Second revolution in cardiovascular prevention : Journal of the Chinese Medical Association

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Review Articles

Second revolution in cardiovascular prevention

Chiang, Chern-Ena,b,c,*; Wang, Kang-Linga,b,c; Cheng, Hao-Minb,c,d; Sung, Shih-Hsienb,c; Chao, Tze-Fanb,c

Author Information
Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 83(4):p 327-336, April 2020. | DOI: 10.1097/JCMA.0000000000000276
  • Open

Abstract

1. INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number 1 killer in the world.1 Controlling major risk factors can reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).2 Among all these risk factors, type 2 diabetes is becoming more important. Type 2 diabetes has become a major disease burden in twenty-first century. Both the incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes have quadrupled between 1980 and 2004 in the whole world.3 The total diabetic population will increase from 415 million in 2015 to 642 million by 2040,4 much higher than those of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Patients with type 2 diabetes generally die from ASCVD.5 Furthermore, ASCVD may occur 10 to 15 years before the clinical diagnosis of diabetes.6

The introduction of statins in clinical settings is the first revolution in our battle against ASCVD.7 Most ASCVDs could be prevented or treated with statins. However, statins had some limitations that they failed to reduce chronic kidney diseases (CKD)8,9 and heart failure (HF).10,11 Therefore, we need a second revolution in dealing with ASCVD.

2. FIRST REVOLUTION IN CARDIOVASCULAR PREVENTION

An extensive body of evidence demonstrates that statin therapy effectively prevents and treats coronary heart disease (CHD), myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, and peripheral artery diseases.7 Therefore, the discovery and use of statins can be regarded as the first revolution in CV prevention (Table 1). However, statins have important limitations. Statins could not prevent CKD,12 nor improve renal function in patients with established CKD.13,14 Statins might decrease CV events in patients with CKD,14 but not in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).8,9 Furthermore, statins could not prevent HF,15 nor treat patients with established HF.11 These drawbacks of statins limit more extensive use, given that CKD and HF have becoming the final common events of many CV diseases and diabetes.16–18

T1
Table 1:
First revolution in cardiovascular prevention with the use of statins

3. PREVIOUS “LOWER IS BETTER” TRIALS FOR TYPE 2 DIABETES

Although plenty of evidence suggested an association of hyperglycemia and increased risk of ASCVD, intensive glucose reduction did not reduce ASCVD in four major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (Table 2).19–22 Why decreases in blood sugar could not be translated to a reduction in ASCVD was still unknown. One possible reason was that durations of these RCTs were too short, as more extended follow-up studies of these trials did show some positive findings (Table 2). It is generally believed that with traditional antidiabetic drugs, it might take 10 years to show their benefits in reducing macro-vascular diseases. Interestingly, a meta-analysis comprising five RCTs19–22,27 did show a benefit of lowering glucose in reducing nonfatal MI and CHD.28 A more recent meta-analysis also showed a benefit of using safer antidiabetic agents (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors [DPP-4 i], glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist [GLP-1 RA], and sodium/glucose transporter 2 inhibitors [SGLT-2 i]) in reducing macro-vascular diseases.29

T2
Table 2:
“Lower is better” trials

4. WHAT HAPPENED IN 2007-2008?

In 2007, a provocative meta-analysis claimed that rosiglitazone was associated with significant increases in the risk of MI and CV death.30 As a consequence, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a mandate in December 17, 2008 that rigorous assessment of the CV safety was needed for all new antidiabetic drugs. Only noninferiority, instead of superiority, trials were required. The European Medicines Agency also followed the same regulatory requirement since 2012. Since then, >250 000 patients were enrolled in several CV outcome trials, and more than half of these RCTs have been completed and published.31 These RCTs enrolled all or some patients with preexisting ASCVD, and the CV outcomes correlated with the severity of underlying CV risk levels (Fig. 1). In spite that these trials had been designed to show noninferiority vs. placebo, it was very surprising that some of these trials showed superiority versus placebo. Without these large-scaled outcome trials, we never would be able to know their broad and substantial benefits. From this view point, the issuing of the mandate by FDA in 2008 was a wonderful mistake.

F1
Fig. 1:
Cardiovascular outcome trials of new antidiabetic drugs. The hierarchy was on the basis of the underlying cardiovascular risk levels. The percentages on the left hand side were the event rates of the placebo groups in individual trials.

5. RCTs OF DPP-4 INHIBITORS

DPP-4 inhibitors have modest glucose-lowering effects. Four DPP-4 inhibitors have been tested in CV outcome trials.32–35 The only exception is vildagliptin. Results of these RCTs are shown in Table 3. None of these drugs could decrease major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), CKD, and HF. There was an increase in the risk of HF by saxagliptin in the SAVOR trial.32 The advantage of using DPP-4 inhibitors lies in their good safety profiles, including a very low risk of hypoglycemia.

