Glucose-lowering therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases (original) (raw)

Journal Article

,

Search for other works by this author on:

,

Search for other works by this author on:

,

Department of Medicine Solna

, Karolinska Institutet, Sweden

Search for other works by this author on:

,

Department of Internal Medicine I

, University Hospital Aachen, Germany

Search for other works by this author on:

,

Département de Cardiologie

, Centre Hospitalier St-Joseph-St-Luc, France

Search for other works by this author on:

,

Department of Endocrinology Diabetology Nutrition

, Jean VERDIER Hospital, France

Search for other works by this author on:

Search for other works by this author on:

Accepted:

12 September 2019

Published:

29 August 2020

• PDF
• Split View
• • Article contents
  • Figures & tables
  • Video
  • Audio
  • Supplementary Data
• Cite

Cite

Francesco Prattichizzo, Lucia La Sala, Lars Rydén, Nikolaus Marx, Marc Ferrini, Paul Valensi, Antonio Ceriello, Glucose-lowering therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, European Journal of Preventive Cardiology, Volume 26, Issue 2_suppl, 1 December 2019, Pages 73–80, https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487319880040
Close

Navbar Search Filter Mobile Enter search term Search

Abstract

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for developing cardiovascular disease, and many patients with diabetes have prevalent cardiovascular complications. Recent cardiovascular outcome clinical trials suggest that certain new glucose-lowering drugs are accompanied by additional cardioprotective properties. Indeed, selected glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists have a proved cardiovascular benefit in terms of a reduced incidence of ischaemic events, while sodium/glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors have also shown significant protection, with a striking effect on heart failure and renal endpoints. These findings have been integrated in recent guidelines which now recommend prescribing (when initial metformin monotherapy fails) a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist or a sodium/glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor with clinical trial-confirmed benefit in patients with diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and a sodium/glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor in such patients with heart failure or chronic kidney disease at initial stages. Furthermore, the new 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines in collaboration with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes recommend a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist or a sodium/glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor in treatment-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with pre-existing cardiovascular disease or at high cardiovascular risk. Future research will disentangle the mechanisms underpinning these beneficial effects and will also establish to what extent these results are generalisable to the whole diabetes population. In the meantime, available evidence should prompt a wide diffusion of these two classes of drugs among patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Here, we briefly summarise recent findings emerging from cardiovascular outcome clinical trials, discuss their impact on treatment algorithms and propose new possible approaches to improve our knowledge further regarding the cardiovascular effect of glucose-lowering medications.

Introduction

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD), with a still striking cardiovascular mortality despite continuous advances targeting multiple risk factors.1 Initial evidence from the UKPDS cohort clearly indicated that, at least in the absence of modern lipid-lowering and blood pressure-lowering drugs, an early and intensive glycaemic control lowers the incidence of late cardiovascular complications.2 However, successive analysis suggested that ‘the means’ by which the glycaemic target is reached is of great importance. Indeed, data from the same cohort showed that metformin was superior to sulphonylureas in terms of long-term cardiovascular protection, at least in obese subjects.3 On the other hand, subsequently introduced drugs, i.e. thiazolidinediones, have been accompanied by cardiovascular safety concerns despite a tangible glucose-lowering effect.4 In particular, certain meta-analyses have shown that rosiglitazone may increase the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and heart failure (HF), while this effect was not observed with another member of this class.5 This and other considerations prompted the introduction (in 2008) of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/European Medicines Agency (EMA)-requested cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) to demonstrate non-inferiority against placebo in terms of cardiovascular safety for newly introduced glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs). In CVOTs, the primary outcome is usually a combination of cardiovascular endpoints, including cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke and, in some cases, the hospitalisation rate for unstable angina pectoris (3 or 4 point major adverse cardiovascular events; MACEs). Non-inferiority is usually defined as a two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) upper boundary of 1.8 risk ratio (pre-approval) and/or 1.3 risk ratio (post-approval) for MACE versus the control group, and the monitoring must cover at least 2 years with event-driven stop after the occurrence of more than 600 primary events. Secondary outcomes often include hospitalisation for HF but also renal endpoints.5,6 Since then, a number of trials have been conducted, mainly encompassing four classes of drugs: (a) dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is); (b) glucagon-like glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs); (c) sodium/glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is); and (d) insulins.5,6 The main findings of these trials and how they have been integrated into newly released therapeutic guidelines are briefly summarised in this article. The importance of determining the underpinnings of the observed cardioprotective effects is underlined, in order to infer which population of non-complicated patients with diabetes will benefit most from their use. Finally, some potential improvements in the design of CVOTs are suggested to fill the still existing gaps in knowledge regarding the effect of glucose-lowering medications on the cardiovascular system.

