Effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors on the cardiovascular and renal complications of type 2 diabetes

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) have been shown to mitigate the risks of cardiovascular (CV) and renal complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and CV risk factors or CV disease (CVD). In CV outcomes trials (CVOTs) of patients with T2D and established CVD or multiple CV risk factors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin were associated with significant reductions in the risks of major adverse CV events (MACE), hospitalization for heart failure (HF) and kidney disease progression. In the DECLARE–TIMI 58 study, in which the majority of patients did not have established CVD, dapagliflozin was associated with significant reductions in the composite end point of CV death or hospitalization for HF and was noninferior to placebo with regard to MACE; although patients had relatively good renal function, dapagliflozin also showed renal benefits similar to those seen with empagliflozin and canagliflozin. This article reviews the increased risk of CVD and renal disease in patients with T2D and discusses the potential mechanisms of the cardioprotective and renoprotective effects of SGLT-2i therapy. The observed improvements in CV and renal outcomes with SGLT-2is in CVOTs suggest a class effect in this patient population and have influenced treatment guidelines for the way add-on therapy to metformin is initiated in patients with T2D and high CV risk. The overall cardioprotective and renoprotective effects of SGLT-2is in patients with T2D and high CV risk are most likely attributable to multiple mechanisms, including cardiac, haemodynamic, metabolic, anti-inflammatory and renal effects.     

Navigating the “MACE” in Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials and decoding the relevance of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease benefits versus Heart Failure benefits

The publication of results from recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) has transformed the landscape of diabetes treatment. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have demonstrated CV benefits in large, well-conducted, randomized studies. Today, empagliflozin, canagliflozin and liraglutide are US Food and Drug Administration-approved not only for glucose-lowering, but also to reduce the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events/CV mortality in people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and established CV disease (CVD)/high CVD risk. Although the CVOTs were primarily powered for CV safety (non-inferiority), they also demonstrated CV efficacy (superiority). This initially surprised many in the diabetes community, but the replication of the CV benefits with different compounds in the same class alleviated concerns about the CV benefits being chance findings. However, many questions remain. While the heterogeneity in the CV benefits in the various CVOTs can be attributed to the variability in CV risk in the different studies, the reason(s) for the differences in the CV benefits between the GLP-1RA class and the SGLT2 inhibitor class appear to be more complex. An analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in the CVOTs shows that the CV benefits of GLP-1RAs are predominantly specific to atherosclerotic CV events (non-fatal myocardial infarction [MI], non-fatal stroke and CV death). By contrast, the SGLT2 inhibitors do not have any significant effects on atherosclerotic CV events (non-fatal MI/stroke). Their benefits are predominantly on hospitalization for heart failure (HF), suggesting effects primarily on myocardial function (“the pump”), and not on the “pipes” (coronary arteries). In the present review, we discuss the rationale for the conduct of CVOTs, highlight the inability of the classic three-point MACE to capture the entire spectrum of atherosclerotic and non-atherosclerotic CVD morbidity, especially HF in T2DM, and discuss the results of the CVOTs with a focus on the clinical significance of atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD) versus HF, which develops in a sizeable proportion of people with diabetes and without prior ASCVD.     

Review of the renal endpoints used in cardiovascular safety clinical trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients and their importance in primary care

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the most common complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Furthermore, CKD confers a considerable increase in the risk of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. In line with the need to improve knowledge in this field, this article aims to describe the renal endpoints used in the different cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs). The objective is to better know the renal variables used in the different CVOTs in order to optimize the implementation of advances in the prevention of progressive diabetic kidney disease in patients with T2DM in clinical practice.     

Type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure: a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

The coexistence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF), either with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), is frequent (30–40% of patients) and associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization, all‐cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. The most important causes of HF in T2DM are coronary artery disease, arterial hypertension and a direct detrimental effect of T2DM on the myocardium. T2DM is often unrecognized in HF patients, and vice versa, which emphasizes the importance of an active search for both disorders in the clinical practice. There are no specific limitations to HF treatment in T2DM. Subanalyses of trials addressing HF treatment in the general population have shown that all HF therapies are similarly effective regardless of T2DM. Concerning T2DM treatment in HF patients, most guidelines currently recommend metformin as the first‐line choice. Sulphonylureas and insulin have been the traditional second‐ and third‐line therapies although their safety in HF is equivocal. Neither glucagon‐like preptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists, nor dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP4) inhibitors reduce the risk for HF hospitalization. Indeed, a DPP4 inhibitor, saxagliptin, has been associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization. Thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) are contraindicated in patients with (or at risk of) HF. In recent trials, sodium–glucose co‐transporter‐2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin, have both shown a significant reduction in HF hospitalization in patients with established CV disease or at risk of CV disease. Several ongoing trials should provide an insight into the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF in the absence of T2DM.     

