Advertisement

Diabetologia

, Volume 61, Issue 10, pp 2108–2117 | Cite as

SGLT2 inhibitors and mechanisms of cardiovascular benefit: a state-of-the-art review

  • Subodh Verma
  • John J. V. McMurray
Review

Abstract

Sodium–glucose cotransporter (SGLT)2 inhibitors have been demonstrated to reduce cardiovascular events, particularly heart failure, in cardiovascular outcome trials. Here, we review the proposed mechanistic underpinnings of this benefit. Specifically, we focus on the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in optimising ventricular loading conditions through their effect on diuresis and natriuresis, in addition to reducing afterload and improving vascular structure and function. Further insights into the role of SGLT2 inhibition in myocardial metabolism and substrate utilisation are outlined. Finally, we discuss two emerging themes: how SGLT2 inhibitors may regulate Na+/H+ exchange at the level of the heart and kidney and how they may modulate adipokine production. The mechanistic discussion is placed in the context of completed and ongoing trials of SGLT2 inhibitors in the prevention and treatment of heart failure in individuals with and without diabetes.

Keywords

Cardiovascular effects Heart failure Mechanisms Review SGLT2 inhibitors 

Abbreviations

BCAA

Branched-chain amino acid

CANVAS

Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study

EMPA-REG OUTCOME

Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients–Removing Excess Glucose

HFpEF

Heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction

HFrEF

Heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction

HHF

Hospitalisation for heart failure

NHE

Na+/H+ exchanger

βOHB

β-Hydroxybutyrate

SGLT

Sodium–glucose cotransporter

SGLT2 inhibitors and cardiovascular protection: setting the stage

Sodium–glucose cotransporter (SGLT)2 inhibitors have demonstrated unprecedented cardiorenal benefits in large-scale clinical trials of people who have type 2 diabetes and either established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors [1, 2, 3]. In the Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients–Removing Excess Glucose (EMPA-REG OUTCOME) study, 7020 individuals with type 2 diabetes who had coronary, peripheral or cerebrovascular disease were randomised to receive the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin or placebo [2]. While the primary three-point major adverse cardiac events outcome (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke) was significantly attenuated by empagliflozin, what was particularly noteworthy were the profound and early effects of empagliflozin on cardiovascular death and hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF), which were reduced by 38% and 35%, respectively [2, 3, 4]. In addition, all-cause mortality was reduced by 32%. Importantly, the reductions in cardiovascular death were not clearly accounted for by the reductions in atherothrombotic outcomes; rates of myocardial infarction and stroke remained unchanged with therapy. The thesis that heart failure was the outcome most sensitive to SGLT2 inhibition was confirmed in the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program wherein 10,142 individuals with type 2 diabetes and either established cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors received canagliflozin or placebo [1]. Despite broader entry criteria, which resulted in the inclusion of both patients for whom canagliflozin was used for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, SGLT2 inhibition produced an almost identical reduction in the rates of HHF (HR 0.67 in the CANVAS Program and HR 0.65 in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study) [5, 6]. The concept that SGLT2 inhibitors reduced cardiovascular events primarily through prevention of heart failure (vs atherothrombotic events) has gained broad acceptance, but several questions remained unanswered, the most important being: ‘how’?

In addition to the interest around mechanistic investigations and analyses [7], the results served as a wake-up call to remind the diabetes community of the burgeoning burden of heart failure in diabetes; this cardiovascular outcome had seemed to have been forgotten [8, 9, 10]. Although the atherothrombotic/macrovascular complications of diabetes are well appreciated, these data helped remind clinicians and scientists that HHF is one of the most common and serious complications of diabetes and is, in fact, as common (if not more evident) than rates of ischaemic events in diabetes [11]. To date, much has been written about how diabetes directly (in an atherosclerosis-independent manner) affects the myocardium, although the concept of a distinct diabetic cardiomyopathy predisposing individuals to the development of heart failure remains debated [12, 13]. The concept of primary vs secondary prevention is often used to distinguish atherosclerotic risk (and associated atherosclerosis-reducing therapies, such as statins, antiplatelet agents etc.); however, this approach may not be appropriate for distinguishing risk of heart failure in those with diabetes [14]. Individuals who have long-standing diabetes and healthy coronary arteries do not necessarily have normal ventricular mechanics and, hence, are predisposed to developing heart failure [15]. These individuals appear to be equally responsive to SGLT2 inhibitors for the prevention of heart failure [16, 17, 18]. Indeed, this proposition is supported by a subgroup analysis of the CANVAS Program, which demonstrated a similar relative risk reduction for HHF in the so-called primary and secondary prevention cohorts (HR 0.64 and HR 0.68, respectively) [17].