Evidence emerging from CVOTs

Patients at high cardiovascular risk

Results have been variable and are the subject of intense research.5,6 However, it is increasingly evident that: (a) DPP-4is are accompanied by a neutral effect on short-term cardiovascular outcomes;7–9 (b) four out of six GLP-1RAs have a confirmed cardiovascular benefit against MACEs, especially in terms of the reduced incidence of ischaemic events;10–15 (c) empagliflozin and canagliflozin have shown protection against MACEs, while both plus dapagliflozin (all SGLT-2is) have also demonstrated a tangible effect on HF and renal endpoints.16–18

In detail, analysis of secondary endpoints revealed an increased risk (or a trend towards) for HF for selected DPP-4is, namely saxagliptin and alogliptin.7,8 A later meta-analysis did, however, question these results.6 However, the FDA issued a safety warning on these two drugs increasing the risk of HF, especially in patients with prevalent cardiovascular morbidity.19 The other DPP-4is, i.e. sitagliptin and linagliptin, have not been accompanied by similar concerns and can safely be used in patients with diabetes and HF.20 Of note, the recent CARMELINA trial suggested that linagliptin may decrease the incidence of microvascular outcomes, as shown in an exploratory analysis.21 It is worth mentioning that linagliptin has also been tested in comparison with glimepiride in the only active-comparator CVOT, i.e. the CAROLINA trial, which showed long-term cardiovascular safety for this drug.22

Regarding GLP-1RAs, liraglutide,11 semaglutide,12 albiglutide,14 and dulaglutide15 showed superiority against placebo in the composite MACE primary outcome, while lixisenatide23 and exenatide13 did not. Liraglutide was also accompanied by a consistent (but not statistically significant) decrease in the incidence of MI and stroke,11 an effect also observed with semaglutide, dulaglutide (especially stroke) and albiglutide (especially MI).12,14,15 This evidence, coupled with the observation that the beneficial effect becomes evident after one year of treatment, argues in favour of an ameliorating effect of GLP-1RAs against the progress of the atherosclerotic process and/or stabilisation of existing plaques. On the other hand, two GLP-1RAs have shown neutral effects in CVOTs. While for exenatide a non-significant, protective trend was observed,13 neutral results regarding lixisenatide may suggest that short-acting GLP-1RAs are not as effective as their long-acting counterparts, or that drug structure may influence their cardiovascular effects.14 Of note, the REWIND trial (dulaglutide) also included a consistent proportion of T2DM patients in primary prevention, with an overlapping protective effect against MACEs when compared to patients with pre-existing CVDs.15

An unresolved question is why the SGLT-2is empagliflozin and canagliflozin have shown protection against 3 point MACEs16,17 while dapagliflozin did not, despite a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for HF than placebo.18 Importantly, all the SGLT-1is tested so far have been accompanied by protective effects on HF hospitalisation and renal outcomes in secondary endpoint analysis.24 Worth mentioning is the fact that these results appear also to apply to patients without previous HF, as shown in DECLARE-TIMI,18 but also in real world studies, i.e. observational data obtained outside the context of randomised controlled trials and generated during routine clinical practice.25 Of note, these are characterised by a higher risk of confounding variables but a wider and a more heterogenous population of patients. Of note, the CREDENCE trial showed a decreased risk of cardiovascular events and kidney failure in diabetes patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) treated with canagliflozin vs placebo.26 Finally, ‘ischaemic’ endpoints were not significantly affected by SGLT-2i treatment in CVOTs. However, real-world studies suggest a beneficial effect of this class also against MI and stroke.27

Thiazolidinediones increase insulin sensitivity, which may lead to increased sodium and water retention. In clinical trials, they have been associated with an increased risk of HF.4,28 On the other hand, pioglitazone showed evidence of cardiovascular benefit (against fatal or non-fatal stroke or MI) in the PROactive29 and IRIS trials,30 which enrolled patients with previous ischaemic events and, in the latter, increased insulin resistance. Later, in a head-to-head comparison trial, pioglitazone was found not to be superior to sulfonylureas for cardiovascular event prevention in a lower-risk diabetes population.31 However, the results of that study have been questioned, mainly due to the small sample size and the high rate of treatment discontinuation.32

