Comparative efficacy of 5 sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and 7 glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists interventions on cardiorenal outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients: A network meta-analysis based on cardiovascular or renal outcome trials

Background:Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been demonstrated to be able to improve the cardiovascular and renal prognosis in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the relative efficacy of various SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs on cardiorenal outcomes is unestablished.Methods:We searched PubMed and Embase for relevant cardiovascular or renal outcome trials (CVOTs). Endpoints of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death (CVD), all-cause death (ACD), kidney function progression (KFP), and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to produce pooled hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated the probability values of surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank active and placebo interventions.Results:Fourteen COVTs were included in analysis. Sotagliflozin (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61–0.94), subcutaneous semaglutide, and albiglutide lowered MACE versus lixisenatide among others. Sotagliflozin (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40–0.89), canagliflozin, and empagliflozin lowered HHF versus subcutaneous semaglutide among others. Dapagliflozin and empagliflozin lowered KFP versus exenatide among others. Empagliflozin and oral semaglutide lowered CVD versus dapagliflozin among others. Sotagliflozin (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.91) and albiglutide lowered MI versus ertugliflozin among others. Sotagliflozin (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37–0.85) and subcutaneous semaglutide lowered stroke versus empagliflozin among others. Oral semaglutide and empagliflozin lowered ACD versus subcutaneous semaglutide among others. The maximum surface under the cumulative ranking curve values followed sotagliflozin, subcutaneous semaglutide, and albiglutide in lowering MACE; sotagliflozin, canagliflozin, and empagliflozin in lowering HHF; dapagliflozin and empagliflozin in lowering KFP; empagliflozin and oral semaglutide in lowering CVD; sotagliflozin and albiglutide in lowering MI; sotagliflozin and subcutaneous semaglutide in lowering stroke; and oral semaglutide and empagliflozin in lowering ACD.Conclusions:This updated network meta-analysis reproduced the findings in the first network meta-analysis, and moreover revealed that sotagliflozin was one of the most effective drugs as for lowering MI, stroke, MACE, and HHF, whereas ertugliflozin was not. These findings will provide the according evidence regarding the usage of specific SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 RAs in T2D patients for prevention of specific cardiorenal endpoints.     

Association between uric acid levels and cardio-renal outcomes and death in patients with type 2 diabetes: A subanalysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME

In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, we explored the association between pre-randomization uric acid level tertile (<309.30 μmol/L; 309.30 to <387.21 μmol/L; ≥387.21 μmol/L) and cardiovascular (CV) death, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), HHF or CV death, all-cause mortality, three-point major adverse CV events (MACE), and incident or worsening nephropathy. Patients with type 2 diabetes and CV disease received empagliflozin or placebo. The median baseline plasma uric acid level was 344.98 μmol/L, and patients’ baseline characteristics were mainly balanced across tertiles. Baseline uric acid levels were associated with cardio-renal outcomes: in the placebo group, for the highest versus lowest tertile, the multivariable hazard ratios for three-point MACE, HHF or CV death, and incident or worsening nephropathy were 1.22 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89–1.67; P = 0.2088), 1.51 (95% CI 1.02–2.23; P = 0.0396) and 1.77 (95% CI 1.33–2.34; P < 0.0001), respectively. When tested as a continuous variable, baseline uric acid was associated with all outcomes in the placebo group. Empagliflozin improved all cardio-renal outcomes across tertiles, with all interaction P values >0.05. Further investigation of these relationships is required.     

