The effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists liraglutide and semaglutide on cardiovascular and renal outcomes across baseline blood pressure categories: Analysis of the LEADER and SUSTAIN 6 trials

It is unknown if the cardioprotective and renal effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are consistent across blood pressure (BP) categories in patients with type 2 diabetes and at high risk of cardiovascular events. Using data from the LEADER (9340 patients) and SUSTAIN 6 (3297 patients) trials, we evaluated post hoc the cardiorenal effect of liraglutide and semaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and nephropathy by baseline BP categories using a Cox proportional hazards model (treatment and subgroup as factors; adjusted for cardiorenal risk factors). Data from the two trials were analysed separately. In the LEADER and SUSTAIN 6 trials, the prevalence of stage 1 hypertension was 30% and 31%, respectively, and of stage 2 hypertension 41% and 43%, respectively. There was no statistical heterogeneity across the BP categories for the effects of liraglutide (P =.06 for MACE; P =.14 for nephropathy) or semaglutide (P =.40 for MACE; P =.27 for nephropathy) versus placebo. This implies that liraglutide and semaglutide may be beneficial for patients with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of their baseline BP

Effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists liraglutide and semaglutide on cardiovascular and renal outcomes across body mass index categories in type 2 diabetes: Results of the LEADER and SUSTAIN 6 trials

35 and ≥35 kg/m2), and CV and kidney outcomes with GLP-1 RA versus placebo were analysed. All baseline BMI data from LEADER (n = 9331) and SUSTAIN 6 (n = 3290) were included (91% and 92% of patients with overweight or obesity, respectively). In SUSTAIN 6, nominally significant heterogeneity of semaglutide efficacy by baseline BMI was observed for CV death/myocardial infarction/stroke (major adverse CV events, primary outcome of both25, ≥25-&ltAssociations between body mass index (BMI) and the cardiovascular (CV) and kidney efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are uncertain; therefore, data analysed separately from the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial and the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes with Semaglutide in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 6) were examined. These international, randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigated liraglutide and semaglutide (both subcutaneous) in patients with T2D and at high risk of CV events. In post hoc analyses, patients were categorized by baseline BMI (<25, ≥25-<30, ≥30-<35 and ≥35 kg/m2), and CV and kidney outcomes with GLP-1 RA versus placebo were analysed. All baseline BMI data from LEADER (n = 9331) and SUSTAIN 6 (n = 3290) were included (91% and 92% of patients with overweight or obesity, respectively). In SUSTAIN 6, nominally significant heterogeneity of semaglutide efficacy by baseline BMI was observed for CV death/myocardial infarction/stroke (major adverse CV events, primary outcome of both; Pinteraction =.02); otherwise, there was no statistical heterogeneity for either GLP-1 RA versus placebo across BMI categories for key CV and kidney outcomes. The lack of statistical heterogeneity from these cardiorenal outcomes implies that liraglutide and semaglutide may be beneficial for many patients and is probable not to depend on their baseline BMI, but further study is needed.therefore, data analysed separately from the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial and the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes with Semaglutide in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 6) were examined. These international, randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigated liraglutide and semaglutide (both subcutaneous) in patients with T2D and at high risk of CV events. In post hoc analyses, patients were categorized by baseline BMI (&ltAssociations between body mass index (BMI) and the cardiovascular (CV) and kidney efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are uncertainPinteraction =.02)30, ≥30-&ltotherwise, there was no statistical heterogeneity for either GLP-1 RA versus placebo across BMI categories for key CV and kidney outcomes. The lack of statistical heterogeneity from these cardiorenal outcomes implies that liraglutide and semaglutide may be beneficial for many patients and is probable not to depend on their baseline BMI, but further study is needed

The effect of glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists liraglutide and semaglutide on cardiovascular and renal outcomes across baseline blood pressure categories: Analysis of the LEADER and SUSTAIN 6 trials

It is unknown if the cardioprotective and renal effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are consistent across blood pressure (BP) categories in patients with type 2 diabetes and at high risk of cardiovascular events. Using data from the LEADER (9340 patients) and SUSTAIN 6 (3297 patients) trials, we evaluated post hoc the cardiorenal effect of liraglutide and semaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and nephropathy by baseline BP categories using a Cox proportional hazards model (treatment and subgroup as factors; adjusted for cardiorenal risk factors). Data from the two trials were analysed separately. In the LEADER and SUSTAIN 6 trials, the prevalence of stage 1 hypertension was 30% and 31%, respectively, and of stage 2 hypertension 41% and 43%, respectively. There was no statistical heterogeneity across the BP categories for the effects of liraglutide (P =.06 for MACE; P =.14 for nephropathy) or semaglutide (P =.40 for MACE; P =.27 for nephropathy) versus placebo. This implies that liraglutide and semaglutide may be beneficial for patients with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of their baseline BP

Semaglutide improves health-related quality of life vs placebo when added to standard-of care in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk (SUSTAIN 6)

Sin financiación7.113 JCR (2018) Q1, 12/145 Endocrinology & Metabolism3.000 SJR (2018) Q1, 9/245 Endocrinology, Diabetes and MetabolismNo data IDR 2018UE

Clinical and Seasonal Variations of Nutritional Risk Screening in Patients Scheduled for Rehabilitation after Heart Surgery

Background: Current knowledge on the pervasiveness of increased nutritional risk in cardiovascular diseases is limited. Our aim was to analyze the characteristics of nutritional risk screening in patients scheduled for rehabilitation after heart surgery. Prevalence and extent of nutritional risk were studied in connection with patients' characteristics and seasonal climate effects on weight loss dynamics. Methods: The cohort included 65 consecutive patients with an age range of 25-84 years, 2-6 months after surgical treatment for ischemic or valvular heart disease. Nutritional risk screening was appraised using a standardized NRS-2002 questionnaire. Groups were analyzed according to a timeline of rehabilitation according to the "cold" and "warm" seasons of the moderate Mediterranean climate in Opatija, Croatia. Results: Increased nutritional risk scores (NRS-2002) of >3 were found in 96% of studied patients. Mean NRS-2002 of patients was 5.0 +/- 1.0, with a percentage weight loss history of 11.7% +/- 2.2% (4.6-19.0). Risk was found to be more pronounced during the warmer season, with NRS-2002 scores of 5.3 +/- 0.7 versus 4.8 +/- 1.1 (P = 0.136) and greater loss of weight of 13.0% +/- 3.2% versus 10.6% +/- 3% (P = 0.005), respectively. Increased nutritional risk correlated significantly with creatinine concentrations (rho = 0.359; P = 0.034 versus 0.584; P = 0.001, respectively). Significant discordance in correlations was found between NRS-2002 and the decrease in left ventricle systolic function (rho correlation coefficient [rho-cc] = -0.428; P = 0.009), the increase in glucose concentrations (cc = 0.600; P < 0.001), and the decrease in erythrocyte counts (cc = -0.520; P = 0.001) during the colder season. Conclusion: Increased nutritional risk was found to be frequently expressed in the course of rehabilitation after heart surgery. Although seasonal climate effects influenced the weight loss dynamics, the impact on reproducibility of NRS-2002 was clinically less important. Further studies on the connection of nutritional risk with composited end points might offer improvements in overall quality of treatment

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)