Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular prevention: the dogmas disputed
- 1.4k Downloads
In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), more intensive glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes leads to a modest (9%) reduction in major cardiovascular events (MACE), associated with a 20% reduction of kidney events and 13% reduction of eye events. The FDA issued guidance in 2008 led to the conduct of numerous cardiovascular outcomes (CVOT) trials to assess cardiovascular safety of new antihyperglycemic therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes. The results of these trials show that insulin glargine, three different dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors (saxagliptin, alogliptin, and sitagliptin) and lixisenatide (a glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist) produce no significant difference in CVOT when compared with usual care or placebo. Other trials with newer diabetes drugs, including empagliflozin and canagliflozin (two sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors), liraglutide and semaglutide (two GLP-1 receptor agonists) succeeded in demonstrating CV benefit in people with type 2 diabetes. In the last two decades, the equation “diabetes equals myocardial infarction” have contributed to the development of preventive therapy for risk factors in diabetes. In both primary and secondary prevention, the diabetic patients with high rates of statin and aspirin treatment have improved CV outcome, as compared with non-users. The drugs used to reduce glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes seem important for the ultimate cardiovascular outcome: the combination of intensive glycemic control, when safely attainable, with newer diabetes drugs (empagliflozin, canagliflozin, liraglutide, and semaglutide) may decrease the incidence of MACE, nephropathy and retinopathy. Moreover, depending on the drug used, CV mortality and heart failure may also be reduced.
KeywordsIntensive glycemic control Type 2 diabetes Newer diabetes drugs Cardiovascular prevention
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
D.G received speaker fee from Lilly, NOVO, Sanofi, Roche and Novartis; K.E. received speaker fee from NOVO, Sanofi, Roche, Novartis, and Merck. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
- 8.S. Zoungas, H. Arima, H.C. Gerstein et al., Collaborators on Trials of Lowering Glucose (CONTROL) group, Effects of intensive glucose control on microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomized controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 5, 431–377 (2017)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.FDA, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Diabetes mellitus—evaluating cardiovascular risk in new antidiabetic therapies to treat type 2 diabetes: guidance for industry. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071627.pdf. Accessed December 2008
- 20.C.C. Low Wang, C.N. Hess, W.R. Hiatt, A.B. Goldfine, Clinical update: cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus: atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus—mechanisms, management, and clinical considerations. Circulation 133, 2459–2502 (2016)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.B. Neal, V. Perkovic, K.W. Mahaffey, et al., CANVAS Program Collaborative Group, Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 644–657 (2017)Google Scholar
- 24.S.P. Marso, D.K. McGuire, B. Zinman, et al., DEVOTE Study Group, Efficacy and safety of degludec versus glargine in type 2 diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 377, 723–732 (2017)Google Scholar
- 26.K.K.W. Olesen, M. Madsen, G. Egholm et al., Patients with and without diabetes without significant angiographic coronary artery disease have the same risk of myocardial infarction in a real-world population receiving appropriate prophylactic treatment. Diabetes Care 40, 1103–1110 (2017)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.N.J. Pagidipati, A.M. Navar, K.S. Pieper, et al., On behalf of the TECOS Study Group, Secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: international insights from the TECOS trial. Circulation. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.027252