Impact of demographic characteristics and antihyperglycemic and cardiovascular drugs on the cardiorenal benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:It is unclear whether demographic characteristics and baseline use of hypoglycemic and cardiovascular drugs significantly affect the efficacy of sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on cardiorenal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Methods:Randomized trials assessing the efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiorenal outcomes in adult patients with T2DM were included in analysis. Three endpoints of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death (HHF or CV death), and kidney composite outcome (KCO). We performed random-effects meta-analysis using the aggregate data of hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were done according to 17 factors of interest, including 7 factors related to demographic characteristics and 10 related to baseline use of antihyperglycemic and cardiovascular drugs such as renin–angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor. We conducted meta-regression analyses to calculate P values for subgroup differences.Results:Seven trials were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors significantly lowered the risk of MACE (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84–0.97) regardless of demographic characteristics and baseline use of insulin, statin or ezetimibe, RAS inhibitor, beta-blocker, and diuretic (P_subgroup from 0.088–0.981); that of HHF or CV death (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71–0.85) regardless of demographic characteristics and baseline use of 10 antihyperglycemic and cardiovascular drugs (P_subgroup from 0.147–0.999); and that of KCO (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.57–0.69) regardless of demographic characteristics and baseline use of statin or ezetimibe, RAS inhibitor, and diuretic (P_subgroup from 0.073–0.918).Conclusions:The cardiorenal benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors were consistent in a broad population of T2DM patients. The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors should be recommended in T2DM patients for the prevention of cardiorenal events, regardless of various demographic characteristics and baseline use of various hypoglycemic and cardiovascular drugs.     

Effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Background:It is unclear whether there are false positive or negative results in the effects of sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on various cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to explore this issue by a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Methods:We included randomized trials evaluating the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiorenal endpoints in type 2 diabetic patients. Eight endpoints evaluated in the study were fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or nonfatal stroke, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (CVD or HHF), all-cause death (ACD), cardiovascular death (CVD), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and kidney function progression (KFP). Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis was conducted for each endpoint.Results:Seven randomized trials of SGLT2 inhibitors were included for pooled analysis. Compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced the risk of MACE (HR 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–0.94), MI (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84–0.99), CVD (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79–0.93), CVD or HHF (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.73–0.82), HHF (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.62–0.74), KFP (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.56–0.70), and ACD (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83–0.94), whereas SGLT2 inhibitors did not have significant effects on stroke (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88–1.09). Trial sequential analyses for MI and stroke showed that cumulative Z curve did not cross trial sequential monitoring boundary and required information size, whereas those for the other 6 endpoints showed that cumulative Z curve crossed trial sequential monitoring boundary and/or required information size.Conclusions:Compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors conclusively reduce the risk of MACE, CVD or HHF, ACD, CVD, HHF, and KFP in patients with type 2 diabetes, whereas the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on MI and stroke are not conclusive and need to be further assessed in future studies with the adequate sample size to reject or accept the effect size.     

Cardiovascular Events Associated With SGLT-2 Inhibitors Versus Other Glucose-Lowering Drugs: The CVD-REAL 2 Study

Background

Randomized trials demonstrated a lower risk of cardiovascular (CV) events with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high CV risk. Prior real-world data suggested similar SGLT-2i effects in T2D patients with a broader risk profile, but these studies focused on heart failure and death and were limited to the United States and Europe.

Cardiovascular outcomes with SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonist in Asians with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials

Background and aimsBoth type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular (CV) disease develops at a younger age in Asians and often have a higher risk of mortality. Both sodium-glucose co-transport-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2Is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have shown a significant reduction in CV end-points in CV outcome trials (CVOTs). Whether similar CV benefit exists in Asians, is not yet clearly known.MethodsWe systematically searched relevant medical database up to January 31, 2020 and retrieved all the dedicated CVOTs conducted with SGLT-2Is and GLP-1RAs. Subsequently, we meta-analyzed the pooled data of hazard ratio (HR) of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in Asians. We additionally analyzed the data of heart failure hospitalization (HHF) or CV-death with SGLT-2Is in Asians.ResultsThe meta-analysis of three CVOTs conducted with SGLT-2Is (N = 4987), did not find any significant reduction in MACE (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.15; P = 0.35) and HHF or CV-death (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.36; P = 0.53) in Asians, compared to the placebo. In contrast, the meta-analysis of seven CVOTs conducted with GLP-1RAs (N = 4298) demonstrated a significant reduction in MACE, compared to the placebo (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.86; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis found a significant reduction in MACE with GLP-1RAs but not with SGLT-2Is in Asians. No significant reduction in HHF or CV-death demonstrated either with SGLT-2Is in Asians. Whether these results are related to an inadequate statistical power, or due to underrepresentation of Asians, or a true ethnic difference, remains to be established.     

Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for the prevention of cardiorenal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: An updated meta-analysis

A meta-analysis of cardiorenal outcomes of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) available in Europe or the United States in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is presented. An electronic search up to 6 January 2021 was conducted to determine eligible trials. A total of eight cardiorenal outcomes trials of SGLT-2is (empagliflozin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, ertugliflozin and sotagliflozin) were identified, with 65,587 patients. Data were analysed using a random effects model. Overall, SGLT-2is were associated with a 12% reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83–0.93; Q statistic, p = .19), with no significant heterogeneity (p for interaction = .465) between subgroups of patients with or without cardiovascular disease (CVD). The risk of the composite renal outcome was significantly reduced by treatment with SGLT-2is (HR = 0.61, 95% CI, 0.54–0.70), with no significant heterogeneity of associations with outcome (I² = 37%, p = .11), and no difference in the risk between patients with or without CVD (p for interaction = .665). SGLT-2is have moderate benefits on MACE and major benefits on the progression of diabetic kidney disease.     

Effects of pioglitazone on cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AimIn 2019, the Italian Society of Diabetology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists nominated an expert panel to develop guidelines for drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. After identifying the effects of glucose-lowering agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) as critical outcomes, the experts decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of pioglitazone with this respect.Data synthesisA MEDLINE database search was performed to identify RCTs, up to June 1st, 2021, with duration≥52 weeks, in which pioglitazone was compared with either placebo or active comparators. The principal endpoints were MACE and HHF (restricted for RCT reporting MACEs within their outcomes), all-cause mortality (irrespective of the inclusion of MACEs among the pre-specified outcomes). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH–OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all the endpoints considered.Eight RCTs were included in the analysis for MACEs and HF (5048 and 5117 patients in the pioglitazone and control group, respectively), and 24 in that for all-cause mortality (10,682 and 9674 patients). Pioglitazone neither significantly increased nor reduced the risk of MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF in comparison with placebo/active comparators (MH–OR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.78–1.03, 0.91, 95% CI 0.77, 1.09, and 1.16, 95% CI 0.73, 1.83, respectively). Pioglitazone was associated with a significant reduction of MACE in patients with prior cardiovascular events (MH–OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72–0.99).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis showed no significant effects of pioglitazone on incident MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF.     

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.     

Comparison of the effects of 10 GLP-1 RA and SGLT2 inhibitor interventions on cardiovascular,mortality, and kidney outcomes in type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis of large randomized trials

The relative efficacy of different sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in reducing cardiorenal events in type 2 diabetic adults is unclear. We searched PubMed and Embase. Three primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and kidney function progression (KFP). Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We calculated surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to rank drug treatments. Subcutaneous semaglutide (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55?0.96) and albiglutide (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63?0.93) significantly reduced MACE versus lixisenatide. Canagliflozin (HRs: 0.69, 0.68, 0.67 and 0.58) and empagliflozin (HRs: 0.70, 0.69, 0.68 and 0.59) significantly reduced HHF versus dulaglutide, exenatide, lixisenatide and subcutaneous semaglutide. Dapagliflozin (HRs: 0.62, 0.60, 0.68 and 0.63) and empagliflozin (HRs: 0.64, 0.61, 0.69 and 0.64) significantly reduced KFP versus dulaglutide, exenatide, liraglutide and lixisenatide. Different drug treatments had the maximum SUCRA values as for preventing different cardiorenal endpoints. Different GLP-1 RAs and SGLT2 inhibitors have different efficacy in preventing cardiorenal endpoints in type 2 diabetes, and the most efficacious drugs are different as for preventing different cardiorenal endpoints.     