In the DEVOTE trial, insulin degludec was not superior compared to insulin glargine in terms of MACEs, despite a significantly decreased risk of hypoglycaemia.33,34

Patients in primary prevention

In contrast to the more common CVOT design, the EXSCEL, REWIND, CANVAS and the DECLARE-TIMI trials also enrolled T2DM patients in primary prevention and not only patients with pre-existing CVD or at high risk of CVD.5,6 While these findings may still be taken with caution, also considering that the same definition of high cardiovascular risk and/or CVD has been heterogeneous in different trials,6 these results should encourage further exploration of the cardiovascular effects of new GLDs in the general diabetes population. Furthermore, the putative independence of the population enrolled and the homogeneity of the results in terms of specific endpoints support the theory that SGLT-2is are characterised by a protective class effect against HF and renal failure, while GLP-1RAs bear consistent anti-atherosclerotic properties. The results of the CVOTs completed at present are summarised in Table 1.35

Table 1.

Summary of the major results of the cardiovascular outcome trials conducted from 2008 up to the present day.

Only measures related to primary outcomes are reported. The various classes of glucose-lowering drugs are highlighted with different colours: green for DPP-4is, blue for GLP-1RAs, yellow for SGLT-2is, grey for insulins, and white/no colour for acarbose.

MACE: major adverse cardiovascular event; 3 P-MACE: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; 4 P-MACE: 3 point MACE plus hospitalisation for unstable angina; 5P-MACE: 4 point MACE plus hospitalisation for heart failure; CI: confidence interval.

Table 1.

Summary of the major results of the cardiovascular outcome trials conducted from 2008 up to the present day.

Only measures related to primary outcomes are reported. The various classes of glucose-lowering drugs are highlighted with different colours: green for DPP-4is, blue for GLP-1RAs, yellow for SGLT-2is, grey for insulins, and white/no colour for acarbose.

MACE: major adverse cardiovascular event; 3 P-MACE: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; 4 P-MACE: 3 point MACE plus hospitalisation for unstable angina; 5P-MACE: 4 point MACE plus hospitalisation for heart failure; CI: confidence interval.

Despite these results showing a tangible impact of SGLT-1is and GLP-1RAs on cardiovascular outcomes in both primary and secondary prevention, the patients receiving these medications in clinical settings still represent a small proportion of the T2DM population. Indeed, applying the inclusion criteria of the EMPA-REG and LEADER trials (secondary prevention) in a large outpatient registry, a highly significant number of patients meeting these criteria were not treated with any of these two classes.36 Similar or lower percentages of new GLD usage were found in populations in primary prevention,37 suggesting that a broader and better targeted use of these medications should be considered.

Mechanisms of action

GLP-1RAs are degradation-resistant GLP-1 analogues presenting a plethora of pleiotropic effects both dependent and independent of the GLP-1-R.38 The main effects explaining the glucose-lowering properties of GLP-1 include: (a) glucose-dependent increase in insulin synthesis and secretion; (b) glucose-dependent inhibition of glucagon release; (c) slowing of gastric emptying; (d) induction of satiety; (e) mild insulin sensitisation to promote glucose uptake in muscle and adipose tissue while halting hepatic glucose production.38 DPP-4is are held to have almost overlapping effects, given that GLP-1 is cleaved by the DPP-4 enzyme.39 Indeed, comparable HbA1c reductions have been observed among these two classes in clinical trials.5 However, as described above, the cardiovascular outcomes of DPP-4is and GLP-1RAs are different, implying that additional, probably divergent, cardiovascular mechanisms characterise these drugs.39

SGLT-2 is the key co-transporter promoting the reabsorption of glucose from the glomerular filtration back into circulation, being responsible of almost 90% of the kidney’s glucose reabsorption.40 SGLT-2 is mainly expressed on the epithelial cells lining the first segment of the proximal convoluted tubule. SGLT-2is prevent the kidney’s reuptake of glucose from the glomerular filtrate, thus lowering glycaemia by fostering glycosuria (accompanied by natriuresis).41

