Search

Aim: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) allocating type 2 diabetes patients to treatment with sodium‐glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT‐2) inhibitors or placebo have found significant effects on the risk of heart failure and modest effects on mortality. In the wake of the first trials, a number of observational studies have been conducted, some of these reporting a mortality reduction of 50% compared to active comparators. In this review, we systematically assess and compare the results on all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalization observed in RCTs with the results obtained in observational studies. Method: We performed a systematic bibliographical search including cardiovascular outcome trials and observational studies assessing the effect of SGLT‐2 inhibitors on mortality and heart failure. Results: Seven RCTs and 23 observational studies were included in the current review. The observed heterogeneity between study results for all‐cause mortality (p‐interaction < 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (p‐interaction < 0.001) was explained by study type, whereas this was not the case for heart failure (p‐interaction = 0.18). Conclusion: Methodological considerations such as the omission of important confounders, immortal‐time bias and residual confounding such as unmeasured social economic inequality may be the cause of the inflated results observed in observational studies and that calls for caution when observational studies are used to guide treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death, but not all-cause death in patients with non-ischaemic systolic heart failure (HF). Whether co-existence of diabetes affects ICD treatment effects is unclear.Methods and Results: We examined the effect of ICD implantation on risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and sudden cardiac death (SCD) according to diabetes status at baseline in the Danish Study to Assess the Efficacy of ICDs in Patients with Non-ischaemic Systolic Heart Failure on Mortality (DANISH) trial. Outcomes were analysed by use of cumulative incidence curves and Cox regressions models. Of the 1116 patients enrolled, 211 (19%) had diabetes at baseline. Patients with diabetes were more obese, had worse kidney function and more were in New York Heart Association Class III/IV. The risk of device infections and other complications in the ICD group was similar among patients with and without diabetes (6.1% vs. 4.6% P = 0.54). Irrespective of treatment group, diabetes was associated with higher risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and SCD. The treatment effect of ICD in patients with diabetes vs. patients without diabetes was hazard ratio (HR) = 0.92 (0.57-1.50) vs. HR = 0.85 (0.63-1.13); Pinteraction = 0.60 for all-cause mortality, HR = 0.99 (0.58-1.70) vs. HR = 0.70 (0.48-1.01); Pinteraction = 0.25 for cardiovascular death, and HR = 0.81 (0.35-1.88) vs. HR = 0.40 (0.22-0.76); Pinteraction = 0.16 for sudden cardiac death.Conclusion: Among patients with non-ischaemic systolic HF, diabetes was associated with higher incidence of all-cause mortality, primarily driven by cardiovascular mortality including SCD. Treatment effect of ICD therapy was not significantly modified by diabetes which might be due to lack of power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We examined the prognostic importance of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and troponin T (TnT) in heart failure patients with and without diabetes.Methods and Results: We measured NT-proBNP and TnT in the biomarker substudy of the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial (PARADIGM-HF). Of 1907 patients, 759 (40%) had diabetes. Median TnT in patients with diabetes was 18 (interquartile range 11-27) ng/L and 13 (9-21) ng/L in those without (P < 0.001). The TnT frequency-distribution curve was shifted to the right in patients with diabetes, compared to those without diabetes. By contrast, NT-proBNP did not differ between patients with and without diabetes. Diabetes and each biomarker were predictive of worse outcomes. Thus, patients with diabetes, an elevated TnT and a NT-proBNP level in the highest tertile (9% of all patients) had an absolute risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization of 265 per 1000 person-years, compared to a rate of 42 per 1000 person-years in those without diabetes, a TnT < 18 ng/L and a NT-proBNP in the lowest tertile (16% of all patients). TnT remained an independent predictor of adverse outcomes in multivariable analyses including NT-proBNP.Conclusion: TnT is elevated to a greater extent in heart failure patients with diabetes compared to those without (whereas NT-proBNP is not). TnT and NT-proBNP are additive in predicting risk and when combined help identify diabetes patients at extremely high absolute risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The role of microvascular complications in the risk conferred by diabetes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is unknown.Methods and Results: We studied 2707 HFrEF patients in the Beta-blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST), stratified into three groups: no diabetes and diabetes without or with microvascular complications (neuropathy, nephropathy, or retinopathy). The risks of the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization, and all-cause death, were studied using Cox regression analyses adjusted for other prognostic variables. Overall, 964 (36%) patients had diabetes, of which 313 (32%) had microvascular complications. Patients with microvascular complications had more severe symptoms (New York Heart Association class IV 12% vs. 9% diabetes with no complications and 7% no diabetes), and worse quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure median score 60 vs. 54 and 51 points). In patients with diabetes and complications, the rate of the composite outcome was 50 per 100 person-years of follow-up (compared with 34 and 29 in those with diabetes and no microvascular complications and participants without