T3
Table 3:
Cardiovascular outcome trials of DPP-4 inhibitors

6. RCTs OF GLP-1 RECEPTOR AGONISTS

GLP-1 RAs have more potent glucose-lowering effects than DPP-4 inhibitors. GLP-1 RAs can be classified into two groups based on their structure: those containing exentin-4 backbone and human GLP-1 backbone. Two exentin-4 backbone GLP-1 RAs (lixisenatide and exenatide) have been tested and failed to decrease MACE (Table 4).36,37 On the other hand, human GLP-1 backbone GLP-1 RAs, except oral semaglutide, successfully decreased MACE and decreased all-cause mortality in some trials (Table 4).38–42 ASCVDs, including MI and stroke, were generally decreased by GLP-1 RAs, suggesting an antiatherosclerotic effect. Some of them decreased renal events, but none of them was able to decrease hospitalization for HF (HHF).43

T4
Table 4:
Cardiovascular outcome trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists

7. RCTs OF SGLT-2 INHIBITORS

SGLT-2 i inhibit sodium glucose transporter in the proximal tubule in the kidney,44 resulting in glucosuria, a decrease in blood glucose, and body weight loss about 3 to 4 kg.45 SGLT-2 i also cause osmotic diuresis and natriuresis.46 The hemodynamic effects include a decrease in blood pressure,47 and tissue sodium48 and tissue water.49,50 The preload and afterload decrease in the CV system. It has been shown that SGLT-2 i decreased left ventricular (LV) mass and improved LV diastolic function in diabetic patients.51 Another important effect of SGLT-2 i is on the Na+/hydrogen exchanger.52,53 SGLT-2 i directly inhibited Na+/hydrogen exchanger 1 in the myocardium, and reduced cytoplasmic NA+ and Ca++,49,54 resulting in a reduction in intracellular calcium overload and cardiac protection.55

Type 2 diabetes, CKD, and HF have interconnected pathways and share several metabolic and signaling cascades.56 Two most important effects of SGLT-2 i are their renal protective effect and their potential benefits in decreasing HF. After the use of SGLT-2 i, there is an increase in sodium output into distal tubule, stimulating the juxtaglomerular apparatus, and causing vasoconstriction of afferent arteriole.57,58 The decrease in the intraglomerular pressure protects glomerulus.57,58 In older diabetic patients who did not have HF, SGLT-2 i ameliorated the increase in N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide.59 SGLT-2 i also increased ketone body in the blood and might enhance myocardial energetics.60 Interestingly, CKD and HF can now be managed with SGLT-2 i, which could not be solved by statins.

There are four CV outcome trials of SGLT-2 i (Table 5).61–64 Three of them successfully demonstrated a marginal effect in reducing MACE, except the DECLARE trial which enrolled more low-risk patients.63 There were no significant antiatherosclerotic effects, given that MI and stroke were no decreased. Two most striking findings were significant decreases in renal events and HHF.

T5
Table 5:
Cardiovascular outcome trials of SGLT-2 inhibitors

8. EFFECTS OF SGLT-2 INHIBITORS ON RENAL EVENTS

Type 2 diabetes is one of the major causes of CKD and ESRD.65 The number of people who receive renal replacement therapy for ESRD worldwide is projected to increase from 2.6 million in 2010, to >5 million in 2030.65

8.1. Prevention

The efficacy in prevention of renal events has been shown in three RCTs of SGLT-2 i.61,62,66 In general, SGLT-2 i decreased 30% to 50% composite renal endpoints and 50% to 70% ESRD.61,62,66 The renal protective effect is about two-fold that of ARBs.67,68 After 15 years of the discovery of ARBs’ renal protective effects, we now have a second renoprotective drug. Their potential use in nondiabetic patients will be answered by the ongoing EMPA-KIDNEY (NCT03594110) and DAPA-CKD (NCT03036150) trials.

8.2. Treatment

The CREDENCE trial enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuric CKD.64 All the patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30 to 90 mL/min and albuminuria, and were treated with renin–angiotensin system (RAS) blockade.64 Canagliflozin decreased composite renal events by 34% and ESRD by 32%. MACE and HHF were also decreased significantly (20% and 39%, respectively).64 This trial established the role of SGLT-2 i in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD).69

8.3. Earlier is better

The DECLARE trial enrolled low-risk patients, and about 60% of patients were devoid of any history of CVD.63 The average eGFR was 86 mL/min. The CREDENCE trial enrolled patients with preexisting DKD and the average eGFR was 56 mL/min.64 The risk of developing renal endpoints in the placebo group was 1.41%/y in the DECLARE trial, about a quarter of that in the CREDENCE trial (6.12%/y) (Fig. 2A). Likewise, the risk of MACE in placebo group in the DECLARE trial is only 2.42%/y, about a half of that in the CREDENCE trial (4.87%/y) (Fig. 2B) It is very clear that “earlier is better” for the management of CKD in type 2 diabetes.