It is very unlikely that the reduction in glycated haemoglobin observed in CVOTs is the only or even the major reason for the beneficial cardiovascular and renal effect of GLP-1RAs and SGLT-1is. Similar or indeed more pronounced HbA1c reductions have been observed in trials of GLDs without cardiovascular benefits. The new GLDs are accompanied by a plethora of effects, e.g. blood pressure lowering, weight reducing, metabolic and haemodynamic adjustments, hormonal alterations, anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory effects. Which and how many (if any) of these mechanisms underlie cardioprotection is matter of basic and clinical investigations.24,42,43 The possible mechanisms of GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is in reducing the risk of CVD or kidney disease are shown in Figure 1. Understanding the underpinnings of the beneficial effect of new GLDs is paramount for at least three reasons: (a) they could help to identify which kind of non-complicated patient with diabetes may benefit most from their use; (b) it can eventually prompt further drug designs with specific additional, beneficial effects; and (c) their use could eventually also be extended to some patients without diabetes, e.g. those with HF with regard to SGLT-2is.

Figure 1.

A schematic representation of the putative effect of sodium/glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RAs) on multiple cardiovascular risk factors in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Each of these two classes target multiple phenomena possibly explaining the observed beneficial cardiovascular effect. Red lines: consistent, likely relevant effect; yellow lines: weak effect, unlikely to be responsible for the observed cardiovascular outcome; white: neutral effect; light blue: few data available in clinical settings. The intensity of the effect is postulated by the authors based on available clinical data and current literature.

ADA/EASD treatment algorithm

New information derived from CVOTs has been integrated in the most recent expert consensus document for the management of T2DM released by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and EASD.44 In contrast to previous indications, more flexibility and a personalised approach is advised instead of a fixed glycaemic target. Lifestyle interventions and metformin are still the first-line approach to manage hyperglycaemia. However, when these measures are insufficient, the add-on therapies should be personalised according to patient characteristics and comorbidities. In particular: (a) in the case of patients with atherosclerotic CVD, a GLP-1RA or a SGLT-2i (when the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is acceptable) with confirmed cardiovascular benefit are recommended; (b) in patients with HF or CKD, SGLT-2is with evidence of reducing HF and/or CKD progression are recommended (with proper adjustments according to eGFR cut-offs);45 (c) in patients with any of these conditions the risk of hypoglycaemia, body weight, side effects and cost should be considered to tailor the appropriate therapy.44 Thiazolidinediones, saxagliptin and alogliptin should not be used in patients with diabetes with HF.44

What if a cardiac patient develops diabetes? 2019 ESC guidelines in collaboration with EASD

The beneficial effect of GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is on cardiovascular outcomes is emphasised in the most recent guidelines. However, metformin still represents the first approach for newly diagnosed patients. Usually, T2DM precedes the development of CVDs in unhealthy pathological trajectories.1 However, the opposite can also happen. In case a patient with pre-existing CVD develops T2DM, which should be the first-line drug? Metformin has been safely used for decades in almost any kind of patient with diabetes, as suggested by ever-increasing observational data.46 On the other hand and in contrast to GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2is, metformin did not undergo a randomised, placebo controlled clinical trial to show non-inferiority in terms of cardiovascular outcomes in populations with both T2DM and CVDs (for obvious historical reasons). The position of metformin in the clinical management of diabetes remains an open question worthy of discussion.47

The guidelines released in 2019 by the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) suggests as a key take-home message that ‘for adults with T2DM and additional ASCVD risk factors who require glucose-lowering therapy despite initial lifestyle modifications and metformin, it may be reasonable to initiate a SGLT-2i or a GLP-1RA to reduce CVD risk’ (COR IIb, LOE B-R).48 Noteworthy, and in contrast to all the previously published indications, the new 2019 ESC guidelines in collaboration with EASD have now clearly addressed this point for the first time.49 Indeed, in the case of pre-existing CVD or a condition of high to very high cardiovascular risk (defined as long diabetes duration plus one additional risk factor and pre-existing organ damage or three risk factors, respectively), the first line therapy for treatment-naive T2DM patients should be a SGLT-2i or a GLP-1RA with confirmed cardiovascular benefit, while metformin remains the first option for all the other T2DM patients, especially those overweight and without CVD/at low cardiovascular risk.49