Another important and unanswered question arising from previous trials relates to whether the observed cardiovascular benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors occurred primarily in individuals with a history of heart failure and whether a specific phenotype (heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF] or heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]) was more sensitive to the observed benefits. Only a minority of participants enrolled in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study and CANVAS Program (~10%) had a history of investigator-reported heart failure and, as illustrated in Fig. 1, consistent relative risk reductions were observed in people with and without a history of heart failure [5, 6]. Since echocardiographic or biomarker substudies were not performed to evaluate specific cardiac phenotypes that were most responsive to therapy, this question remains unanswered. However, the absolute risk reduction appeared to be greater in those with a history of heart failure [4, 6], suggesting that SGLT2 inhibition may be valuable in both the prevention and treatment of heart failure. It is entirely plausible that a large proportion of the individuals enrolled in these studies had occult HFpEF or HFrEF, a notion that has been substantiated in a previous study focused on individuals with type 2 diabetes [19].
Fig. 1

The cardiovascular benefits (relative risk reduction of cardiovascular death and HHF) observed with empagliflozin in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial and canagliflozin in the CANVAS Program were apparent in participants with and without a history of heart failure [5, 6]. The forest plot is drawn on a logarithmic (log10) scale. This figure is available as part of a downloadable slideset

Mechanisms of cardiovascular protection by SGLT2 inhibitors

Several theories have been put forward to explain the profound salutary effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular (Text box and Fig. 2) and renal outcomes [7, 20]. Before delving into these in detail, it is worth noting that these salient effects appear to have little impact on conventional risk factors. First, baseline and time-dependent changes in HbA1c, blood pressure and cholesterol do not seem to determine the overall benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes [22]. Second, their benefits on HHF/cardiovascular death have been observed across the spectrum of renal disease, with a similar magnitude of risk reduction being seen in those with eGFRs of 30–60 ml min−1 [1.73 m]−2, 60–90 ml min−1 [1.73 m]−2and >90 ml min−1 [1.73 m]−2 [23]. Although the glucose-lowering efficacy of SGLT2 inhibitors declines at the lower eGFR range, the cardiovascular benefits are remarkably preserved, suggesting that the mechanism(s) involved in glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk reduction may be dissociated and/or follow a different dose–response curve. Third, it is worth noting that the metabolic fingerprint of these agents appears to be consistent among those with and without diabetes. Studies suggest that SGLT2 inhibition exerts glucosuria and natriuresis, while increasing glucagon and ketones even in individuals who do not have diabetes [24, 25, 26]. These data, therefore, argue that the benefits noted may be observed even in those without diabetes, a concept that has been borne out in preclinical experiments [27, 28] and which is being explored in ongoing heart failure treatment studies [29] with dapagliflozin (ClinicalTrial.gov registration no. NCT03036124) and empagliflozin (ClinicalTrial.gov registration no. NCT03057951 and NCT03057977). In the section below, we highlight some of the key mechanistic themes that have emerged to explain the cardiorenal benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors.
Fig. 2

Diabetes-associated ventricular remodelling (a) is characterised by left ventricular hypertrophy, inflammation, increased extracellular matrix (ECM) production, impaired cardiac metabolism and cardiomyocyte (CMC) apoptosis. SGLT2 inhibitors may offer salutary effects on several of the fundamental molecular and cellular pathways involved in the development and natural history of cardiac failure in diabetes (as illustrated by a healthy heart in b). © G. Oomen 2018. This figure is available as part of a downloadable slideset

SGLT2 inhibitors improve ventricular loading conditions

It has been proposed that one of the main mechanisms by which SGLT2 inhibitors exert their beneficial actions is via improvement of ventricular loading conditions, secondary to a reduction in preload primarily due to the diuretic and natriuretic effects [7, 20]. SGLT2 inhibition in the proximal tubule results in natriuresis and glucosuria, and the ensuing osmotic diuresis may be favourable, particularly in the heart of an individual with diabetes, which functions on a steep Frank–Starling curve. SGLT2 inhibitors are unique among the diuretics available clinically in that they modulate the function of the proximal tubule. The natriuretic response is also a stimulus for tubuloglomerular feedback, which in turn results in afferent arteriolar vasoconstriction with resultant reductions in intraglomerular hypertension (Fig. 3). This process may explain the significant long-term renal preservation noted with SGLT2 inhibitors. Of note, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers cause efferent arteriolar vasodilatation and, when used in combination with SGLT2 inhibitors, will likely co-impact on intraglomerular pressure and may account for the initial drop in eGFR observed in patients, which is followed by a plateau over time. Individuals with diabetes are known to have an increase in whole-body sodium content and, in recently completed translational studies in humans, the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin has been demonstrated to reduce tissue sodium content in people with type 2 diabetes [30]. Mediation analyses from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial also point towards volume contraction as being a key determinant of benefit noted within the trial. In fact, approximately 50% of the cardiovascular benefit observed within the trial was ascribed to empagliflozin-induced haemoconcentration [31]. An early haemodynamic benefit would go hand in hand with the observed early separation of the Kaplan–Meier curves noted within the clinical trials when comparing empagliflozin or canagliflozin treatment with placebo. Could diuresis really explain these benefits when other diuretics have not changed prognosis in heart failure? Recent studies point to important differences between SGLT2 inhibitors and classical diuretics. For example, in a comparative study of dapagliflozin and hydrochlorothiazide (a classical diuretic), a reduction in plasma volume and increase in erythrocyte mass was noted with dapagliflozin but not with hydrochlorothiazide over a 12 week period of treatment [32]. In another study comparing dapagliflozin with the loop diuretic bumetanide, though both agents were associated with a reduction in sodium and interstitial fluid, dapagliflozin afforded these effects with little or no change in blood volume whereas bumetanide was associated with greater reductions in intravascular volume [33]. A differential effect in regulating interstitial fluid (vs intravascular volume) may be particularly important in patients with heart failure in whom, in many instances, intravascular contraction is present and often aggravated by diuresis. The ability to selectively reduce interstitial fluid may be a unique feature of SGLT2 inhibitors vs other diuretics (Fig. 4) and this may limit the reflex neurohumoral stimulation that occurs in response to intravascular volume contraction with traditional diuretics. However, this thesis requires further data. Another difference between conventional diuretics and SGLT2 inhibitors relates to their effects on serum uric acid levels. Whereas SGLT2 inhibitors are uricosuric, loop diuretics are associated with an increase in uric acid levels, possibly mediating differences in cardiovascular outcomes [34].
Fig. 3