F2
Fig. 2:
“Earlier is better” in the renal protection and heart failure protection. A, Renal endpoints in the DECLARE trial and the CREDENCE trial. The baseline eGFR was 86 mL/min in the DECLARE trial63 versus 56 mL/min in the CREDENCE trial.64 The baseline risk levels in the CREDENCE trial was four-fold than those in the DECLARE trial. B, The major adverse cardiovascular event rates in the DECLARE trial and the CREDENCE trial. The baseline risk levels in the CREDENCE trial was two-fold than those in the DECLARE trial. C, Hospitalization for heart failure/CV death in the DECLARE trial and the DAPA-HF trial. Only 10% in the DECLARE trial had prior heart failure, whereas 100% patients in the DAPA-HF trial had heart failure. The baseline risk levels in the DAPA-HF trial were about 10-fold than those in the DECLARE trial. D, Total death in the DECLARE trial and the DAPA-HF trial. The baseline risk levels in the DAPA-HF trial were about six-fold than those in the DECLARE trial. eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; CV = cardiovascular.

9. EFFECTS OF SGLT-2 INHIBITORS ON HF

9.1. A deadly duo

Patients with type 2 diabetes have a two-fold increase in the risk of developing HF.70 HF has becoming an important complication for patients with type 2 diabetes. In a recent study from the United States, HF was more common than acute coronary syndrome for adult diabetic patients.71 In a recent Swedish registry, controlling five major risk factors, including blood sugar, cannot prevent HF.2 None of antidiabetic drugs, except SGLT-2 i, could reduce the risk of HF.

The prevalence of the Stage C HF, that is, symptomatic ones, in diabetic patients is around 12%.72,73 However, >70% of asymptomatic diabetic patients have Stage B HF.16 Diabetic patients who have symptomatic HF have a 2.5-fold increased risk of death and a five-fold increased risk of HHF.74 Elderly patients who have incident HF have a 10-fold increased risk of death.75

The prevalence of diabetes in HF patients was around 20% from most of the Western studies.17 In a recent ASIAN-HF registry, the prevalence of diabetes was around 40% in 11 Asian countries,18 much higher than that from the Western countries.17

9.2. Prevention

In the four RCTs of SGLT-2 i, only a few patients had prior HF (10.5% in the EMPA-REG trial,61 14.4% in the CANVAS trial,62 10.2% in the DECLARE trial,63 and 14.8% in the CREDENCE trial64) (Table 5). HHF was significantly reduced in all four trials. The DECLARE trial is the only one to put HHF/CV death as primary endpoints, and the use of dapagliflozin clearly reduced 17% of HHF/CV death (p = 0.005).63 SGLT-2 i is the first antidiabetic drug capable of preventing HHF/CV death.

A useful clinical scoring system (TIMI Risk Score for Heart Failure in Diabetes [TRS-HFDM]) has recently been proposed to predict the risk of developing HF in diabetic patients who do not have prior HF.76 It was derived from the SAVOR trial32 and validated in the DECLARE trial.63 There were five risk indicators: prior HF (two points), atrial fibrillation (one point), CHD (one point), eGFR <60 mL/min (one point), and urine albumin to creatinine ratio (>300 mg/g, two points and 30-300 mg/g, one point).76 Those with a total score ≥2 have a relatively high risk of developing HF, and targeting preventive medications such as SGLT-2 i in these patients may have a high cost-effectiveness (number to treat [NNT] 36 for score ≥3, and NNT 65 for score = 2).76

9.3. Treatment

In a subanalysis of 671 patients with HF reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the DECLARE trial, dapagliflozin reduced HHF/CV death by 38% (p = 0.046), and all-cause death by 41% (p = 0.016).77 These data suggested a potential use of SGLT-2 i in patients with HFrEF. Can an antidiabetic drug be re-purposed to treat HF? Many will argue about their effects in nondiabetics. Throughout the medical history, in fact, there are many successful examples to re-purpose drugs to extend their use (Table 6).

T6
Table 6:
Examples of repurposing drugs

There are five large-scaled RCTs dedicated to study the effect of SGLT-2 i in patient with HF. Three of them were performed in patients with HFrEF: (EMPEROR-REDUCED [NCT03057977], DAPA-HF [NCT03036124],78 and SOLOIST-WHF [NCT03521934]). Two of them were performed in patients with HF with preserved EF (EMPEROR-PRESERVED [NCT03057951], and DELIVER [NCT03619213]). SOLOIST-WHF enrolled only diabetic patients, while other four trials enrolled both diabetic and nondiabetic patients. DAPA-HF is the first completed one.78 The other four trials will be finished before the end of 2021.