Conclusion and future prospects

Recent pharmacological research has provided new medications in T2DM patients. Ten years of CVOTs have disclosed a plethora of findings suggesting that GLP-1RA and SGLT-2 inhibitors and, to a certain extent, pioglitazone, are accompanied by beneficial effects against a wide range of cardiovascular outcomes. Thus, the prevailing glucocentricity should be abandoned to the advantage of a holistic view of patients’ treatment with protection from cardiovascular events as an important and presently feasible priority. Both diabetologists and cardiologists should take advantage of these new tools to tailor personalised therapies for their patients. Patients with atherosclerotic CVD should be prescribed a GLP-1RA or a SGLT-2i at an early stage, not only to intensify the glucose-lowering regimen but to reduce the cardiovascular risk as an important part. Patients with T2DM and prone to develop HF will benefit from the use of a SGLT2i to prevent HF and CKD.5,6,44 Importantly, this also applies to treatment-naive T2DM patients with high cardiovascular risk or pre-existing CVD being prescribed their first GLD.49

As recently suggested,6,33 there is still a chance to improve our knowledge further regarding the cardiovascular effect of glucose-lowering medications through CVOTs. Indeed, enrolling a more variegated and real-world representative population of diabetes patients, coupled by a longer follow-up would undoubtedly strength the findings, possibly amplifying the ‘target audience’ of new drugs and further driving treatment decisions. In addition, in CVOTs the drugs are compared to placebo. Despite the tentative treatment intensification in the placebo group to reach a comparable glycaemic target (often unsuccessful), it is highly likely that drugs used as background therapy themselves have cardiovascular effects (positive or negative). Also, given these results, future CVOTs should not exclude the use of new drugs with confirmed cardiovascular benefit for ethical reasons. The new 2019 ESC guidelines in collaboration with EASD have now split the approach of the treatment algorithm according to the cardiovascular background of the patient, suggesting GLDs with cardiovascular benefit as the first-line approach in T2DM patients with CVD or high cardiovascular risk while proposing metformin for the others.49 However, it is still unclear which drug represents the best second line therapy in not-at-target T2DM patients without any co-morbidity, even if the use of a new GLD with cardiovascular benefit is advocated in the latest guidelines.44,49 The use of active comparator medications, longer follow-ups and the inclusion of patients without pre-existing CVD and short diabetes duration in CVOTs would probably help to disentangle this point. Whatever the case, the best approach to take care of patients is staying up to date, in order to avoid clinical inertia50 and always to provide the best option to increase the chances of preventing or delaying the harmful effects of T2DM on the cardiovascular system.

Author contribution

FP and AC contributed to the conception and design of the study and drafted the manuscript. LLS, LR, NM and MF contributed to acquisition and interpretation of literature and critically revised the manuscript. All authors gave final approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work ensuring integrity and accuracy.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: this work has been supported by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente).

References

1

Rawshani

A

,

Rawshani

A

,

Franzén

S

, et al.

Mortality and cardiovascular disease in type 1 and type 2 diabetes

.

N Engl J Med

2017

;

376

:

1407

–

1418

.

2

UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group

.

Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes. (UKPDS 33)

.

Lancet

1998

;

352

:

837

–

853

.

3

UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group

.

Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34)

.

Lancet

1998

;

352

:

854

–

865

.

4

Singh

S

,

Loke

YK

,

Furberg

CD

.

Long-term risk of cardiovascular events with rosiglitazone: a meta-analysis

.

JAMA

2007

;

298

:

1189

–

1195

.

5

Schnell

O

, et al.

Current perspectives on cardiovascular outcome trials in diabetes

.

Cardiovasc Diabetol

2016

;

15

:

139

–

139

.

6

Schnell

O

,

Standl

E

,

Catrinoiu

D

, et al.

Report from the 4th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial (CVOT): summit of the Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease (D&CVD) EASD Study Group

.

Cardiovasc Diabetol

2019

;

18

:

30

–

30

.

7

Scirica

BM

, et al.

Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

.

N Engl J Med

2013

;

369

:

1317

–

1326

.

8

Zannad

F

, et al.

Heart failure and mortality outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes taking alogliptin versus placebo in EXAMINE: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind trial

.

Lancet

2015

;

385

:

2067

–

2076

.

9

Green

JB

, et al.

Effect of sitagliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

.

N Engl J Med

2015

;

373

:

232

–

242

.

10

Pfeffer

MA

, et al.

Lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes and acute coronary syndrome

.

N Engl J Med

2015

;

373

:

2247

–

2257

.

11

Marso

SP

, et al.

Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

.

N Engl J Med

2016

;

375

:

311

–

322

.

12

Marso

SP

, et al.

Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes

.

N Engl J Med

2016

;

375

:

1834

–

1844

.

13

Holman

RR

, et al.

Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

.

N Engl J Med

2017

;

377

:

1228

–

1239

.

