Cardiovascular, mortality and kidney outcomes with GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials

Background: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists differ in their structure and duration of action and have been studied in trials of varying sizes and with different patient populations, with inconsistent effects on cardiovascular outcomes reported. We aimed to synthesise the available evidence by doing a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials of these drugs. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible placebo-controlled trials reporting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; ie, cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction) up to June 15, 2019. We did a meta-analysis using a random-effects model to estimate overall hazard ratios (HRs) for MACE, its components, death from any cause, hospital admission for heart failure, kidney outcomes, and key safety outcomes (severe hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer). We also examined MACE in several subgroups based on patient characteristics (history of cardiovascular disease, BMI, age, baseline HbA1c, and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate), trial duration, treatment dosing interval, and structural homology. Findings: Of 27 publications screened, seven trials, with a combined total of 56 004 participants, were included: ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), EXSCEL (exenatide), Harmony Outcomes (albiglutide), REWIND (dulaglutide), and PIONEER 6 (oral semaglutide). Overall, GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment reduced MACE by 12% (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·82–0·94; p<0·0001). There was no statistically significant heterogeneity across the subgroups examined. HRs were 0·88 (95% CI 0·81–0·96; p=0·003) for death from cardiovascular causes, 0·84 (0·76–0·93; p<0·0001) for fatal or non-fatal stroke, and 0·91 (0·84–1·00; p=0·043) for fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction. GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment reduced all-cause mortality by 12% (0·88, 0·83–0·95; p=0·001), hospital admission for heart failure by 9% (0·91, 0·83–0·99; p=0·028), and a broad composite kidney outcome (development of new-onset macroalbuminuria, decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate [or increase in creatinine], progression to end-stage kidney disease, or death attributable to kidney causes) by 17% (0·83, 0·78–0·89; p<0·0001), mainly due to a reduction in urinary albumin excretion. There was no increase in risk of severe hypoglycaemia, pancreatitis, or pancreatic cancer. Interpretation: Treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists has beneficial effects on cardiovascular, mortality, and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes

Comparison of BNP and NT-proBNP in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

Both BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide) and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide) are widely used to aid diagnosis, assess the effect of therapy, and predict outcomes in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. However, little is known about how these 2 peptides compare in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, especially with contemporary assays. Both peptides were measured at screening in the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). Eligibility criteria in PARADIGM-HF included New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, and elevated natriuretic peptides: BNP ≥150 pg/mL or NT-proBNP ≥600 pg/mL (for patients with HF hospitalization within 12 months, BNP ≥100 pg/mL or NT-proBNP ≥400 pg/mL). BNP and NT-proBNP were measured simultaneously at screening and only patients who fulfilled entry criteria for both natriuretic peptides were included in the present analysis. The BNP/NT-proBNP criteria were not different for patients in atrial fibrillation. Estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min per 1.73 m was a key exclusion criterion. The median baseline concentration of NT-proBNP was 2067 (Q1, Q3: 1217-4003) and BNP 318 (Q1, Q3: 207-559), and the ratio, calculated from the raw data, was ≈6.25:1. This ratio varied considerably according to rhythm (atrial fibrillation 8.03:1; no atrial fibrillation 5.75:1) and with age, renal function, and body mass index but not with left ventricular ejection fraction. Each peptide was similarly predictive of death (all-cause, cardiovascular, sudden and pump failure) and heart failure hospitalization, for example, cardiovascular death: BNP hazard ratio, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.33-1.49) per 1 SD increase, <0.0001; NT-proBNP, 1.45 (1.36-1.54); <0.0001. The ratio of NT-proBNP to BNP in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction appears to be greater than generally appreciated, differs between patients with and without atrial fibrillation, and increases substantially with increasing age and decreasing renal function. These findings are important for comparison of natriuretic peptide concentrations in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

Risk of incident heart failure in patients with diabetes and asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction

OBJECTIVE Although diabetes is well known to be common in prevalent heart failure (HF) and portends a poor prognosis, the role of diabetes in the development of incident HF is less well understood. We studied the role of diabetes in the transition from asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ALVSD) to overt HF in the prevention arm of the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD-P). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We examined the development of symptomatic HF, HF hospitalization, and cardiovascular death according to diabetes status at baseline in patients in SOLVD-P. These outcomes were analyzed by using cumulative incidence curves and Cox regression models adjusted for age, sex, and other prognostic factors, including randomized treatment, HF severity, and comorbidity. RESULTS Of the 4,223 eligible participants, 647 (15%) had diabetes at baseline. Patients with diabetes were older and had a higher average weight, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate. During the median follow-up of 36 months, 861 of the 3,576 patients without diabetes (24%) developed HF compared with 214 of the 647 patients with diabetes (33%). In unadjusted analyses, patients with diabetes had a higher risk of development of HF (hazard ratio 1.53 [95% CI 1.32–1.78]; P < 0.001), HF hospitalization (2.04 [1.65–2.52]; P < 0.0001), and the composite outcome of development of HF or cardiovascular death (1.48 [1.30–1.69]; P < 0.001). The effect of enalapril on outcomes was not modified by diabetes status. CONCLUSIONS In patients with ALVSD, diabetes is associated with an increased risk of developing HF. Development of HF is associated with an increased risk of death irrespective of diabetes status

Differential impact of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on men and women

Background Heart failure (HF) trials initiated in the last century highlighted many differences between men and women. Of particular concern was undertreatment of women compared with men, but much has changed during the past 20 years. Objectives This study sought to identify these changes, which may give a new perspective on the management of, and outcomes in, women with HF. Methods The study analyzed 12,058 men and 3,357 women enrolled in 2 large HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) trials with near identical inclusion and exclusion criteria and the same principal outcomes. Outcomes were adjusted for other prognostic variables including N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide. Results Women were older and more often obese than men were, had slightly higher systolic blood pressure and heart rate, and were less likely to have most comorbidities, except hypertension. Women had more symptoms and signs (e.g., pedal edema 23.4% vs 19.9%; p < 0.0001) and worse quality of life—median Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score 71.3 (interquartile range: 53.4 to 86.5) versus 81.3 (interquartile range: 65.1 to 92.7; p < 0.0001)—despite similar left ventricular ejection fraction and N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide. However, women had lower mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.68; 95% confidence interval: 0.62 to 0.74; p < 0.001) and risk of HF hospitalization (hazard ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 0.89; p < 0.001). Diuretics and anticoagulants were underutilized in women. Device therapy was underused in both men and women, but more so in women (e.g., defibrillator 8.6% vs. 16.6%; p < 0.0001). Conclusions Although women with HFrEF live longer than men, their additional years of life are of poorer quality, with greater self-reported psychological and physical disability. The explanation for this different sex-related experience of HFrEF is unknown as is whether physicians recognize it. Women continue to receive suboptimal treatment, compared with men, with no obvious explanation for this shortfall