9.4. DAPA-HF trial

DAPA-HF trial is the only one that has been completed among these five trials.78 Actually it has been prematurely stopped at 18 months due to an early demonstration of its efficacy. Among the 4744 patients with HFrEF, dapagliflozin 10 mg significantly decreased HHF/CV death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.85; p < 0.001), and all-cause death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97; p = 0.022).78 There were 20 countries participated and Taiwan randomized 141 patients. Two most important subgroup analyses showed dapagliflozin reduced HHF/CV death in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.90, and HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60-0.88, respectively; interaction p = 0.80), and in both angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) users and ARNI nonusers (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.50-1.13, and HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86, respectively; interaction p = nonsignificant). The effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was generally consistent across other prespecified subgroups, including elderly patients.79 Furthermore, dapagliflozin reduced composite renal endpoints (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.44-1.16; p = 0.17).78

Symptoms and life quality were both significantly improved by dapagliflozin.78 The increase in the total symptom score on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (indicating fewer symptoms) was greater in the dapagliflozin group than in the placebo group from baseline to month 8 (+6.1 vs +3.3, p < 0.001).80 Adverse events rarely led to a discontinuation of the drug. There was no notable excess of any serious adverse event in the dapagliflozin group.78

9.5. Earlier is better

Only about 10% of patients in the DECLARE trial had prior HF.63 When comparing with the DAPA-HF trial,78 the DECLARE trial is like a prevention trial.63 The risk of developing HHF/CV death in the placebo group was 1.47%/y in the DECLARE trial, about one tenth of that in the DAPA-HF trial (15.3%/y) (Fig. 2C). Likewise, the risk of all-cause death in placebo group in the DECLARE trial was only 1.64%/y, about one sixth of that in the DAPA-HF trial (9.5%/y) (Fig. 2D). Consistent with the prevention of CKD, “earlier is better” for the prevention of HF in type 2 diabetes.

10. SGLT-2 INHIBITORS VERSUS ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR-NEPRILYSIN INHIBITOR

ARNI has been recommended in most recent HF guidelines,81,82 based on the findings from the PARADIGM-HF trial.83 In the DAPA-HF trial, guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) was recommended in both arms by the protocol, which include ARNI. However, only about 11% received ARNI (20% in Taiwan) in the trial.78 In a post hoc analysis, the efficacy of dapagliflozin was independent of the use of ARNI.78 We would not have head-to-head comparison of ARNI versus SGLT-2 i. Table 7 shows the magnitude of risk reduction and NNT for each endpoint and KCCQ of these two drugs in the trials. Both drugs were very effective and SGLT-2 i should be recommended in the future HF guidelines.

T7
Table 7:
Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in the PARADIGM trial83 and dapagliflozin in the DAPA-HF trial78

11. SGLT-2 INHIBITORS VERSUS GLP-1 RECEPTOR AGONISTS

In a recent meta-analysis of eight trials of 77 242 patients, both GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2 i were effective in reducing MACE, HHF, and renal endpoints (Table 8).84 MACE was reduced only in the secondary prevention group, not in the primary prevention group, by both drugs. SGLT-2 i, not GLP-1 RAs, decreased HHF. Both drugs decreased broad kidney endpoints which included the reduction in proteinuria. But only SGLT-2 i decreased hard kidney endpoints. Overall, SGLT-2 i were the treatment of choice for HF and CKD.84

T8
Table 8:
Comparison of effects of GLP-1 RA versus SGLT-2 i

12. EXTENDED USE OF SGLT-2 INHIBITORS

SGLT-2 i should have more extended use in different clinical settings in diabetic patients (Table 9). For primary prevention purpose, that is, in patients who have HT, or hypercholesterolemia, or smoking, SGLT-2 i decrease HHF/CVD and renal endpoints.63,85 For secondary prevention purpose, that is, in patients with prior ASCVD, SGLT-2 i decrease MACE, HHF/CV death, and renal endpoints. For diabetic and nondiabetic patients who have HFrEF, SGLT-2 i decrease HHF/CV death, renal events, and all-cause death.85 For medical doctors of different disciplines, SGLT-2 i can now be more widely used than before (Fig. 3).

T9
Table 9:
Spectrum of beneficial effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors
F3
Fig. 3:
Extended use of sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors. Doctors from at least eight different disciplines could be potential prescribers. GP = general practitioner; HF = heart failure.

13. REEXAMINATION OF THE ROLE OF METFORMIN IN TYPE 2 DIABETES

The only randomized RCT testing metformin’s CV effects was the UKPDS trial.86 In 753 mildly obese diabetic patients, MI was reduced by 39% (p = 0.01), and all-cause death by 36% (p = 0.011).86 All previous international guidelines recommended metformin as the first-line antidiabetic drug, based on this small trial. Theoretically, it is impossible to do another RCT to test the efficacy of metformin versus placebo. Only one ongoing trial is testing the efficacy of metformin in patients with prediabetes and established ASCVD (VA-IMPACT, NCT02915198). But we have to wait until 2024. Several registries or observational studies supported the efficacy of metformin in reducing all-cause death in high-risk patients or HF patients.87–89

In a more recent subanalysis from the SAVOR trial, metformin use reduced all-cause death by about 25%.90 In the same article, an additional meta-analysis of 815 639 patients also demonstrated a 26% reduction in all-cause death by metformin.90 A further analysis disclosed that in patients with prior HF or moderate to severe CKD metformin could not reduce all-cause death.90 This is a strong evidence to suggest that in patients with prior HF or moderate-to-severe CKD metformin should be moved to second-line therapy, and SGLT-2 i should step up as the first choice. Indeed, in the recent European guidelines, SGLT-2 i or GLP-1 RAs, but not metformin, were recommended in drug naïve patients who have ASCVD or high/very high CV risk.91

14. FUTURE GUIDELINES

In the three decades from 1980s to 2010s, we were very successful in the management of HFrEF. Putting together of RAS blockers, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoids antagonists, ARNI, and SGLT-2 i, we were able to decrease the total death by 76% (Fig. 4). SGLT-2 i will be included in the future HF guidelines and represent the fourth pillar in the management of HFrEF (Fig. 5).