Diabetes is associated with afferent arteriolar dilatation, which leads to high intraglomerular pressure and hyperfiltration. Ongoing barotrauma to the glomerulus may lead to proteinuria (a). SGLT2 inhibitors, through tubuloglomerular feedback, promote afferent arteriolar vasoconstriction. This in turn serves as a mechanism to reduce intraglomerular hypertension and provide nephroprotection (b). © G. Oomen 2018. This figure is available as part of a downloadable slideset

Fig. 4

SGLT2 inhibitors may differentially regulate the interstitial vs intravascular compartment when compared with loop diuretics. In individuals with congestive heart failure, interstitial oedema is evident (a). SGLT2 inhibitors may selectively reduce interstitial volume with minimal change in blood volume (b) whereas loop diuretics may cause a reduction in both interstitial and intravascular volume (c). It has been postulated that this differential volume regulation by SGLT2 inhibitors (interstitial > intravascular) may limit the aberrant reflex neurohumoral stimulation that occurs in the setting of intravascular depletion. © G. Oomen 2018. This figure is available as part of a downloadable slideset

In addition to volume changes, SGLT2 inhibitors may optimise loading conditions through reducing blood pressure and altering vascular function. In a recent study, empagliflozin was shown to reduce central and 24 h systolic and diastolic blood pressure, central pulse pressure and forward wave amplitude in individuals with type 2 diabetes [35]. Other studies have demonstrated that SGLT2 inhibitors improve endothelial function and aortic stiffness indices, and may potentially induce vasodilatation through activation of voltage-gated potassium (Kv) channels and protein kinase G [36, 37, 38].

SGLT2 inhibitors improve cardiac metabolism and bioenergetics

It has been postulated that SGLT2 inhibitors may improve and/or optimise cardiac energy metabolism and that by improving myocardial energetics and substrate efficiency these agents may improve cardiac efficiency and cardiac output [39, 40]. It is well established that under conditions of diabetes and/or heart failure, the metabolic flexibility of the heart, as it relates to substrate utilisation, is impaired. Accordingly, an over-reliance on NEFAs as a substrate for ATP generation may result in a build-up of free fatty intermediates that may in turn promote lipotoxicity, impair sarcoplasmic reticulum calcium uptake and promote the development of diastolic dysfunction [41]. SGLT2 inhibitors are known to slightly increase the production of the ketone body β-hydroxybutyrate (βOHB), and it is hypothesised that this may offer an alternative and less expensive myocardial fuel source in those with diabetes [39, 42]. The elevation in ketone levels has been suggested to arise from an effort to raise glucagon levels and possibly through a reduction in ketone body excretion via the kidneys. The underlying concept is that βOHB is a ‘superfuel’ that is oxidised by the heart in preference to NEFAs and glucose, and that ketones not only improve cardiac function in the failing heart, but also increase mechanical efficiency [43]. This is an interesting postulate but cogent data to support this thesis are scarce. Some support, however, has been provided by preliminary studies carried out in pigs following myocardial infarction, which demonstrate that empagliflozin increases myocardial ketone consumption, and reduces cardiac glucose consumption and lactate production [44]. Others have postulated that SGLT2 inhibitor-induced increases in βOHB levels may inhibit histone deacetylase and prevent prohypertrophic transcription pathways [40]. It is also possible that a decrease in βOHB oxidation results in decreased acetyl-CoA derived from ketone oxidation, thereby increasing the oxidation of glucose-derived pyruvate (i.e. improving myocardial glucose metabolism). A decrease in acetyl-CoA supply may also decrease harmful hyperacetylation of mitochondrial enzymes, thereby improving mitochondrial energy production [40]. Using an elegant untargeted metabolomics strategy, SGLT2 inhibition was suggested to promote branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) degradation, thereby providing an alternative fuel source for the failing myocardium. BCAA degradation is known to be impaired in heart failure and may contribute to aberrant myocardial bioenergetics [45]. Although the findings described above are intriguing, it is important to emphasise that we still lack definitive evidence linking myocardial energetics to the beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibition.