Effects of insulin on cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AimIn 2019, the Italian Society of Diabetology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists nominated an expert panel to develop guidelines for drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. This expert panel, after identifying the effects of glucose-lowering agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) as critical outcomes, decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of insulin with this respect.Data synthesisA MEDLINE database search was performed to identify all RCTs, up to June 1st, 2021, with duration≥52 weeks, in which insulin was compared with either placebo or active comparators. The principal endpoints were MACE and HHF (restricted for RCT reporting MACEs within their outcomes), all-cause mortality (irrespective of the inclusion of MACEs among the pre-specified outcomes). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all the endpoints considered.Six RCTs (enrolling 8091 patients and 10,139 in the insulin and control group, respectively) were included in the analysis for MACEs and HF, and 18 in that for all-cause mortality (9760 and 11,694 patients in the insulin and control group, respectively). Treatment with insulin neither significantly increased nor reduced the risk of MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF in comparison with placebo/active comparators (MH-OR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.97–1.23; 0.99, 95% CI 0.91, 1.08; and 0.90, 95% CI 0.78, 1.04, respectively).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis showed no significant effects of insulin on incident MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF.     

Indices of hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in prediabetes and association with diabetes development in the vitamin D and type 2 diabetes study

AimsNon-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common comorbidity that leads to poor outcomes in people at high risk for development of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Vitamin D is a possible mediator. In the vitamin D and type 2 diabetes study (D2d), we investigated the relationship of baseline indices of NAFLD with incident T2D and whether the effect of vitamin D on diabetes was modified by NAFLD.MethodsCross-sectional associations of indices of NAFLD with glycemia and vitamin D status were assessed in 3972 individuals screened for the D2d study. In those with prediabetes randomized to vitamin D or placebo (n = 2423), we examined longitudinal associations of NAFLD indices with incident T2D. We used validated non-invasive scores to assess steatosis [(hepatic steatosis index (HSI); NAFLD-liver fat score (NAFLD-LFS)] and advanced fibrosis [fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index; AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI)].ResultsEighty-five percent of screened participants had likely steatosis by HSI and 71 % by NAFLD-LFS; 3 % were likely to have advanced fibrosis by FIB-4 and 1.2 % by APRI. FIB-4 indicated that 20.4 % of individuals require further follow up to assess liver health. Steatosis and fibrosis scores were higher among participants with worse glycemia. The NAFLD-LFS and APRI predicted development of diabetes (hazard ratios [95%CI] 1.35 [1.07, 1.70]; P = 0.012) and 2.36 (1.23, 4.54; P = 0.010), respectively). The effect of vitamin D on diabetes risk was not modified by baseline NAFLD indices. Individuals with likely steatosis had a smaller increase in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in response to vitamin D than those without steatosis.ConclusionsThe predicted high prevalence of steatosis, the need for further fibrosis workup, and the relationship between liver health and incident T2D suggest that routine screening with clinically accessible scores may be an important strategy to reduce disease burden.     

Efficacy and safety of the addition of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin and sitagliptin: The VERTIS SITA2 placebo‐controlled randomized study

Aims

To assess ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled by metformin and sitagliptin.

Materials and Methods

In this double‐blind randomized study ( Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02036515), patients (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7.0% to 10.5% [53‐91 mmol/mol] receiving metformin ≥1500 mg/d and sitagliptin 100 mg/d; estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m²) were randomized to ertugliflozin 5 mg once‐daily, 15 mg once‐daily or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at Week 26; treatment was continued until Week 52.