F4
Fig. 4:
The cumulative reduction in total mortality by previous guideline-directed medical therapy, plus sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, in recent 30 years. ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB = angiotensin receptor blocker; ARNI = angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitor; BB = beta-blocker; MRA = mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist.
F5
Fig. 5:
Future guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in HFrEF. Dapagliflozin represents the new fourth pillar. ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB = angiotensin receptor blocker; ARNI = angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitor; GDMT = guideline-directed medical therapy; HFrEF = heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; MRA = mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist.

There will be some important changes in the recommendations in future diabetic guidelines as well. For patients with ASCVD, CKD, and HFrEF, SGLT-2 i and GLP-1 RAs will be ranked first place. SGLT-2 i, in particular, will be the treatment of choice for patients with CKD and HFrEF.

15. SECOND REVOLUTION IN CARDIOVASCULAR PREVENTION

Although initially considered to be only glucose-lowering drugs, the effects of SGLT-2 i expanded far beyond that. The most exciting ones are the protective effects on CKD and HF. SGLT-2 i are now complementary to the effects of statins. We have witnessed this historical moment. We can now call the application of SGLT-2 i is the second revolution in cardiovascular prevention (Table 10).

T10
Table 10:
Second revolution in cardiovascular prevention with the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported, in part, by grants from the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW109-TDU-B-211-114001), and intramural grants from the Taipei Veterans General Hospital (109DHA0100196).