SGLT2 inhibition and direct effects on Na+/H+ exchange in the myocardium

An emerging and tantalising hypothesis is that SGLT2 inhibitors may directly inhibit the Na+/H+ exchanger (NHE) 1 isoform in the myocardium [46, 47]. Activation of NHE1 results in increased cytosolic sodium and calcium and has been demonstrated to occur in experimental models of heart failure (Fig. 5). Recently, Baartscheer et al showed that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin inhibited cardiomyocyte NHE and, through this mechanism, reduced cytoplasmic sodium and calcium levels, while increasing mitochondrial calcium levels [48]. Since SGLT2 receptors are not expressed in the heart, the mechanism by which these effects on cardiomyocyte NHE occur remains elusive. Of note, it has been postulated that SGLT2 inhibitors promote natriuresis by downregulating the activity of NHE3 in the proximal tubule [49]. The expression of NHE3, known to mediate tubular sodium reuptake, is increased in heart failure, and an inhibitory effect on NHE3 may serve as an additional mechanism to restore whole-body sodium homeostasis and reduce cardiac failure. Hence, inhibition of NHE1 and NHE3 may be a common cardio–renal mechanism through which these agents prevent and/or treat heart failure [46].
Fig. 5

(a) Diabetes-associated heart failure is characterised by an increase in myocardial expression of NHEs. This can lead to elevations in cytoplasmic sodium and calcium levels, which may contribute to the pathology of heart failure. (b) Recent data suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors block NHEs, consequently reducing cytoplasmic sodium and calcium, thus offering cardioprotection. Ca2+M, mitochondrial calcium; MCU, mitochondrial Ca2+ uniporter. © G. Oomen 2018. This figure is available as part of a downloadable slideset

SGLT2 inhibition and cardiac fibrosis

Cardiac fibrosis is widely regarded as a common final pathway through which heart failure develops. This universally involves cardiac structural remodelling due to deposition of extracellular matrix proteins laid down by cardiac fibroblasts, resulting in impeded ventricular compliance and accelerated development of heart failure [50]. Recent experimental data in rat models of post-myocardial infarction demonstrate that dapagliflozin exhibits marked cardiac antifibrotic effects by suppressing collagen synthesis via increasing the activation of M2 macrophages and inhibiting myofibroblast differentiation [51]. Other preliminary studies, using human cardiac fibroblasts, have demonstrated that empagliflozin significantly attenuates TGF-β1-induced fibroblast activation and reduces cell-mediated extracellular matrix remodelling as measured by the collagen fibre alignment index [52]. In the same series of studies, the authors demonstrated that empagliflozin suppressed expression of key pro-fibrotic markers, including type I collagen, α-smooth muscle actin, connective tissue growth factor and matrix metalloproteinase 2. Therefore, an emerging postulate is that SGLT2 inhibition, independent of hyperglycaemia, may have direct and favourable effects on cardiac fibroblast phenotype and function, one of the most important factors of heart failure.

SGLT2 inhibition and adipokines

Altered adipokine production and/or action has been proposed as a common mechanism through which cardiovascular disease and insulin resistance develops, particularly in states of obesity [53]. Ectopic fat deposition in the form of perivascular and epicardial fat has been implicated in the genesis of heart failure, in part through altered paracrine regulation of adipokines on the myocardium [54]. It has been suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors may mediate their benefit, in part, by restoring the balance between pro- and anti-inflammatory adipokines. Recently, SGLT2 inhibitors were postulated to reduce the levels of the adipokine leptin, which may have a pathophysiological role in sodium regulation as well as cardiac inflammation and fibrosis [55]. Indeed, in a 52 week clinical study, canagliflozin reduced serum leptin levels by 25% and increased the levels of the anti-inflammatory adipokine adiponectin by 17%, when compared with the sulfonylurea glimepiride [56]. A marked reduction in the inflammatory cytokine IL-6, but not TNF-α, was also observed in this study. Other studies have demonstrated that dapagliflozin reduces epicardial adipose tissue volume, which has been implicated in the development and natural history of heart failure [57]. The independent changes that SGLT2 inhibitors appear to exert on adipokines need to be interpreted with caution and it is imperative that we work towards distinguishing between the secondary effects that arise from fat mass loss and the direct effects that regulate adipose tissue function. As such, the causal relationship between SGLT2 inhibition and adipose tissue inflammatory cytokines should, for now, be considered hypothesis-generating.