Cardiovascular outcomes trials with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A comparison of study designs,populations and results

Despite treatment advances leading to improved outcomes over the past 2 decades, cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes. People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have a 2- to 4-fold increased risk of CVD and CV death. Individuals with T2D have not seen the same improvements in CV morbidity and mortality as those without T2D. Given this, it is important to understand the CV impact of drugs used to treat T2D. In patients with T2D, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have shown a reduction in HbA1c and body weight regardless of their differences in chemical structure and pharmacokinetic variables. Glycaemic efficacy, accompanied by the potential for weight reduction and a low risk of hypoglycaemia, has moved GLP-1 RAs to the first treatment of choice following metformin monotherapy in the latest American Diabetes Association treatment guidelines. Additionally, all GLP-1 RAs have shown CV safety and several have proven CV benefit. GLP-1 RAs have been evaluated in cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) of varying sizes, designs and patient populations with differing reported effects on CV outcomes. The purpose of this article is to review the completed GLP-1 RA CVOTs with special attention to how their design, size, patient populations and conduct may influence the interpretation of results.     

Cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i in women with type 2 diabetes

Given the CV benefit noted in the CVOTs, GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is are given preference in T2DM guidelines. While guidelines do not report potential gender difference, those differences exist. On restricting the CVOTs results to women with increased CV risk or established ASCVD, GLP-1RAs significantly reduced MACE while SGLT-2is resulted in a non-significant reduction.     

Cardiovascular outcome trials in obesity: A review

Obesity is a global epidemic associated with over 200 health complications and a significant risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD), partly by increasing classical risk factors such as lipid and glucose levels and blood pressure. Weight loss through lifestyle interventions, pharmacotherapy and/or bariatric surgery improves CV risk factors. Cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) of anti‐obesity medications aim to evaluate the CV safety and benefits of pharmacotherapy. Many CVOTs in obesity have either failed to demonstrate a CV benefit or have been terminated prematurely because of safety issues, prompting regulatory agencies to define new requirements (based on those for CVOTs in type 2 diabetes [T2D]). CVOTs of glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1RAs) in T2D have demonstrated that some GLP‐1RAs reduce CV risk and may help inform future CVOTs in obesity, given the approval of liraglutide 3.0 mg for obesity. In this review, the evidence for the link between obesity and CVD is considered in the context of studies showing that weight loss improves markers of CV risk and risk of adverse CV events. The review also examines the CVOTs in obesity that have been conducted to date and those under way, such as the SELECT trial with subcutaneous semaglutide of 2.4 mg.     

Should Metformin Remain First-Line Medical Therapy for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease? An Alternative Approach

Purpose of Review

With recent cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) results for antihyperglycemic medications, the treatment algorithm for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and atherosclerotic vascular disease (ASCVD) requires revision.

Recent Findings

All completed CVOTs have demonstrated CV safety of the tested medications, with some trials demonstrating CV efficacy. While metformin remains the first-line recommended medication for T2DM, 18–37% of the patients enrolled in the completed CVOTs were not treated with metformin, providing substantial power to assess CV outcomes independent of metformin. The safety and tolerability of metformin are indisputable, but there are no robust data proving its efficacy for either macro or microvascular disease outcomes. We should reconsider the primacy of metformin in the management of T2DM in patients with ASCVD.

Summary

This article will review the evidence for CV effects of antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs), and propose an evidence-based treatment algorithm for patients with T2DM and ASCVD.

     

Cardiovascular risk and the implications for clinical practice of cardiovascular outcome trials in type 2 diabetes

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This review examines the impact of cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) on clinical practice. To date, all CVOTs have shown non-inferiority versus placebo (both added to standard of care) against a primary endpoint of 3- or 4-point major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), confirming CV safety of these treatments. Additionally, some CVOTs have shown superiority to placebo against the same MACE endpoint, suggesting a cardioprotective action for these treatments. This is reflected in guideline updates, which primary care physicians should consider when personalizing treatments.     

