Diastolic dysfunction in diabetes and the metabolic syndrome: promising potential for diagnosis and prognosis

Cardiac disease in diabetes mellitus and in the metabolic syndrome consists of both vascular and myocardial abnormalities. The latter are characterised predominantly by diastolic dysfunction, which has been difficult to evaluate in spite of its prevalence. While traditional Doppler echocardiographic parameters enable only semiquantitative assessment of diastolic function and cannot reliably distinguish perturbations in loading conditions from altered diastolic functions, new technologies enable detailed quantification of global and regional diastolic function. The most readily available technique for the quantification of subclinical diastolic dysfunction is tissue Doppler imaging, which has been integrated into routine contemporary clinical practice, whereas cine magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) remains a promising complementary research tool for investigating the molecular mechanisms of the disease. Diastolic function is reported to vary linearly with age in normal persons, decreasing by 0.16 cm/s each year. Diastolic function in diabetes and the metabolic syndrome is determined by cardiovascular risk factors that alter myocardial stiffness and myocardial energy availability/bioenergetics. The latter is corroborated by the improvement in diastolic function with improvement in metabolic control of diabetes by specific medical therapy or lifestyle modification. Accordingly, diastolic dysfunction reflects the structural and metabolic milieu in the myocardium, and may allow targeted therapeutic interventions to modulate cardiac metabolism to prevent heart failure in insulin resistance and diabetes

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