Unanswered mechanistic and translational themes

Despite the growing interest in the cardiovascular and renal protective biology of SGLT2 inhibitors, unanswered questions remain. For example, do SGLT2 inhibitors reverse pathological cardiac remodelling in humans with diabetes? Although preliminary and uncontrolled case series suggest that empagliflozin may be associated with a reduction in left ventricular mass and an improvement in diastolic function (as assessed by echocardiography) [58], persuasive data to support this important question are pending. The ongoing randomised Effects of Empagliflozin on Cardiac Structure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes (EMPA-HEART) trial (ClinicalTrial.gov registration no. NCT02998970), evaluating the effects of empagliflozin on left ventricular mass by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, represents an important step in understanding the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on ventricular remodelling. Other studies of a similar nature are ongoing with empagliflozin (ClinicalTrial.gov registration no. NCT03198585) and dapagliflozin [59].

There is a paucity of data with respect to the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on serum and renal biomarkers. Although initial studies have demonstrated that canagliflozin reduces levels of B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin [60], confirmation of this in larger studies with pathway-specific biomarkers (e.g. renin–angiotensin–aldosterone, extracellular matrix markers and proximal tubule injury markers, such as kidney injury molecule-1 [KIM-1]) are needed. In addition, we would encourage further evaluation of uric acid reduction as a biomarker and/or mediator of SGLT2 inhibition, since there is a large body of evidence suggesting that uric acid levels are an important predictor of prognosis in heart failure. It is also important to determine whether the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors are more pronounced in individuals with evidence of structural remodelling (such as left ventricular hypertrophy) or in those with higher levels of natriuretic peptides.

This area of research would also benefit from translational studies evaluating the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on mechanisms of arrhythmias. Electrophysiological studies evaluating inducible ventricular arrhythmias, atrial tachyarrhythmias and corrected QT intervals would be insightful. Likewise, studies evaluating functional capacity in heart failure are needed; in line with this, two studies investigating empagliflozin in HFpEF and HFrEF, with the 6 min walk test being the primary endpoint, are currently underway (ClinicalTrial.gov registration no. NCT03448406 and NCT03448419).

Physiological studies that evaluate the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on the sympathetic nervous system and neurohumoral activation are needed. It is also intriguing that, despite volume loss and a decrease in blood pressure, no change in heart rate has been observed with SGLT2 inhibitor therapy and this should be further investigated.

Mechanistic and functional studies that evaluate the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on peripheral arterial disease and amputation risk are also urgently required. Although an increase in amputation risk was observed exclusively in CANVAS [1, 61, 62], preliminary mechanistic studies in animals subjected to femoral ligation actually demonstrated an improvement in recovery of blood flow in response to canagliflozin [63].

Conclusions

SGLT2 inhibitors have emerged as powerful pharmacological tools in the prevention of heart failure, with the suggestion that, unlike with other glucose-lowering agents [64], this benefit may be observed across the spectrum of people with type 2 diabetes with and without established cardiovascular disease. The largest outcome study on the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular disease, the Multicenter Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Cardiovascular Events (DECLARE-TIMI 58), which has enrolled about 10,000 participants within a so-called primary prevention cohort, will provide further insights in this regard [65]. A summary of the reported and ongoing SGLT2 inhibitor trials is provided in Table 1. In this review, we have outlined some of the key mechanisms that may explain the notable cardioprotective benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors, including effects on volume and diuresis, myocardial metabolism and the potentially direct myocardial effects, with some preliminary observations suggesting an effect on myocardial metabolism and adipokine kinetics. Whether these agents will emerge as treatment approaches in chronic HFpEF, HFrEF or acute heart failure is an important question; the answer may be provided by trials that are currently underway.
Table 1

Completed and ongoing SGLT2 inhibitor-focused trials

Trial [reference/ClinicalTrial.gov registration no.]

Inclusion criteria

Primary outcomes

Type 2 diabetes + CV disease and/or CV risk factors

 EMPA-REG OUTCOME [2]

Type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk

CV death, non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke

 CANVAS Program [2]

Inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes with a history, or high risk, of CV events

CV death, non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke

Progression of albuminuria

 DECLARE-TIMI 58a [65]

Type 2 diabetes with a history, or high risk, of CV events

CV death, non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke

CV death or HHF

 SCOREDa [NCT03315143]

Type 2 diabetes, CV risk factors and moderately impaired renal function

CV death, non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke

CV death or HHF

 VERTIS CVa [NCT01986881]

Type 2 diabetes and established vascular disease

CV death, non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke

CKD ± type 2 diabetes

 CREDENCE [66]

Type 2 diabetes and moderately impaired renal function

ESRD, doubling of serum creatinine, renal or CV death

 Dapa-CKDa [NCT03036150]

