Canagliflozin and Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease in Primary and Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention Groups

Background: Canagliflozin reduces the risk of kidney failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease, but effects on specific cardiovascular outcomes are uncertain, as are effects in people without previous cardiovascular disease (primary prevention). Methods: In CREDENCE (Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes With Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation), 4401 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease were randomly assigned to canagliflozin or placebo on a background of optimized standard of care. Results: Primary prevention participants (n=2181, 49.6%) were younger (61 versus 65 years), were more often female (37% versus 31%), and had shorter duration of diabetes mellitus (15 years versus 16 years) compared with secondary prevention participants (n=2220, 50.4%). Canagliflozin reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]; P=0.01), with consistent reductions in both the primary (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.49-0.94]) and secondary (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.69-1.06]) prevention groups (P for interaction=0.25). Effects were also similar for the components of the composite including cardiovascular death (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.61-1.00]), nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59-1.10]), and nonfatal stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.56-1.15]). The risk of the primary composite renal outcome and the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure were also consistently reduced in both the primary and secondary prevention groups (P for interaction >0.5 for each outcome). Conclusions: Canagliflozin significantly reduced major cardiovascular events and kidney failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease, including in participants who did not have previous cardiovascular disease

Canagliflozin and Renal Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes and Nephropathy

BACKGROUND Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the leading cause of kidney failure worldwide, but few effective long-term treatments are available. In cardiovascular trials of inhibitors of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), exploratory results have suggested that such drugs may improve renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS In this double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease to receive canagliflozin, an oral SGLT2 inhibitor, at a dose of 100 mg daily or placebo. All the patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 30 to 300 to 5000) and were treated with renin–angiotensin system blockade. The primary outcome was a composite of end-stage kidney disease (dialysis, transplantation, or a sustained estimated GFR of <15 ml per minute per 1.73 m 2), a doubling of the serum creatinine level, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Prespecified secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically. RESULTS The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee. At that time, 4401 patients had undergone randomization, with a median follow-up of 2.62 years. The relative risk of the primary outcome was 30% lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group, with event rates of 43.2 and 61.2 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.82; P=0.00001). The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P<0.001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.86; P=0.002). The canagliflozin group also had a lower risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01) and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of amputation or fracture. CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease, the risk of kidney failure and cardiovascular events was lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 2.62 years

Measuring Sperm DNA Fragmentation and Clinical Outcomes of Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sperm DNA fragmentation has been associated with reduced fertilization rates, embryo quality, pregnancy rates and increased miscarriage rates. Various methods exist to test sperm DNA fragmentation such as the sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA), the sperm chromatin dispersion (SCD) test, the terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate nick end labelling (TUNEL) assay and the single cell gel electrophoresis (Comet) assay. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the value of measuring sperm DNA fragmentation in predicting chance of ongoing pregnancy with IVF or ICSI. Out of 658 unique studies, 30 had extractable data and were thus included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the sperm DNA fragmentation tests had a reasonable to good sensitivity. A wide variety of other factors may also affect the IVF/ICSI outcome, reflected by limited to very low specificity. The constructed hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curve indicated a fair discriminatory capacity of the TUNEL assay (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.74) and Comet assay (AUC of 0.73; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.97). The SCSA and the SCD test had poor predictive capacity. Importantly, for the TUNEL assay, SCD test and Comet assay, meta-regression showed no differences in predictive value between IVF and ICSI. For the SCSA meta-regression indicated the predictive values for IVF and ICSI were different. The present review suggests that current sperm DNA fragmentation tests have limited capacity to predict the chance of pregnancy in the context of MAR. Furthermore, sperm DNA fragmentation tests have little or no difference in predictive value between IVF and ICSI. At this moment, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of sperm DNA fragmentation tests in couples undergoing MAR both for the prediction of pregnancy and for the choice of treatment. Given the significant limitations of the evidence and the methodological weakness and design of the included studies, we do urge for further research on the predictive value of sperm DNA fragmentation for the chance of pregnancy after MAR, also in comparison with other predictors of pregnancy after MAR