REFERENCES

1. Mensah GA, Roth GA, Fuster V. The global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors: 2020 and beyond.J Am Coll Cardiol2019742529–32
2. Rawshani A, Rawshani A, Franzén S, Sattar N, Eliasson B, Svensson AM, et al. Risk factors, mortality, and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med2018379633–44
3. Collaboration NCDRFWorldwide trends in diabetes since 1980: a pooled analysis of 751 population-based studies with 4.4 million participantsLancet20163871513–30
4. Chatterjee S, Khunti K, Davies MJ. Type 2 diabetes.Lancet20173892239–51
5. Low Wang CC, Hess CN, Hiatt WR, Goldfine AB. Clinical update: cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus: atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus - mechanisms, management, and clinical considerations.Circulation20161332459–502
6. Booth GL, Kapral MK, Fung K, Tu JV. Relation between age and cardiovascular disease in men and women with diabetes compared with non-diabetic people: a population-based retrospective cohort study.Lancet200636829–36
7. Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J, Holland LE, Reith C, et al.; Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) CollaborationEfficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170000 participants in 26 randomised trialsLancet20103761670–81
8. Wanner C, Krane V, März W, Olschewski M, Mann JF, Ruf G, et al.; German Diabetes and Dialysis Study InvestigatorsAtorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing hemodialysis.N Engl J Med2005353238–48
9. Fellström BC, Jardine AG, Schmieder RE, Holdaas H, Bannister K, Beutler J, et al.; AURORA Study GroupRosuvastatin and cardiovascular events in patients undergoing hemodialysis.N Engl J Med20093601395–407
10. Tavazzi L, Maggioni AP, Marchioli R, Barlera S, Franzosi MG, Latini R, et al.; Gissi-HF InvestigatorsEffect of rosuvastatin in patients with chronic heart failure (the GISSI-HF trial): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Lancet20083721231–9
11. Kjekshus J, Apetrei E, Barrios V, Böhm M, Cleland JG, Cornel JH, et al.; CORONA GroupRosuvastatin in older patients with systolic heart failure.N Engl J Med20073572248–61
12. Lai CL, Chou HW, Chan KA, Lai MS. Effects of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin on renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Am J Cardiol2015115619–24
13. Strippoli GF, Navaneethan SD, Johnson DW, Perkovic V, Pellegrini F, Nicolucci A, et al. Effects of statins in patients with chronic kidney disease: meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomised controlled trials.BMJ2008336645–51
14. Baigent C, Landray MJ, Reith C, Emberson J, Wheeler DC, Tomson C, et al.; SHARP InvestigatorsThe effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in patients with chronic kidney disease (study of heart and renal protection): a randomised placebo-controlled trial.Lancet20113772181–92
15. Yusuf S, Bosch J, Dagenais G, Zhu J, Xavier D, Liu L, et al.; HOPE-3 InvestigatorsCholesterol lowering in intermediate-risk persons without cardiovascular disease.N Engl J Med20163742021–31
16. Seferović PM, Paulus WJ. Clinical diabetic cardiomyopathy: a two-faced disease with restrictive and dilated phenotypesEur Heart J2015361718a–27c
17. Seferović PM, Petrie MC, Filippatos GS, Anker SD, Rosano G, Bauersachs J, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure: a position statement from the heart failure association of the European Society of Cardiology.Eur J Heart Fail201820853–72
18. Chia YMF, Teng TK, Tay WT, Anand I, MacDonald MR, Yap J, et al.; ASIAN-HF InvestigatorsPrescription patterns of anti-diabetic medications and clinical outcomes in Asian patients with heart failure and diabetes mellitus.Eur J Heart Fail201921685–8
19. UKPDS GroupIntensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33)Lancet1998352837–53
20. Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, Goff DC Jr, Bigger JT, et al.; Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study GroupEffects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetesN Engl J Med20083582545–59
21. Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, Neal B, Billot L, et al.; ADVANCE Collaborative GroupIntensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetesN Engl J Med20083582560–72
22. Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, Reda D, Emanuele N, Reaven PD, et al.; VADT InvestigatorsGlucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med2009360129–39
23. Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med20083591577–89
24. Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Ismail-Beigi F, Largay J, McDonald C, Lochnan HA, et al.; ACCORD Study GroupEffects of intensive glycaemic control on ischaemic heart disease: analysis of data from the randomised, controlled ACCORD trial.Lancet20143841936–41
25. Zoungas S, Chalmers J, Neal B, Billot L, Li Q, Hirakawa Y, et al.; ADVANCE-ON Collaborative GroupFollow-up of blood-pressure lowering and glucose control in type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med20143711392–406
26. Hayward RA, Reaven PD, Wiitala WL, Bahn GD, Reda DJ, Ge L, et al.; VADT InvestigatorsFollow-up of glycemic control and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med20153722197–206
27. Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland DJ, Erdmann E, Massi-Benedetti M, Moules IK, et al.; PROactive InvestigatorsSecondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the proactive study (prospective pioglitazone clinical trial in macrovascular events): a randomised controlled trial.Lancet20053661279–89
28. Ray KK, Seshasai SR, Wijesuriya S, Sivakumaran R, Nethercott S, Preiss D, et al. Effect of intensive control of glucose on cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Lancet20093731765–72
29. Huang CJ, Wang WT, Sung SH, Chen CH, Lip GYH, Cheng HM, et al. Blood glucose reduction by diabetic drugs with minimal hypoglycaemia risk for cardiovascular outcomes: evidence from meta-regression analysis of randomized controlled trials.Diabetes Obes Metab2018202131–9
30. Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causesN Engl J Med20073562457–71
31. Holman RR, Sourij H, Califf RM. Cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering drugs or strategies in type 2 diabetes.Lancet20143832008–17