CKD

≥50% sustained decline in eGFR, ESRD, CV death or renal death

 EMPA-Kidneya [NCT03594110]

CKD

ESRD, renal death, ≥40% sustained decline in eGFR or CV death

Heart failure ± type 2 diabetes

 Dapa-HFa [NCT03036124]

Chronic heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤0.40% and elevated NT-proBNP

CV death or HHF or an urgent heart failure clinic visit

 EMPEROR-Reduceda [NCT03057977]

Chronic heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤0.40% and elevated NT-proBNP

CV death or HHF

 EMPEROR-Preserveda [NCT03057951]

Chronic HFpEF

CV death or HHF

 SOLOIST-WHFa [NCT03521934]

Type 2 diabetes and prior heart failure and visit or hospitalisation for worsening heart failure

CV death or HHF

aOngoing trials

CKD, chronic kidney disease; CREDENCE, Canagliflozin and Renal Endpoints in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation; CV, cardiovascular; DECLARE-TIMI, Dapagliflozin Effect on CardiovascuLAR Events-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; EMPEROR-Preserved, EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction; EMPEROR-Reduced, EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; HHF, hospitalisation due to heart failure; MI, myocardial infarction; NT-proBNP, N-terminal of the prohormone brain natriuretic peptide; SCORED, Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate Renal Impairment Who Are at Cardiovascular Risk; SOLOIST-WHF, Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Post Worsening Heart Failure

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank H. Teoh, (St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada) for editorial assistance.

Contribution statement

SV drafted the article. Both authors revised it critically for important intellectual content and approved the version to be published.

Duality of interest

SV reports receiving research grants and/or speaking honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb-Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Valeant. JJVM reports that his employer, the University of Glasgow, paid for his participation in clinical trial committees by AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dalcor, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Resverlogix, Stealth and Theracos. In addition, his travel and accommodation costs for attendance at meetings related to some of the clinical trials have been funded by these sponsors. JJVM’s employer has also paid for his attendance at advisory boards organised by Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis.

Supplementary material

125_2018_4670_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (1.8 mb)
ESM 1 (PPTX 1.78  MB)