Prevalence and incidence of cardiovascular and renal diseases in type 1 compared with type 2 diabetes: A nationwide French observational study of hospitalized patients

BackgroundType 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increase risks of cardiovascular (CV) and renal disease compared with diabetes-free populations. There are only a few studies comparing T1DM and T2DM for the relative risk of these clinical events.MethodsAll adult patients hospitalized in French hospitals in 2013 with at least 5 years of follow-up were identified and categorized by their diabetes status. A total of 50,623 patients with T1DM (age 61.4 ± 18.6, 53% male) and 425,207 patients with T2DM (age 68.6 ± 14.3, 55% male) were followed over a median period of 5.3 years (interquartile range: 2.8 - 5.8 years). Prevalence and event rates of myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), ischemic stroke, chronic kidney disease (CKD), all-cause death and CV death were assessed with age stratification of 10-year intervals. For clinical events during follow-up, we report hazard ratios (HRs) in T1DM relative to T2DM.ResultsThe age and sex-adjusted prevalence of CV diseases was higher in T2DM for ages above 40 years whereas the prevalence of CKD was more common in T1DM between ages 18 and 70 years. During 2,033,239 person-years of follow-up, age and sex-adjusted HR event rates comparing T1DM, versus T2DM as reference, showed that MI and HF relative risks were increased above 60 years (1.2 and 1.4 -fold). HR of ischemic stroke did not markedly differ between T1DM and T2DM. Risk of incident CKD was 2.4-fold higher in T1DM above 60 years. All-cause death HR risk was 1.1-fold higher in T1DM after 60 years and the CV death risk was 1.15-fold higher in T1DM between 60 and 69 years compared to T2DM.ConclusionsAlthough the crude prevalent burden of CV diseases may be lower in T1DM than in T2DM, patients with T1DM may have a higher risk of incident MI, HF, all-cause death and CV death above 60 years of age, highlighting the need for improved prevention in this population.     

European Society of Cardiology/Heart Failure Association position paper on the role and safety of new glucose‐lowering drugs in patients with heart failure

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Significant advances have recently occurred in the treatment of T2DM, with evidence of several new glucose‐lowering medications showing either neutral or beneficial cardiovascular effects. However, some of these agents have safety characteristics with strong practical implications in HF [i.e. dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitors, glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1 RA), and sodium–glucose co‐transporter type 2 (SGLT‐2) inhibitors]. Regarding safety of DPP‐4 inhibitors, saxagliptin is not recommended in HF because of a greater risk of HF hospitalisation. There is no compelling evidence of excess HF risk with the other DPP‐4 inhibitors. GLP‐1 RAs have an overall neutral effect on HF outcomes. However, a signal of harm suggested in two small trials of liraglutide in patients with reduced ejection fraction indicates that their role remains to be defined in established HF. SGLT‐2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin) have shown a consistent reduction in the risk of HF hospitalisation regardless of baseline cardiovascular risk or history of HF. Accordingly, SGLT‐2 inhibitors could be recommended to prevent HF hospitalisation in patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease or with multiple risk factors. The recently completed trial with dapagliflozin has shown a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and HF events in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, with or without T2DM. Several ongoing trials will assess whether the results observed with dapagliflozin could be extended to other SGLT‐2 inhibitors in the treatment of HF, with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence of T2DM. This position paper aims to summarise relevant clinical trial evidence concerning the role and safety of new glucose‐lowering therapies in patients with HF.     

Pharmacologic strategies to reduce cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus: focus on SGLT‐2 inhibitors and GLP‐1 receptor agonists

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) present an increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications. In addition to improvement in glycaemic control, glucose‐lowering therapies, such as glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1RAs) and sodium‐dependent glucose cotransporter (SGLT)‐2 inhibitors, have been shown to significantly reduce CV events. In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration mandated that all new glucose‐lowering drugs undergo CV outcomes trials (CVOTs) to determine their CV safety. These trials have largely demonstrated no major CV safety concerns. Most notably, the GLP‐1RAs and SGLT‐2 inhibitors have been found to be not only safe, but also cardioprotective compared to placebo. The SGLT‐2 inhibitors have opened a new perspective for clinicians treating patients with T2D and established CV disease in light of their ‘pleiotropic’ effects, specifically on heart failure, while GLP‐1RAs seem to present more favourable effects on atherosclerotic events. In this review, we discuss the role of GLP‐1RAs and SGLT‐2 inhibitors to reduce CV risk in T2D patients and suggest an individualized therapeutic approach in this population based on the presence of metabolic and CV comorbidities.     