32. Scirica BM, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E, Steg PG, Davidson J, Hirshberg B, et al.; SAVOR-TIMI 53 Steering Committee and InvestigatorsSaxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.N Engl J Med20133691317–26
33. White WB, Cannon CP, Heller SR, Nissen SE, Bergenstal RM, Bakris GL, et al.; EXAMINE InvestigatorsAlogliptin after acute coronary syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med20133691327–35
34. Green JB, Bethel MA, Armstrong PW, Buse JB, Engel SS, Garg J, et al.; TECOS Study GroupEffect of sitagliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med2015373232–42
35. Rosenstock J, Perkovic V, Johansen OE, Cooper ME, Kahn SE, Marx N, et al.; CARMELINA InvestigatorsEffect 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.JAMA201932169–79
36. Pfeffer MA, Claggett B, Diaz R, Dickstein K, Gerstein HC, Køber LV, et al.; ELIXA InvestigatorsLixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes and acute coronary syndrome.N Engl J Med20153732247–57
37. Holman RR, Bethel MA, Mentz RJ, Thompson VP, Lokhnygina Y, Buse JB, et al.; EXSCEL Study GroupEffects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med20173771228–39
38. Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-Frandsen K, Kristensen P, Mann JF, Nauck MA, et al.; LEADER Steering Committee; LEADER Trial InvestigatorsLiraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med2016375311–22
39. Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, Eliaschewitz FG, Jódar E, Leiter LA, et al.; SUSTAIN-6 InvestigatorsSemaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med20163751834–44
40. Husain M, Birkenfeld AL, Donsmark M, Dungan K, Eliaschewitz FG, Franco DR, et al.; PIONEER 6 InvestigatorsOral semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med2019381841–51
41. Hernandez AF, Green JB, Janmohamed S, D’Agostino RB Sr, Granger CB, Jones NP, et al.; Harmony Outcomes committees and investigatorsAlbiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (harmony outcomes): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.Lancet20183921519–29
42. Gerstein HC, Colhoun HM, Dagenais GR, Diaz R, Lakshmanan M, Pais P, et al.; REWIND InvestigatorsDulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.Lancet2019394121–30
43. Giugliano D, Maiorino MI, Bellastella G, Longo M, Chiodini P, Esposito K. GLP-1 receptor agonists for prevention of cardiorenal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an updated meta-analysis including the REWIND and PIONEER 6 trials.Diabetes Obes Metab2019212576–80
44. Bays H. From victim to ally: the kidney as an emerging target for the treatment of diabetes mellitus.Curr Med Res Opin200925671–81
45. Ferrannini E, Solini A. SGLT2 inhibition in diabetes mellitus: rationale and clinical prospectsNat Rev Endocrinol20128495–502
46. Bakris GL, Fonseca VA, Sharma K, Wright EM. Renal sodium-glucose transport: role in diabetes mellitus and potential clinical implications.Kidney Int2009751272–7
47. Kario K, Okada K, Kato M, Nishizawa M, Yoshida T, Asano T, et al. 24-hour blood pressure-lowering effect of an SGLT-2 inhibitor in patients with diabetes and uncontrolled nocturnal hypertension: results from the randomized, placebo-controlled SACRA studyCirculation20181392089–97
48. Karg MV, Bosch A, Kannenkeril D, Striepe K, Ott C, Schneider MP, et al. SGLT-2-inhibition with dapagliflozin reduces tissue sodium content: a randomised controlled trial.Cardiovasc Diabetol2018175
49. Verma SM, McMurray JJV. SGLT2 inhibitors and mechanisms of cardiovascular benefit: a state-of-the-art reviewDiabetologia2018612108–17
50. Hallow KM, Helmlinger G, Greasley PJ, McMurray JJV, Boulton DW. Why do SGLT2 inhibitors reduce heart failure hospitalization? A differential volume regulation hypothesis.Diabetes Obes Metab201820479–87
51. Verma S, Garg A, Yan AT, Gupta AK, Al-Omran M, Sabongui A, et al. Effect of empagliflozin on left ventricular mass and diastolic function in individuals with diabetes: an important clue to the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial?Diabetes Care201639e212–3
52. Uthman L, Baartscheer A, Bleijlevens B, Schumacher CA, Fiolet JWT, Koeman A, et al. Class effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in mouse cardiomyocytes and hearts: inhibition of Na+/H+ exchanger, lowering of cytosolic Na+ and vasodilation.Diabetologia201861722–6
53. Uthman L, Nederlof R, Eerbeek O, Baartscheer A, Schumacher C, Buchholtz N, et al. Delayed ischaemic contracture onset by empagliflozin associates with NHE1 inhibition and is dependent on insulin in isolated mouse hearts.Cardiovasc Res20191151533–45
54. Baartscheer A, Schumacher CA, Wüst RC, Fiolet JW, Stienen GJ, Coronel R, et al. Empagliflozin decreases myocardial cytoplasmic na+ through inhibition of the cardiac na+/H+ exchanger in rats and rabbits.Diabetologia201760568–73
55. Packer M. Reconceptualization of the molecular mechanism by which sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of heart failure events.Circulation2019140443–5
56. Zelniker TA, Braunwald E. Mechanisms of cardiorenal effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors: JACC State-of-the-Art reviewJ Am Coll Cardiol202075422–34
57. Kidokoro K, Cherney DZI, Bozovic A, Nagasu H, Satoh M, Kanda E, et al. Evaluation of glomerular hemodynamic function by empagliflozin in diabetic mice using in vivo imaging.Circulation2019140303–15
58. Wanner C. Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition and the visualization of kidney hemodynamics.Circulation2019140316–8
59. Januzzi JL Jr, Butler J, Jarolim P, Sattar N, Vijapurkar U, Desai M, et al. Effects of canagliflozin on cardiovascular biomarkers in older adults with type 2 diabetes.J Am Coll Cardiol201770704–12
60. Santos-Gallego CG, Requena-Ibanez JA, San Antonio R, Ishikawa K, Watanabe S, Picatoste B, et al. Empagliflozin ameliorates adverse left ventricular remodeling in nondiabetic heart failure by enhancing myocardial energetics.J Am Coll Cardiol2019731931–44
61. Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, Fitchett D, Bluhmki E, Hantel S, et al.; EMPA-REG OUTCOME InvestigatorsEmpagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med20153732117–28
62. Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, de Zeeuw D, Fulcher G, Erondu N, et al.; CANVAS Program Collaborative GroupCanagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med2017377644–57
63. Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP, Mosenzon O, Kato ET, Cahn A, et al.; DECLARE–TIMI 58 InvestigatorsDapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med2019380347–57
64. Perkovic V, Jardine MJ, Neal B, Bompoint S, Heerspink HJL, Charytan DM, et al.; CREDENCE Trial InvestigatorsCanagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.N Engl J Med20193802295–306
65. Liyanage T, Ninomiya T, Jha V, Neal B, Patrice HM, Okpechi I, et al. Worldwide access to treatment for end-stage kidney disease: a systematic review.Lancet20153851975–82
66. Mosenzon O, Wiviott SD, Cahn A, Rozenberg A, Yanuv I, Goodrich EL, et al. Effects of dapagliflozin on development and progression of kidney disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: an analysis from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 randomised trial.Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol20197606–17
67. Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, Keane WF, Mitch WE, Parving HH, et al.; RENAAL Study InvestigatorsEffects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.N Engl J Med2001345861–9
68. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, Berl T, Pohl MA, Lewis JB, et al.; Collaborative Study GroupRenoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes.N Engl J Med2001345851–60
69. American Diabetes A9. Pharmacologic approaches to glycemic treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2020Diabetes Care202043S98–S110
70. Nichols GA, Gullion CM, Koro CE, Ephross SA, Brown JB. The incidence of congestive heart failure in type 2 diabetes: an update.Diabetes Care2004271879–84
71. Burrows NR, Li Y, Gregg EW, Geiss LS. Declining rates of hospitalization for selected cardiovascular disease conditions among adults aged ≥35 years with diagnosed diabetes, U.S., 1998-2014.Diabetes Care201841293–302
72. Nichols GA, Hillier TA, Erbey JR, Brown JB. Congestive heart failure in type 2 diabetes: prevalence, incidence, and risk factors.Diabetes Care2001241614–9
73. Thrainsdottir IS, Aspelund T, Thorgeirsson G, Gudnason V, Hardarson T, Malmberg K, et al. The association between glucose abnormalities and heart failure in the population-based Reykjavik study.Diabetes Care200528612–6
74. Cavender MA, Steg PG, Smith SC Jr, Eagle K, Ohman EM, Goto S, et al.; REACH Registry InvestigatorsImpact of diabetes mellitus on hospitalization for heart failure, cardiovascular events, and death: outcomes at 4 years from the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry.Circulation2015132923–31
75. Bertoni AG, Hundley WG, Massing MW, Bonds DE, Burke GL, Goff DC Jr.. Heart failure prevalence, incidence, and mortality in the elderly with diabetes.Diabetes Care200427699–703
76. Berg DD, Wiviott SD, Scirica BM, Gurmu Y, Mosenzon O, Murphy SA, et al. Heart failure risk stratification and efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Circulation20191401569–77
77. Kato ET, Silverman MG, Mosenzon O, Zelniker TA, Cahn A, Furtado RHM, et al. Effect of dapagliflozin on heart failure and mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus.Circulation20191392528–36
78. McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, Køber L, Kosiborod MN, Martinez FA, et al.; DAPA-HF Trial Committees and InvestigatorsDapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.N Engl J Med20193811995–2008
79. Martinez FA, Serenelli M, Nicolau JC, Petrie MC, Chiang CE, Tereshchenko S, et al. Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction according to age: insights from DAPA-HF.Circulation2020141100–11
80. Kosiborod MN, Jhund PS, Docherty KF, Diez M, Petrie MC, Verma S, et al. Effects of dapagliflozin on symptoms, function, and quality of life in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: results from the DAPA-HF trial.Circulation202014190–9
81. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC.Eur Heart J2016372129–200
82. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr, Colvin MM, et al. 2016 ACC/AHA/HFSA focused update on new pharmacological therapy for heart failure: an update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America.J Am Coll Cardiol2016681476–88
83. McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, et al.; PARADIGM-HF Investigators and CommitteesAngiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure.N Engl J Med2014371993–1004
84. Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, Im K, Goodrich EL, Furtado RHM, et al. Comparison of the effects of glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus.Circulation20191392022–31
85. Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, Im K, Goodrich EL, Bonaca MP, et al. SGLT2 inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials.Lancet201939331–9
86. Group UKPDSEffect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34)Lancet1998352854–65
87. Roussel R, Travert F, Pasquet B, Wilson PW, Smith SC Jr, Goto S, et al.; Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry InvestigatorsMetformin use and mortality among patients with diabetes and atherothrombosis.Arch Intern Med20101701892–9
88. Eurich DT, Weir DL, Majumdar SR, Tsuyuki RT, Johnson JA, Tjosvold L, et al. Comparative safety and effectiveness of metformin in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure: systematic review of observational studies involving 34,000 patients.Circ Heart Fail20136395–402
89. Crowley MJ, Diamantidis CJ, McDuffie JR, Cameron CB, Stanifer JW, Mock CK, et al. Clinical outcomes of metformin use in populations with chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, or chronic liver disease: A systematic review.Ann Intern Med2017166191–200
90. Bergmark BA, Bhatt DL, McGuire DK, Cahn A, Mosenzon O, Steg PG, et al.; SAVOR-TIMI 53 Steering Committee and InvestigatorsMetformin use and clinical outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus with or without heart failure or kidney dysfunction: observations from the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial.Circulation20191401004–14
91. Cosentino F, Grant PJ, Aboyans V, Bailey CJ, Ceriello A, Delgado V, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group2019 ESC guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD.Eur Heart J202041255–323
Keywords:

Cardiovascular disease; Chronic; Diabetes mellitus, Type 2; Heart failure; Renal insufficiency; Sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors

Copyright © 2020, the Chinese Medical Association.