References

  1. 1.
    Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW et al (2017) Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 377:644–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM et al (2015) Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 373:2117–2128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Verma S, Mazer CD, Fitchett D et al (2018) Empagliflozin reduces cardiovascular events, mortality and renal events in participants with type 2 diabetes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: subanalysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® randomised trial. Diabetologia 61:1712–1723Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitchett D, Butler J, van de Borne P et al (2018) Effects of empagliflozin on risk for cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization across the spectrum of heart failure risk in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® trial. Eur Heart J 39:363–370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fitchett D, Zinman B, Wanner C et al (2016) Heart failure outcomes with empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk: results of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® trial. Eur Heart J 37:1526–1534CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rådholm K, Figtree G, Perkovic V et al (2018) Canagliflozin and heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus: results from the CANVAS Program (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study). Circulation.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.034222
  7. 7.
    Verma S, McMurray JJV, Cherney DZI (2017) The metabolodiuretic promise of sodium-dependent glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition: the search for the sweet spot in heart failure. JAMA Cardiol 2:939–940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jorsal A, Wiggers H, McMurray JJV (2018) Heart failure: epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of heart failure in diabetes mellitus. Endocrinol Metab Clin N Am 47:117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McMurray JJ, Gerstein HC, Holman RR, Pfeffer MA (2014) Heart failure: a cardiovascular outcome in diabetes that can no longer be ignored. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2:843–851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Seferovic PM, Petrie MC, Filippatos GS et al (2018) Type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure: a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1170
  11. 11.
    Greene SJ, Vaduganathan M, Khan MS et al (2018) Prevalent and incident heart failure in cardiovascular outcome trials of patients with type 2 diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 71:1379–1390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jia G, Hill MA, Sowers JR (2018) Diabetic cardiomyopathy: an update of mechanisms contributing to this clinical entity. Circ Res 122:624–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seferovic PM, Paulus WJ (2015) Clinical diabetic cardiomyopathy: a two-faced disease with restrictive and dilated phenotypes. Eur Heart J 36:1718–1727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Farkouh ME, Verma S (2018) Prevention of heart failure with SGLT2 inhibition: insights from CVD-REAL. J Am Coll Cardiol (in press)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swoboda PP, McDiarmid AK, Erhayiem B et al (2017) Diabetes mellitus, microalbuminuria, and subclinical cardiac disease: identification and monitoring of individuals at risk of heart failure. J Am Heart Assoc 6:e005539CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kosiborod M, Cavender MA, Fu AZ et al (2017) Lower risk of heart failure and death in patients initiated on sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus other glucose-lowering drugs: the CVD-REAL study (comparative effectiveness of cardiovascular outcomes in new users of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors). Circulation 136:249–259CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mahaffey KW, Neal B, Perkovic V et al (2018) Canagliflozin for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events: results from the CANVAS Program (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study). Circulation 137:323–334CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kosiborod M, Lam CSP, Kohsaka S et al (2018) Lower cardiovascular risk associated with SGLT-2i in >400,000 patients: the CVD-REAL 2 study. J Am Coll Cardiol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.03.009
  19. 19.
    Boonman-de Winter LJ, Rutten FH, Cramer MJ et al (2012) High prevalence of previously unknown heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 55:2154–2162CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sattar N, McLaren J, Kristensen SL, Preiss D, McMurray JJ (2016) SGLT2 inhibition and cardiovascular events: why did EMPA-REG Outcomes surprise and what were the likely mechanisms? Diabetologia 59:1333–1339CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lytvyn Y, Bjornstad P, Udell JA, Lovshin JA, Cherney DZI (2017) Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibition in heart failure: potential mechanisms, clinical applications, and summary of clinical trials. Circulation 136:1643–1658CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fitchett D, McKnight J, Lee J et al (2017) Empagliflozin (EMPA) reduces heart failure irrespective of control of blood pressure (BP), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and HbA1c. Diabetes 66:A312–A313 AbstractGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wanner C, Lachin JM, Inzucchi SE et al (2018) Empagliflozin and clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, established cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease. Circulation 137:119–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Al-Jobori H, Daniele G, Cersosimo E et al (2017) Empagliflozin and kinetics of renal glucose transport in healthy individuals and individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 66:1999–2006CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heise T, Seewaldt-Becker E, Macha S et al (2013) Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics following 4 weeksʼ treatment with empagliflozin once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 15:613–621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Seman L, Macha S, Nehmiz G et al (2013) Empagliflozin (BI 10773), a potent and selective sglt2 inhibitor, induces dose-dependent glucosuria in healthy subjects. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev 2:152–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Byrne NJ, Parajuli N, Levasseur JL et al (2017) Empagliflozin prevents worsening of cardiac function in an experimental model of pressure overload-induced heart failure. JACC: Basic Translational Sci 1:347–354Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shi X, Verma S, Yun J et al (2017) Effect of empagliflozin on cardiac biomarkers in a zebrafish model of heart failure: clues to the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial? Mol Cell Biochem 433:97–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Butler J, Hamo CE, Filippatos G et al (2017) The potential role and rationale for treatment of heart failure with sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Eur J Heart Fail 19:1390–1400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Karg MV, Bosch A, Kannenkeril D et al (2018) SGLT-2-inhibition with dapagliflozin reduces tissue sodium content: a randomised controlled trial. Cardiovasc Diabetol 17:5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Inzucchi SE, Zinman B, Fitchett D et al (2018) How does empagliflozin reduce cardiovascular mortality? Insights from a mediation analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. Diabetes Care 41:356–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lambers Heerspink HJ, de Zeeuw D, Wie L, Leslie B, List J (2013) Dapagliflozin a glucose-regulating drug with diuretic properties in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 15:853–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hallow KM, Helmlinger G, Greasley PJ, McMurray JJV, Boulton DW (2018) Why do SGLT2 inhibitors reduce heart failure hospitalization? A differential volume regulation hypothesis. Diabetes Obes Metab 