Diabetes is an independent risk factor for heart failure progression. Sacubitril/valsartan, a combination angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, improves morbidity and mortality in patients with ...heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril, and improves peripheral insulin sensitivity in obese hypertensive patients. We aimed to investigate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on HbA
and time to first-time initiation of insulin or oral antihyperglycaemic drugs in patients with diabetes and HFrEF.
In a post-hoc analysis of the PARADIGM-HF trial, we included 3778 patients with known diabetes or an HbA
≥6·5% at screening out of 8399 patients with HFrEF who were randomly assigned to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. Of these patients, most (98%) had type 2 diabetes. We assessed changes in HbA
, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol and BMI in a mixed effects longitudinal analysis model. Time to initiation of oral antihyperglycaemic drugs or insulin in subjects previously not treated with these agents were compared between treatment groups.
There were no significant differences in HbA
concentrations between randomised groups at screening. During the first year of follow-up, HbA
concentrations decreased by 0·16% (SD 1·40) in the enalapril group and 0·26% (SD 1·25) in the sacubitril/valsartan group (between-group reduction 0·13%, 95% CI 0·05-0·22, p=0·0023). HbA
concentrations were persistently lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the enalapril group over the 3-year follow-up (between-group reduction 0·14%, 95% CI 0·06-0·23, p=0·0055). New use of insulin was 29% lower in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (114 7% patients) compared with patients receiving enalapril (153 10%; hazard ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·56-0·90, p=0·0052). Similarly, fewer patients were started on oral antihyperglycaemic therapy (0·77, 0·58-1·02, p=0·073) in the sacubitril/valsartan group.
Patients with diabetes and HFrEF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF who received sacubitril/valsartan had a greater long-term reduction in HbA
than those receiving enalapril. These data suggest that sacubitril/valsartan might enhance glycaemic control in patients with diabetes and HFrEF.
Novartis.
The coexistence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF), either with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), is frequent (30–40% of patients) and associated with a ...higher risk of HF hospitalization, all‐cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. The most important causes of HF in T2DM are coronary artery disease, arterial hypertension and a direct detrimental effect of T2DM on the myocardium. T2DM is often unrecognized in HF patients, and vice versa, which emphasizes the importance of an active search for both disorders in the clinical practice. There are no specific limitations to HF treatment in T2DM. Subanalyses of trials addressing HF treatment in the general population have shown that all HF therapies are similarly effective regardless of T2DM. Concerning T2DM treatment in HF patients, most guidelines currently recommend metformin as the first‐line choice. Sulphonylureas and insulin have been the traditional second‐ and third‐line therapies although their safety in HF is equivocal. Neither glucagon‐like preptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonists, nor dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP4) inhibitors reduce the risk for HF hospitalization. Indeed, a DPP4 inhibitor, saxagliptin, has been associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization. Thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) are contraindicated in patients with (or at risk of) HF. In recent trials, sodium–glucose co‐transporter‐2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin, have both shown a significant reduction in HF hospitalization in patients with established CV disease or at risk of CV disease. Several ongoing trials should provide an insight into the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF in the absence of T2DM.
Cardiomyopathies are a heterogeneous group of heart muscle diseases and an important cause of heart failure (HF). Current knowledge on incidence, pathophysiology and natural history of HF in ...cardiomyopathies is limited, and distinct features of their therapeutic responses have not been systematically addressed. Therefore, this position paper focuses on epidemiology, pathophysiology, natural history and latest developments in treatment of HF in patients with dilated (DCM), hypertrophic (HCM) and restrictive (RCM) cardiomyopathies. In DCM, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has high incidence and prevalence and represents the most frequent cause of death, despite improvements in treatment. In addition, advanced HF in DCM is one of the leading indications for heart transplantation. In HCM, HF with preserved ejection (HFpEF) affects most patients with obstructive, and ∼10% of patients with non‐obstructive HCM. A timely treatment is important, since development of advanced HF, although rare in HCM, portends a poor prognosis. In RCM, HFpEF is common, while HFrEF occurs later and more frequently in amyloidosis or iron overload/haemochromatosis. Irrespective of RCM aetiology, HF is a harbinger of a poor outcome. Recent advances in our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the development of HF in cardiomyopathies have significant implications for therapeutic decision‐making. In addition, new aetiology‐specific treatment options (e.g. enzyme replacement therapy, transthyretin stabilizers, immunoadsorption, immunotherapy, etc.) have shown a potential to improve outcomes. Still, causative therapies of many cardiomyopathies are lacking, highlighting the need for the development of effective strategies to prevent and treat HF in cardiomyopathies.