diabetes, respectively). Compared to patients without diabetes, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the composite outcome was 1.44 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22-1.70] and 1.18 (95% CI 1.03-1.35) for patients with diabetes with and without complications, respectively. The risk of all-cause mortality was similarly elevated: adjusted HR 1.42 (95% CI 1.16-1.74) and 1.20 (95% CI 1.01-1.42), respectively.Conclusion: In HFrEF, diabetes with microvascular complications is associated with worse symptoms and outcomes than diabetes without microvascular complications. Prevention of microvascular complications has the potential to improve HFrEF outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Because of concerns about the safety of aliskiren in patients with diabetes, study treatment was stopped prematurely in the Aliskiren Trial of Minimizing OutcomeS for Patients with HEart failuRE (ATMOSPHERE). We examined outcomes and treatment effect in these patients compared with those without diabetes.Methods and Results: ATMOSPHERE included 7016 patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) randomly assigned to enalapril plus aliskiren, aliskiren alone, or enalapril. At baseline, 1944 (27.7%) patients had diabetes. Median follow-up was shorter in patients with diabetes compared with those without (24 months vs. 46 months). Among patients with diabetes, the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 216 patients (33.1%) in the enalapril group (reference), 172 (27.4%) in the aliskiren group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67-1.00; P = 0.053], and 196 (29.5%) in the combination group (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04; P = 0.13). The effects of the treatments studied did not differ significantly compared with patients without diabetes. In patients with diabetes, aliskiren monotherapy was associated with a lower risk of symptomatic hypotension compared to enalapril [42 (6.7%) vs. 65 (10.0%); P = 0.04], whereas other adverse events were generally balanced between the three groups.Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF and diabetes, there was no signal of harm and a trend towards benefit when direct renin inhibition monotherapy was compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, whereas combined aliskiren and enalapril treatment led to more adverse events with no improvement in outcomes. Treatment effects did not differ in patients with diabetes compared with those without. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00853658. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, little is known about the characteristics of, and outcomes in, those with and without diabetes mellitus.Methods: We examined clinical and echocardiographic characteristics and outcomes in the I-Preserve trial (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) according to history of diabetes mellitus. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios for cardiovascular outcomes adjusted for known predictors, including age, sex, natriuretic peptides, and comorbidity. Echocardiographic data were available in 745 patients and were additionally adjusted for in supplementary analyses.Results: Overall, 1134 of 4128 patients (27%) had diabetes mellitus. Compared with those without diabetes mellitus, they were more likely to have a history of myocardial infarction (28% versus 22%), higher body mass index (31 versus 29 kg/m2), worse Minnesota Living With Heart Failure score (48 versus 40), higher median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentration (403 versus 320 pg/mL; all P<0.01), more signs of congestion, but no significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with diabetes mellitus had a greater left ventricular mass and left atrial area than patients without diabetes mellitus. Doppler E-wave velocity (86 versus 76 cm/s; P<0.0001) and the E/e' ratio (11.7 versus 10.4; P=0.010) were higher in patients with diabetes mellitus. Over a median follow-up of 4.1 years, cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization occurred in 34% of patients with diabetes mellitus versus 22% of those without diabetes mellitus (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-2.05), and 28% versus 19% of patients with and without diabetes mellitus died (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.59; confidence interval, 1.33-1.91).Conclusions: In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, patients with diabetes mellitus have more signs of congestion, worse quality of life, higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, and a poorer prognosis. They also display greater structural and functional echocardiographic abnormalities. Further investigation is needed to determine the mediators of the adverse impact of diabetes mellitus on outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and whether they are modifiable.Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00095238. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

FREEDOM, a cardiovascular outcome trial with a GLP-1 receptor agonist, testing a continuous subcutaneous infusion of exenatide (ITCA 650), recently reported its findings. We meta-analysed its results with eight prior GLP-1 receptor agonists trials. GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced MACE by 13% (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.81–0.94]; p = 0.00065) and all-cause mortality by 11% (HR 0.89 [0.83–0.95]; p = 0.00084). However, FREEDOM results appear dissimilar to prior GLP-1 receptor agonist trials. FREEDOM results should not influence current considerations about the benefits or harms of approved formulations of GLP-1 receptor agonists. There is also an ongoing debate about the safety of ITCA 650. • The FREEDOM Cardiovascular Outcomes trial results were recently published. • Its results appear different to other GLP-1 receptor agonist outcome trials in a trial meta-analysis. • This and other concerns mean FREEDOM should not influence current perceptions about the benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]