14

Hernandez

AF

,

Green

JB

,

Janmohamed

S

, et al.

Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial

.

Lancet

2018

;

392

:

1519

–

1529

.

15

Gerstein HC, Colhoun HM, Dagenais GR, et al. Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2019; 394: 121–130

.

16

Zinman

B

, et al.

Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes

.

N Engl J Med

2015

;

373

:

2117

–

2128

.

17

Neal

B

, et al.

Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes

.

N Engl J Med

2017

;

377

:

644

–

657

.

18

Wiviott

SD

,

Raz

I

,

Bonaca

MP

, et al.

Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

.

N Engl J Med

2019

;

380

:

347

–

357

.

20

Kenny

HC

,

Abel

ED

.

Heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus

.

Circ Res

2019

;

124

:

121

–

141

.

21

Rosenstock J, et al. Effect of linagliptin vs placebo on major cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular and renal risk: the CARMELINA randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018; 321: 69–79

.

22

Rosenstock J, et al. CAROLINA: Cardiovascular safety and renal microvascular outcome with linagliptin in patients with T2D at high vascular risk. Oral presentation at the 79th Scientific Sessions of the American Diabetes Association (ADA), Monday, 10 June 2019, 16:30–18:30, San Francisco, CA, USA

.

23

Pfeffer

MA

,

Claggett

B

,

Diaz

R

, et al.

ELIXA Investigators. Lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes and acute coronary syndrome

.

N Engl J Med

2015

;

373

:

2247

–

2257

.

24

Verma

S

,

McMurray

JJV

.

SGLT2 inhibitors and mechanisms of cardiovascular benefit: a state-of-the-art review

.

Diabetologia

2018

;

61

:

2108

–

2117

.

25

Kosiborod

M

,

Cavender

MA

,

Fu

AZ

, et al.

Lower risk of heart failure and death in patients initiated on sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus other glucose-lowering drugs: the CVD-REAL Study (Comparative Effectiveness of Cardiovascular Outcomes in New Users of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors)

.

Circulation

2017

;

136

:

249

–

259

.

26

Perkovic

V

,

Jardine

MJ

,

Neal

B

, et al.

Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy

.

N Engl J Med

2019

;

380

:

2295

–

2306

.

27

Kosiborod

M

,

Lam

CSP

,

Kohsaka

S

, et al.

Cardiovascular events associated with SGLT-2 inhibitors versus other glucose-lowering drugs: the CVD-REAL 2 Study

.

J Am Coll Cardiol

2018

;

71

:

2628

–

2639

.

28

Erdmann

E

,

Charbonnel

B

,

Wilcox

RG

, et al.

PROactive Investigators Pioglitazone use and heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and preexisting cardiovascular disease: data from the PROactive study (PROactive 08)

.

Diabetes Care

2007

;

30

:

2773

–

2778

.

29

Kernan

WN

,

Viscoli

CM

,

Furie

KL

, et al.

IRIS Trial Investigators Pioglitazone after ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack

.

N Engl J Med

2016

;

374

:

1321

–

1331

.

30

Young

LH

,

Viscoli

CM

,

Curtis

JP

, et al.

IRIS Investigators Cardiac outcomes after ischemic stroke or TIA: effects of pioglitazone in patients with insulin resistance without diabetes

.

Circulation

2017

;

135

:

1882

–

1893

.

31

Vaccaro

O

,

Masulli

M

,

Nicolucci

A

, et al.

Thiazolidinediones Or Sulfonylureas Cardiovascular Accidents Intervention Trial (TOSCA.IT) study group; Italian Diabetes Society Effects on the incidence of cardiovascular events of the addition of pioglitazone versus sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin (TOSCA.IT): a randomised, multicentre trial

.

Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol

2017

;

5

:

887

–

897

.

32

Cefalu

WT

,

Kaul

S

,

Gerstein

HC

, et al.

Cardiovascular outcomes trials in type 2 diabetes: where do we go from here? Reflections from a diabetes care editors’ expert forum

.

Diabetes Care

2018

;

41

:

14

–

31

.

33

Marso

SP

, et al.

Efficacy and safety of degludec versus glargine in type 2 diabetes

.

N Engl J Med

2017

;

377

:

723

–

732

.

34

Gerstein

HC

, et al.

Basal insulin and cardiovascular and other outcomes in dysglycemia

.

N Engl J Med

2012

;

367

:

319

–

328

.