IMPORTANCE: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is often characterized by nitric oxide deficiency. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of praliciguat, an oral ...soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, in patients with HFpEF. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CAPACITY HFpEF was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Fifty-nine sites enrolled 196 patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of at least 40%, impaired peak rate of oxygen consumption (peak V̇o2), and at least 2 conditions associated with nitric oxide deficiency (diabetes, hypertension, obesity, or advanced age). The trial randomized patients to 1 of 3 praliciguat dose groups or a placebo group, but was refocused early to a comparison of the 40-mg praliciguat dose vs placebo. Participants were enrolled from November 15, 2017, to April 30, 2019, with final follow-up on August 19, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive 12 weeks of treatment with 40 mg of praliciguat daily (n = 91) or placebo (n = 90). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in peak V̇o2 in patients who completed at least 8 weeks of assigned dosing. Secondary end points included the change from baseline in 6-minute walk test distance and in ventilatory efficiency (ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope). The primary adverse event end point was the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: Among 181 patients (mean SD age, 70 9 years; 75 41% women), 155 (86%) completed the trial. In the placebo (n = 78) and praliciguat (n = 65) groups, changes in peak V̇o2 were 0.04 mL/kg/min (95% CI, –0.49 to 0.56) and −0.26 mL/kg/min (95% CI, −0.83 to 0.31), respectively; the placebo-adjusted least-squares between-group difference in mean change from baseline was −0.30 mL/kg/min (95% CI, −0.95 to 0.35; P = .37). None of the 3 prespecified secondary end points were statistically significant. In the placebo and praliciguat groups, changes in 6-minute walk test distance were 58.1 m (95% CI, 26.1-90.1) and 41.4 m (95% CI, 8.2-74.5), respectively; the placebo-adjusted least-squares between-group difference in mean change from baseline was –16.7 m (95% CI, −47.4 to 13.9). In the placebo and praliciguat groups, the placebo-adjusted least-squares between-group difference in mean change in ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope was −0.3 (95% CI, −1.6 to 1.0). There were more dizziness (9.9% vs 1.1%), hypotension (8.8% vs 0%), and headache (11% vs 6.7%) TEAEs with praliciguat compared with placebo. The frequency of serious TEAEs was similar between the groups (10% in the praliciguat group and 11% in the placebo group). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with HFpEF, the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator praliciguat, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve peak V̇o2 from baseline to week 12. These findings do not support the use of praliciguat in patients with HFpEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03254485
Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is the impairment of kidney function defined as a serum creatinine increase of 25% or 44 µmol/L compared with baseline, usually occurring 24 to 48 hours after the ...use of intravenous contrast. Important risk factors for CIN include female sex, advanced age (>65 years), type 2 diabetes (T2D), kidney disease, advanced heart failure, and intravascular volume depletion. We herein present a male patient with T2D, moderately reduced renal function, no albuminuria, and a positive echocardiography stress test. He underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and two drug-eluting stents (in the left anterior descending coronary artery) and three bare-metal stents (in the right coronary artery) were implanted. Despite adequate rehydration (0.9% intravenous NaCl with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate) before and after the procedures, he developed irreversible kidney injury after coronary angiography and PCI. This case report demonstrates the unpredictable clinical course of CIN. Patients with T2D are at high risk for the occurrence of CIN, so careful clinical assessment is recommended with global renal functional reserve evaluation.
Increased body weight as well as type 2 diabetes (T2D) are found to be associated with increased incidence of hypertension, although the mechanisms facilitating hypertension in T2D or nondiabetic ...individuals are not clear. Therefore, in this study we compared the levels of insulin resistance (IR:OGIS), plasma insulin (PI:RIA) levels, and pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6 and TNF-α: ELISA), being risk factors previously found to be associated with hypertension, in T2D patients showing increased body weight (obese and overweight, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m²) with hypertension (group A, N = 30), or without hypertension (group B, N = 30), and in nonobese (BMI < 25 kg/m²), normotensive controls (group C, N = 15). We found that OGIS index was the lowest (A: 267 ± 35.42 vs. B: 342.89 ± 32.0, p < 0.01) and PI levels were the highest (A: 31.05 ± 8.24 vs. B: 17.23 ± 3.23, p < 0.01) in group A. In addition, IL-6 levels were higher in group A (A: 15.46 ± 5.15 vs. B: 11.77 ± 6.09; p < 0.05) while there was no difference in TNF-α levels. Our results have shown that appearance of hypertension in T2D patients with increased body weight was dependent on further increase in IR which was associated with the rise in pro-inflammatory IL-6 cytokine. The results imply that lifestyle intervention aimed to decrease IR might be beneficial in reducing the risk for hypertension in those T2D individuals.
Heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) frequently coexist, with a prevalence of DM of 35–40% in patients with HF, independent of the level of impairment of the ejection fraction (EF). ...Furthermore, DM is considered a strong independent risk factor for the progression of HF with either preserved or reduced EF and is associated with poor prognosis. The ability of neprilysin inhibitors to elevate levels of biologically active natriuretic peptides has made them a potential therapeutic approach in HF. In the Prospective comparison of ARNi with ACEi to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, a dual-acting angiotensin-receptor–neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and HF hospitalization in patients with HF with reduced EF. In addition, in a post-hoc analysis of this trial, among patients with DM, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in improved glycemic control compared with enalapril. Also, there are additional studies suggesting beneficial metabolic effects of this class of drugs. In this review we discuss potential mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan effect on glycemic control. Sacubitril/valsartan concomitantly blocks the renin–angiotensin system and inhibits neprilysin, a ubiquitous enzyme responsible for the breakdown of more than 50 vasoactive peptides, including the biologically active natriuretic peptides, bradykinin, angiotensin I and II, endothelin 1, glucagon, glucagon-like peptide-1, insulin-B chain, and others. There are a number of potential mechanisms by which inhibition of neprilysin may lead to improvement in glycemic control, with most evidence suggesting modulation of neprilysin circulating substrates. Although there is some evidence suggesting the improvement of glucose metabolism by renin–angiotensin system inhibition, this effect is most likely modest. As these mechanisms are not fully understood, detailed mechanistic studies, as well as large randomized clinical trials in patients with DM, are needed to further clarify beneficial metabolic properties of sacubitril/valsartan.
PDF