Results

A total of 464 patients were randomized (mean baseline HbA1c, 8.0% [64.3 mmol/mol]; eGFR, 87.9 mL/min/1.73 m²). After 26 weeks, placebo‐adjusted least squares (LS) mean changes in HbA1c from baseline were ?0.7% (?7.5 mmol/mol) and ?0.8% (?8.3 mmol/mol) for ertugliflozin 5 and 15 mg, respectively (both P < .001); 17.0%, 32.1% and 39.9% of patients receiving placebo, ertugliflozin 5 mg or ertugliflozin 15 mg, respectively, had HbA1c <7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose, body weight (BW) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were observed with ertugliflozin relative to placebo. The positive effects of ertugliflozin on glycaemic control, BW and SBP were maintained through Week 52. A higher incidence of genital mycotic infections was observed in male and female patients receiving ertugliflozin (3.7%‐14.1%) vs placebo (0%‐1.9%) through Week 52. The incidence of urinary tract infections, symptomatic hypoglycaemia and hypovolaemia adverse events were not meaningfully different across groups.

Conclusions

Ertugliflozin added to metformin and sitagliptin was well‐tolerated, and provided clinically meaningful, durable glycaemic control, BW and SBP reductions vs placebo over 52 weeks.     

Network meta-analysis of nine large cardiovascular outcome trials of new antidiabetic drugs

The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to indirectly compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of new antidiabetic medications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Data synthesisA search of the Embase and MEDLINE databases was conducted systematically to identify cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) of new antidiabetic medications (DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors) in patients with T2DM. The primary outcomes were the composite endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke (MACE), death from CV causes, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke and death from any cause. Hospitalization for HF and unstable angina were evaluated as secondary endpoints. A total of 9 trials, including 87,162 patients, met the eligibility criteria and were retained for the analysis.The NMA results showed no significant differences among the DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, alogliptin, and saxagliptin) in any of the CV endpoints. Similarly, no significant changes were seen in the NMA among the GLP-1 receptor agonists nor the SGLT-2 inhibitors. The pairwise meta-analysis showed that DPP-4 inhibitors have a CV safety profiled comparable to placebo. GLP-1 agonists on the other hand, showed significant reduction in MACE (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.87–0.97), death from CV causes (RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.80–0.97), and death from any cause (RR = 0.89; 95% CI 0.82–0.96). SGLT-2 inhibitors showed significant reduction in hospitalization for heart failure events (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.6–0.86) compared to placebo.ConclusionThis meta-analysis has shown that new antidiabetic medications do not impose any additional CV risk. The indirect comparison among the medications of each class resulted in no significant changes regarding CV endpoints and death from any cause.     

Effects of finerenone in people with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes are independent of HbA1c at baseline,HbA1c variability,diabetes duration and insulin use at baseline

Aim

To evaluate the effect of finerenone by baseline HbA1c, HbA1c variability, diabetes duration and baseline insulin use on cardiorenal outcomes and diabetes progression.

Materials and Methods

Composite efficacy outcomes included cardiovascular (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke or hospitalization for heart failure), kidney (kidney failure, sustained ≥ 57% estimated glomerular filtration rate decline or renal death) and diabetes progression (new insulin initiation, increase in antidiabetic medication, 1.0% increase in HbA1c from baseline, new diabetic ketoacidosis diagnosis or uncontrolled diabetes).

Results

In 13 026 participants, risk reductions in the cardiovascular and kidney composite outcomes with finerenone versus placebo were consistent across HbA1c quartiles (P interaction .52 and .09, respectively), HbA1c variability (P interaction .48 and .10), diabetes duration (P interaction .12 and .75) and insulin use (P interaction .16 and .52). HbA1c variability in the first year of treatment was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular and kidney events (hazard ratio [HR] 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.35; P = .0016 and HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.21-1.52; P < .0001, respectively). There was no effect on diabetes progression with finerenone or placebo (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.95-1.04). Finerenone was well-tolerated across subgroups; discontinuation and hospitalization because of hyperkalaemia were low.