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibition for the reduction of cardiovascular events in high-risk patients with diabetes mellitus

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) exhibit an increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) events. Hyperglycemia itself contributes to the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and heart failure (HF) in these patients, but glucose-lowering strategies studied to date have had little or no impact on reducing CV risk, especially in patients with a long duration of T2DM and prevalent CV disease (CVD). Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are the new class of glucose-lowering medications that increase urinary glucose excretion, thus improving glycemic control, independent of insulin. The recently published CV outcome trial, Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients—Removing Excess Glucose (EMPA-REG OUTCOME), demonstrated that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin significantly reduced the combined CV end point of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke vs. placebo in a population of patients with T2DM and prevalent atherosclerotic CVD. In addition, and quite unexpectedly, empagliflozin significantly and robustly reduced the individual end points of CV death, overall mortality, and hospitalization for HF in this high-risk population. Several beneficial factors beyond glucose control, such as weight loss, lowering blood pressure, sodium depletion, renal hemodynamic effects, effects on myocardial energetics, and/or neurohormonal effects, have been seen with SGLT2 inhibition.     

Do the SGLT-2 Inhibitors Offer More than Hypoglycemic Activity?

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is one of the most common chronic health conditions in the USA; it affects approximately 10% of adults with up to one-quarter being undiagnosed. T2DM is associated with substantial cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. T2DM is a pathological condition characterized by elevated levels of glucose and associated with high CV risk. Traditional hypoglycemic drugs have demonstrated their capability for effective and maintained management of high glucose levels, but they have not significantly impacted on the incidence of CV events. Recently, a new class of hypoglycemic agents, SGLT-2 receptor inhibitors, has been developed. The EMPA-OUTCOME trial involving empagliflozin (a SGLT-2 receptor inhibitor) has shown significant reductions in major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure (HF) when administered on top of standard-of-care therapy for T2DM patients at high CV risk. The dramatic change driving the superiority of the primary composite outcome (major adverse CV events) was a significantly lower CV death rate (38% relative risk reduction). In addition, there were also an impressive 35 and 32% relative risk reductions in hospitalization for heart failure (HF) and death from any cause, respectively. These effects are even more important given the difficulties for treating concomitant HF in T2DM patients. These surprising results have been also corroborated by another agent of this class, canagliflozin, and the CANVAS trial. The magnitude of these somehow surprising cardiac benefits attained in the absence of major differences in glycemic, lipid, or blood pressure (BP) control has led to several groups to suggest that these benefits may be independent of its hypoglycemic activity and whether this new class could be considered a “cardiac” drug. The objective of this review has been to review the different hypotheses proposed to explain the cardiac benefits of this new class of antidiabetic drugs.     

Effects of sodium glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors on heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is emerging as one of the most common cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), and the one associated with the worst prognosis. T2D and insulin resistance are strong predictors of incident HF, especially HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Recent data suggest that even when all traditional risk factors for ASCVD are well controlled, patients with T2D continue to have a substantially greater risk of developing HF—indicating that traditional risk factor control is insufficient from a HF prevention standpoint, and highlighting the need for novel, more effective strategies for both prevention and treatment of heart failure in patients with T2D. Until recently, medications developed for glucose-lowering had, at best, neutral effect on heart failure outcomes in patients with T2D, while several classes of T2D medications had little data in regards to HF risk, and others actually increased the risk of HF hospitalization. Sodium glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) have a novel and unique mechanism of action. By inhibiting sodium and glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule, SGLT-2i result in a number of downstream effects, including glucosuria, weight loss, osmotic diuresis and natriuresis, which should theoretically be beneficial in HF. Three CVOTs of various SGLT-2i (EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS and DECLARE-TIMI 58) enrolled markedly different patient populations in terms of ASCVD risk, but have demonstrated robust and consistent benefits in reduction of hospitalization for HF. In a meta-analysis of the three outcomes trials, SGLT-2i significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF by 23% and hospitalization for HF by 31%. Although the declines in HF hospitalization with SGLT-2is are impressive, only a small proportion of patients with established HF were enrolled in these trials, and these benefits, therefore, represent primarily a HF prevention signal. Whether this prevention of HF benefit will translate to better outcomes for those patients with established HF (with or without diabetes), and whether it will extend across the spectrum of HF phenotypes (HFrEF and HFpEF) is yet to be determined, and is being actively investigated in several large ongoing trials.     

