulphonylurea glimepiride on systemic haemodynamics in the fasting and postprandial state in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Materials and Methods In this prespecified secondary analysis of a phase IV, double‐blind trial, 46 metformin‐treated, overweight patients with T2D were included and randomly assigned (1:1) to once‐daily linagliptin (5 mg) or glimepiride (1 mg) for 8 weeks. In a sub‐study involving 26 patients, systemic haemodynamics were also assessed following a standardized liquid meal (Nutridrink Yoghurt style). Systemic haemodynamics (oscillometric device and finger photoplethysmography), arterial stiffness (applanation tonometry) and cardiac sympathovagal balance (heart rate variability [HRV]) were measured in the fasting state and repetitively following the meal. Ewing tests were performed in the fasting state. Results From baseline to week 8, linagliptin compared with glimepiride did not affect systemic haemodynamics, arterial stiffness or HRV in the fasting state. Linagliptin increased parasympathetic nervous activity, as measured by the Valsalva manoeuvre ( P = .021) and deep breathing test ( P = .027) compared with glimepiride. Postprandially, systolic blood pressure (SBP) dropped an average of 7.6 ± 1.6 mmHg. Linagliptin reduced this decrease to 0.7 ± 2.3 mmHg, which was significant to glimepiride ( P = .010). Conclusions When compared with glimepiride, linagliptin does not affect fasting blood pressure. However, linagliptin blunted the postprandial drop in SBP, which could benefit patients with postprandial hypotension.