Conclusions

Finerenone efficacy was not modified by baseline HbA1c, HbA1c variability, diabetes duration or baseline insulin use. Greater HbA1c variability appeared to be associated with an increased risk of cardiorenal outcomes.     

Re‐adjudication of the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) with study‐level meta‐analysis of hospitalization for heart failure from cardiovascular outcomes trials with dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitors

BackgroundTrial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) assessed the cardiovascular (CV) safety of sitagliptin versus placebo on CV outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and CV disease and found sitagliptin noninferior to placebo. Subsequently, based on feedback from FDA, the Sponsor of the trial, Merck & Co., Inc., engaged a separate academic research organization, the TIMI Study Group, to re‐adjudicate a prespecified set of originally adjudicated events.MethodsTIMI adjudicated in a blinded fashion all potential hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) events, all potential MACE+ events previously adjudicated as not an endpoint event, and a random subset (~10%) of MACE+ events previously adjudicated as an endpoint event. An updated study‐level meta‐analysis of four randomized, placebo‐controlled, CV outcomes trials with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP‐4) inhibitors was then performed.ResultsAfter re‐adjudication of potential HHF events in the intent‐to‐treat population, there were 224 patients with a confirmed event in the sitagliptin arm (1.05/100 person‐years) and 239 patients in the placebo arm (1.13/100 person‐years), corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.78–1.13, p = .49). Concordance between the outcome of the original adjudication and the re‐adjudication for HHF events was 82.7%. The meta‐analysis of CV outcomes trials with DPP‐4 inhibitors with placebo and involving 43 522 patients yielded an HR of 1.07 (95% CI: 0.83–1.39), with moderate heterogeneity (p = .45, I ² = 62.07%).ConclusionThe results of this independent re‐adjudication process and analyses of CV outcomes from TECOS were consistent with the original adjudication results and overall study findings. An updated study‐level meta‐analysis showed no overall significant risk for HHF with DPP‐4 inhibitors, but with statistical heterogeneity.     

The impact of obesity on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes treated with finerenone: Post hoc analysis of the FIDELITY study

Aim

To assess the effect of finerenone on the risk of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes, with and without obesity.

Materials and methods

A post hoc analysis of the prespecified pooled FIDELITY dataset assessed the association between waist circumference (WC), composite cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, and the effects of finerenone. Participants were stratified by WC risk groups (representing visceral obesity) as low-risk or high–very high-risk (H-/VH-risk).

Results

Of 12 986 patients analysed, 90.8% occupied the H-/VH-risk WC group. Incidence of the composite cardiovascular outcome was similar between finerenone and placebo in the low-risk WC group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.47); finerenone reduced the risk in the H-/VH-risk WC group (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.93). For the kidney outcome, the risk was similar in the low-risk WC group (HR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.66-1.46) and reduced within the H-/VH-risk WC group (HR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87) with finerenone versus placebo. There was no significant heterogeneity between the low-risk and H-/VH-risk WC groups for cardiovascular and kidney composite outcomes (P interaction = .26 and .34, respectively). The apparent greater benefit of finerenone on cardiorenal outcomes but lack of significant heterogeneity observed in H-/VH-risk WC patients may be because of the small size of the low-risk group. Adverse events were consistent across WC groups.

Conclusion

In FIDELITY, benefits of finerenone in lowering the risk of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes were not significantly modified by patient obesity.     

Comparison of glucagons like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptide-4 inhibitors regarding cardiovascular safety and mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A network meta-analysis

AimThe effects of dipeptidyl peptide-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) on type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality were compared.MethodsThe literature on DPP-4is and SGLT-2is treatment of T2DM was searched through Pubmed, Embase, and the web of science databases with the search deadline May 15, 2020. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare the effects of two types of inhibitors on cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death) and all-cause mortality in T2DM patients.ResultsA total of 15 articles were screened, including 125,796 patients. Compared with DPP-4is, SGLT-2is can significantly reduce MACE [OR: 0.86 95% CI (0.78, 0.92)], CV death [OR: 0.85 95% CI (0.71, 1.01)], nonfatal MI [OR: 0.84 95%CI (0.74, 0.95)] and all-cause mortality [OR: 0.78 95% CI (0.69, 0.89)]. For nonfatal stroke, DPP-4is and SGLT-2is have no statistically significant difference [OR: 0.99 95% CI (0.91, 1.07)].ConclusionThese data indicate that SGLT-2is is more beneficial to MACE and all-cause mortality in T2DM patients than DPP-4is.     