35

Holman

RR

,

Coleman

RL

,

Chan

JCN

, et al.

ACE Study Group Effects of acarbose on cardiovascular and diabetes outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease and impaired glucose tolerance (ACE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

.

Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol

2017

;

51

:

877

–

886

.

36

Arnold

SV

,

Inzucchi

SE

,

Tang

F

, et al.

Real-world use and modeled impact of glucose-lowering therapies evaluated in recent cardiovascular outcomes trials: an NCDR Research to Practice project

.

Eur J Prev Cardiol

2017

;

24

:

1637

–

1645

.

37

Hashemi Madani

N

,

Ismail-Beigi

F

,

Khamseh

ME

, et al.

Predictive and explanatory factors of cardiovascular disease in people with adequately controlled type 2 diabetes

.

Eur J Prev Cardiol

2017

;

24

:

1181

–

1189

.

38

Drucker

DJ

.

Mechanisms of action and therapeutic application of glucagon-like peptide-1

.

Cell Metab

2018

;

27

:

740

–

756

.

39

Nauck

MA

,

Meier

JJ

,

Cavender

MA

, et al.

Cardiovascular actions and clinical outcomes with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors

.

Circulation

2017

;

136

:

849

–

870

.

40

Gerstein

HC

,

Bosch

J

,

Dagenais

GR

, et al.

ORIGIN Trial Investigators Basal insulin and cardiovascular and other outcomes in dysglycemia

.

N Engl J Med

2012

;

367

:

319

–

328

.

41

Ferrannini

E

,

Solini

A

.

SGLT2 inhibition in diabetes mellitus: rationale and clinical prospects

.

Nat Rev Endocrinol

2012

;

8

:

495

–

502

.

42

Lorber

D

.

GLP-1 receptor agonists: effects on cardiovascular risk reduction

.

Cardiovasc Ther

2013

;

31

:

238

–

249

.

43

Prattichizzo

F

,

De Nigris

V

,

Micheloni

S

, et al.

Increases in circulating levels of ketone bodies and cardiovascular protection with SGLT2 inhibitors: Is low-grade inflammation the neglected component?

Diabetes Obes Metab

2018

;

20

:

2515

–

2522

.

44

Davies

MJ

, et al.

Management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

.

Diabetes Care

2018

;

41

:

2669

–

2701

.

45

Gomez-Peralta

F

,

Abreu

C

,

Lecube

A

, et al.

Practical approach to initiating SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes

.

Diabetes Ther

2017

;

8

:

953

–

962

.

46

Prattichizzo

F

,

Giuliani

A

,

Mensà

E

, et al.

Pleiotropic effects of metformin: shaping the microbiome to manage type 2 diabetes and postpone ageing

.

Ageing Res Rev

2018

;

48

:

87

–

98

.

47

Cosentino F, Ceriello A, Baeres FMM, et al. Addressing cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a report from the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Roundtable. Eur Heart J 2018; 40: 2907–2919

.

48

Arnett DK, Blumenthal RS, Albert MA, et al. 2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Circulation. Epub ahead of print 17 March 2019. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000678

.

49

Cosentino F, Grant PJ, Aboyans V, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2019 ESC Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD: the Task Force for Diabetes, Pre-Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Eur Heart J 2019; ehz486, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz486

.

50

Reach

G

,

Pechtner

V

,

Gentilella

R

, et al.

Clinical inertia and its impact on treatment intensification in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus

.

Diabetes Metab

2017

;

43

:

501

–

511

.

© The European Society of Cardiology 2019

Topic:

• cardiovascular diseases
• diabetes mellitus
• heart disease risk factors
• heart failure
• diabetes mellitus, type 2
• glucose
• cardiovascular system
• hypoglycemic agents
• guidelines
• glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists

I agree to the terms and conditions. You must accept the terms and conditions.

Submit a comment

Name

Affiliations

Comment title

Comment

You have entered an invalid code

Thank you for submitting a comment on this article. Your comment will be reviewed and published at the journal's discretion. Please check for further notifications by email.

Advertisement intended for healthcare professionals

Citations

Views

Altmetric

Metrics

Total Views 1,904

1,224 Pageviews

680 PDF Downloads

Since 12/1/2020

Citations

43 Web of Science

×

Email alerts

More on this topic

Related articles in PubMed

Citing articles via

• Latest

• Most Read

• Most Cited

More from Oxford Academic

Advertisement intended for healthcare professionals