Cardiovascular Outcomes with SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with or without type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and aimsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with SGLT-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) in patients with known heart failure (HF) with or without type 2 diabetes (T2DM), that have studied the outcomes of cardiovascular (CV) death, hospitalization due to HF (HHF), and composite of CV death or HHF.MethodsA systematic search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library database were made up till November 20, 2020 using specific keywords. RCTs that qualified underwent a meta-analysis by applying the inverse variance-weighted averages of pooled logarithmic hazard ratio (HR) using both random- and fixed-effects model.ResultsThis meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (N = 19,741) have found a significant 26% relative risk reduction in composite of CV death or HHF (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69–0.79; p < 0.001) with SGLT-2i in patients with HF. The meta-analysis of 8 RCTs (N = 16,460) also showed a significant reduction in CV death (HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78–0.95; p = 0.003) and HHF (HR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.62–0.74; p < 0.001) outcomes with SGLT-2i in patients with HF. Subgroup analysis stratified on baseline ejection fraction (EF) showed a similar benefit in the composite of CV death or HHF in patients with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) or preserved EF (HFpEF).ConclusionsSGLT-2i significantly reduces the composite of CV death or HHF, CV death, and HHF in patients with HF. Although subgroup analysis suggested an insignificant P_heterogenity for these outcomes irrespective of the types of HF, however, reduction in both CV death and HHF were more pronounced in patients with HFrEF.     

Eligibility of patients with type 2 diabetes for sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials: An assessment using the Diabetes Collaborative Registry

Generalizability of findings from cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) to patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in clinical practice is unknown. We assessed the proportions of patients in the Diabetes Collaborative Registry who would have met enrolment criteria for pivotal CVOTs of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is): EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, DECLARE and VERTIS CV. In 172 643 patients, mean [standard deviation (SD)] age and HbA1c were 68.1 (11.8) years and 7.8% (2.2), respectively; 56.8% of patients were men and SGLT-2i use was 4.4%. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevalence was 64.3% and mean 10-year ASCVD risk was 28.6% in patients without ASCVD. Proportions of patients eligible for CVOTs ranged from 26% (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) to 44% (DECLARE); 48% of patients were ineligible for all CVOTs. Mean (SD) ASCVD risk was 25.4% (22.6), 32.1% (20.6) and 37.7% (19.4) in patients eligible for no, one or two CVOTs, respectively. SGLT-2i use was low in patients eligible for no CVOTs (3.5%) and at least one CVOT (5.2%). In conclusion, applicability of CVOT results to patients with T2D in clinical practice varies based on trial eligibility criteria.     

GLP‐1 Receptor Agonists: Effects on Cardiovascular Risk Reduction

Comorbid obesity, dyslipidemia, and hypertension place patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) at greatly increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease‐related morbidity and mortality. An urgent need exists for effective treatment for patients with T2DM that encompasses glycemic control, weight loss, and reduction in CV risk factors. The glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1 RAs) liraglutide and exenatide are incretin‐based antidiabetes agents. This review examines CV‐associated effects of liraglutide and exenatide in animal models and clinical trials with patients with T2DM. Studies support the effectiveness of GLP‐1 RAs in reducing hyperglycemia. Further, GLP‐1 RAs represent a significant advance in T2DM treatment because they uniquely affect a broad array of CV risk factors through significant weight and systolic blood pressure reduction, improved lipid levels, and possibly, as shown in in vitro studies and animal models, through direct effects on cardiac myocytes and endothelium.     

Impact of empagliflozin in patients with diabetes and heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a common disease with increased risk for mortality and morbidity among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Optimal glycemic control in this patient population is challenging as many available therapies can potentially exacerbate symptoms of HF. Empagliflozin is one in a novel class of agents, the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, that lowers blood glucose by increasing urinary glucose excretion and improves glycemic control and lowers body weight and blood pressure. In the recent EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, empagliflozin was shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular risk where it reduced HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death, with a consistent benefit among patients both with and without baseline HF. Here, we review the empagliflozin data on HF outcomes and discuss potential mechanisms for its benefits in HF with a focus on the potentially significant impact that empagliflozin may have on the care of patients with T2DM and HF in the future.     

How Diabetes and Heart Failure Modulate Each Other and Condition Management

Heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) confer considerable burden on the health care system. Although these often occur together, DM can increase risk of HF, whereas HF can accelerate complications of DM. HF is a clinical syndrome resulting from systolic or diastolic impairment caused by ischemic, nonischemic (eg, DM), or other etiologies. HF exists along a spectrum from stage A (ie, persons at risk of DM) to stage D (ie, refractory HF from end-stage DM cardiomyopathy [DMCM]). HF is further categorized by reduced, midrange, and preserved ejection fraction (EF). In type 2 DM, the most prevalent form of DM, several pathophysiological mechanisms (eg, insulin resistance and hyperglycemia) can contribute to myocardial damage, leading to DMCM. Management of HF and DM and patient outcomes are guided by EF and drug efficacy. In this review, we focus on the interplay between HF and DM on disease pathophysiology, management, and patient outcomes. Specifically, we highlight the role of novel antihyperglycemic (eg, sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors) and HF therapies (eg, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors) on HF outcomes in patients with DM and HF.