Intravenous iron in patients with heart failure and iron deficiency: an updated meta-analysis

Aims

For patients with heart failure (HF) and iron deficiency (ID), randomized trials suggest that intravenous (IV) iron reduces hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), but uncertainty exists about the effects in subgroups and the impact on mortality. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials investigating the effect of IV iron on clinical outcomes in patients with HF.

Methods and results

We identified randomized trials published between 1 January 2000 and 5 November 2022 investigating the effect of IV iron versus standard care/placebo in patients with HF and ID in any clinical setting, regardless of HF phenotype. Trials of oral iron or not in English were not included. The main outcomes of interest were a composite of HHF and cardiovascular death (CVD), on HHF alone and on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Ten trials were identified with 3373 participants, of whom 1759 were assigned to IV iron. IV iron reduced the composite of recurrent HHF and CVD (rate ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61–0.93; p < 0.01) and first HHF or CVD (odds ratio [OR] 0.72, 95% CI 0.53–0.99; p = 0.04). Effects on cardiovascular (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70–1.05; p = 0.14) and all-cause mortality (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78–1.12; p = 0.47) were inconclusive. Results were similar in analyses confined to the first year of follow-up, which was less disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Subgroup analyses found little evidence of heterogeneity for the effect on the primary endpoint, although patients with transferrin saturation <20% (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49–0.92) may have benefited more than those with values ≥20% (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74–1.30) (heterogeneity p = 0.07).

Conclusion

In patients with HF and ID, this meta-analysis suggests that IV iron reduces the risk of HHF but whether this is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular or all-cause mortality remains inconclusive.     

Gliflozins for the prevention of stroke in diabetes and cardiorenal diseases: A meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials

Background:Individual randomized trials are not powered to assess the relationship between use of sodium–glucose transporter 2 inhibitors and risk of stroke. We sought to explore this issue by a meta-analysis incorporating relevant trials including several latest trials.Methods:Cardiovascular outcome trials of gliflozins were included. Primary outcome was stroke, while secondary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death. Meta-analysis was conducted stratified by with/without chronic kidney disease (CKD), with/without heart failure (HF), and with/without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and stratified by different gliflozins.Results:We included 9 trials in this meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, gliflozins significantly lowered stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55–0.84) and MACE (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69–0.86) in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with CKD, but did not significantly affect stroke (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86–1.16) and MACE (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86–1.02) in T2D patients without CKD. Gliflozins had no significant effects on the stroke risk (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82–1.07) in T2D patients regardless of HF status (P_subgroup = .684) and ASCVD status (P_subgroup = .915), but significantly lowered MACE (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83–0.96) in T2D patients regardless of HF status (P_subgroup = .428) and ASCVD status (P_subgroup = .423). Canagliflozin (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69–1.01) showed the trend of a reduction in the stroke risk versus placebo, and sotagliflozin (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.54–0.98) significantly lowered the stroke risk; whereas the other 3 gliflozins did not significantly affect that risk. Ertugliflozin (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85–1.11) had no significant effects on the MACE risk, whereas the other 4 gliflozins significantly lowered that risk.Conclusions:Gliflozins, especially canagliflozin and sotagliflozin, should be recommended in T2D patients with CKD to prevent stroke. Most gliflozins lower the risk of MACE in T2D patients regardless of HF status and ASCVD status, whereas ertugliflozin is not observed to lower that risk.