20:479–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wilcox CS, Shen W, Boulton DW, Leslie BR, Griffen SC (2018) Interaction between the sodium-glucose-linked transporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin and the loop diuretic bumetanide in normal human subjects. J Am Heart Assoc 7:e007046CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Striepe K, Jumar A, Ott C et al (2017) Effects of the selective sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin on vascular function and central hemodynamics in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation 136:1167–1169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chilton R, Tikkanen I, Cannon CP et al (2015) Effects of empagliflozin on blood pressure and markers of arterial stiffness and vascular resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab 17:1180–1193CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li H, Shin SE, Seo MS et al (2018) The anti-diabetic drug dapagliflozin induces vasodilation via activation of PKG and Kv channels. Life Sci 197:46–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Solini A, Giannini L, Seghieri M et al (2017) Dapagliflozin acutely improves endothelial dysfunction, reduces aortic stiffness and renal resistive index in type 2 diabetic patients: a pilot study. Cardiovasc Diabetol 16:138CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ferrannini E, Mark M, Mayoux E (2016) CV protection in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial: a “Thrifty Substrate” hypothesis. Diabetes Care 39:1108–1114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lopaschuk GD, Verma S (2016) Empagliflozin’s fuel hypothesis: not so soon. Cell Metab 24:200–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lopaschuk GD, Ussher JR, Folmes CD, Jaswal JS, Stanley WC (2010) Myocardial fatty acid metabolism in health and disease. Physiol Rev 90:207–258CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mizuno Y, Harada E, Nakagawa H et al (2017) The diabetic heart utilizes ketone bodies as an energy source. Metabolism 77:65–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gormsen LC, Svart M, Thomsen HH et al (2017) Ketone body infusion with 3-hydroxybutyrate reduces myocardial glucose uptake and increases blood flow in humans: a positron emission tomography study. J Am Heart Assoc 6:e005066CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Santos-Gallego CG, Ibanez JAR, San Antonio R et al (2018) Empagliflozin induces a myocardial metabolic shift from glucose consumption to ketone metabolism that mitigates adverse cardiac remodeling and improves myocardial contractility. J Am Coll Cardiol 71:A674 AbstractCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kappel BA, Lehrke M, Schutt K et al (2017) Effect of empagliflozin on the metabolic signature of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Circulation 136:969–972CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, Zannad F (2017) Effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for the treatment of patients with heart failure: proposal of a novel mechanism of action. JAMA Cardiol 2:1025–1029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Uthman L, Baartscheer A, Bleijlevens B et al (2018) Class effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in mouse cardiomyocytes and hearts: inhibition of Na+/H+ exchanger, lowering of cytosolic Na+ and vasodilation. Diabetologia 61:722–726CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Baartscheer A, Schumacher CA, Wust RC et al (2017) Empagliflozin decreases myocardial cytoplasmic Na+ through inhibition of the cardiac Na+/H+ exchanger in rats and rabbits. Diabetologia 60:568–573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gallo LA, Wright EM, Vallon V (2015) Probing SGLT2 as a therapeutic target for diabetes: basic physiology and consequences. Diab Vasc Dis Res 12:78–89CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fedak PW, Verma S, Weisel RD, Li RK (2005) Cardiac remodeling and failure from molecules to man (part II). Cardiovasc Pathol 14:49–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lee TM, Chang NC, Lin SZ (2017) Dapagliflozin, a selective SGLT2 inhibitor, attenuated cardiac fibrosis by regulating the macrophage polarization via STAT3 signaling in infarcted rat hearts. Free Radic Biol Med 104:298–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kang S, Verma S, Teng G et al (2017) Direct effects of empagliflozin on extracellular matrix remodeling in human cardiac fibroblasts: novel translational clues to EMPA-REG Outcome. Can J Cardiol 33:S169 AbstractCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lau DC, Dhillon B, Yan H, Szmitko PE, Verma S (2005) Adipokines: molecular links between obesity and atherosclerosis. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 288:H2031–H2041CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Patel VB, Shah S, Verma S, Oudit GY (2017) Epicardial adipose tissue as a metabolic transducer: role in heart failure and coronary artery disease. Heart Fail Rev 22:889–902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Packer M (2018) Do sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors prevent heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction by counterbalancing the effects of leptin? A novel hypothesis. Diabetes Obes Metab.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dom.13229
  56. 56.
    Timothy Garvey W, Van Gaal L, Leiter LA et al (2018) Effects of canagliflozin versus glimepiride on adipokines and inflammatory biomarkers in type 2 diabetes. Metabolism.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2018.02.002
  57. 57.
    Sato T, Aizawa Y, Yuasa S et al (2018) The effect of dapagliflozin treatment on epicardial adipose tissue volume. Cardiovasc Diabetol 17:6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Verma S, Garg A, Yan AT et al (2016) Effect of empagliflozin on left ventricular mass and diastolic function in individuals with diabetes: an important clue to the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial? Diabetes Care 39:e212–e213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Singh JS, Fathi A, Vickneson K et al (2016) Research into the effect of SGLT2 inhibition on left ventricular remodelling in patients with heart failure and diabetes mellitus (REFORM) trial rationale and design. Cardiovasc Diabetol 15:97CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Januzzi JL Jr, Butler J, Jarolim P et al (2017) Effects of canagliflozin on cardiovascular biomarkers in older adults with type 2 diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 70:704–712CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Inzucchi SE, Iliev H, Pfarr E, Zinman B (2018) Empagliflozin and assessment of lower-limb amputations in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. Diabetes Care 41:e4–e5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Verma S, Mazer CD, Al-Omran M et al (2018) Cardiovascular outcomes and safety of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and peripheral artery disease: a subanalysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME. Circulation 137:405–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sherman SE, Bell GI, Teoh H et al (2018) Canagliflozin improves the recovery of blood flow in an experimental model of severe limb ischemia. JACC Basic Translational Sci 3:327–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Verma S, Bhatt DL, Bain SC et al (2018) Effects of liraglutide on cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes and polyvascular disease: results of the LEADER trial. Circulation 137:2179–2183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP et al (2018) The design and rationale for the dapagliflozin effect on cardiovascular events (DECLARE) – TIMI 58 Trial. Am Heart J 200:83–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jardine MJ, Mahaffey KW, Neal B et al (2017) The Canagliflozin and Renal Endpoints in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) Study rationale, design, and baseline characteristics. Am J Nephrol 46:462–472CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Cardiac SurgeryLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael’s Hospital, University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.British Heart Foundation, Glasgow Cardiovascular Research Centre, Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations