Abstract
Disease burden in people with diabetes is mainly driven by long-term complications such as cardiovascular disease, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. This is a consequence of the interconnection between the cardiovascular, renal and metabolic systems, through a continuous chain of events referred to as ‘the cardiorenal metabolic continuum’. Increasing evidence suggests that sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) have beneficial effects across all stages of the cardiorenal metabolic continuum, reducing morbidity and mortality in a wide range of individuals, from those with diabetes and multiple risk factors to those with established heart failure and chronic kidney disease, regardless of the presence of diabetes. Despite this robust evidence base, the complexity of label indications and misconceptions concerning potential side effects have resulted in a lack of clear understanding in primary care regarding the implementation of SGLT2is in clinical practice. With this in mind, we provide an overview of the clinical and economic benefits of SGLT2is across the cardiorenal metabolic continuum together with practical considerations in order to help address some of these concerns and clearly define the role of SGLT2is in primary care as a holistic outcomes-driven treatment with the potential to reduce disease burden across the cardiorenal metabolic spectrum.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) have demonstrated clinical and economic value across all stages of the cardiorenal metabolic continuum by reducing morbidity and mortality in a wide range of individuals, from those with diabetes and multiple risk factors to those with established heart failure and chronic kidney disease, regardless of the presence of diabetes. |
SGLT2is are well tolerated, with a low risk of serious adverse effects that should not overshadow the significant cardioprotective benefits. |
SGLT2is should be considered as cornerstones of integrated care strategies in primary care in order to reduce disease burden over the patient lifetime by maximising outcome benefits across the cardiorenal metabolic continuum, rather than according to the traditional approach of controlling each risk factor or comorbidity as a separate entity. |
A person-centred, outcomes-driven approach that recognises the holistic role of SGLT2is offers an opportunity to significantly improve clinical outcomes for people with cardiorenal metabolic disease. |
Introduction
Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), including dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and ertugliflozin, are now widely approved antihyperglycaemic therapies that can reduce glucose levels independent of insulin, when estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is sufficient. Their main mechanism of action is the inhibition of SGLT2 function which results in a reduction of glucose absorption from the glomerular filtrate in the proximal renal tubule, and an increase in urinary glucose excretion [1, 2] (Fig. 1). Given their glucose-lowering effects, SGLT2is were firstly licensed as treatments for the management of glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) [3] and as such are increasingly employed for this purpose in primary care. Beyond the glucose control benefits, in recent years there has been a wealth of evidence indicating that SGLT2is exert cardiac and renal protective effects across the cardiorenal metabolic continuum [4,5,6,7].
SGLT2 inhibitor cardiorenal metabolic effects. The figure summarizes main mechanisms of action and beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors across the cardiorenal metabolic spectrum, including reduction of CV events, renal protection, and improvement of metabolic control in diabetes. CKD chronic kidney disease, CV cardiovascular, CVD cardiovascular disease, eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, ESKD end-stage kidney disease, HbA1c glycated haemoglobin, HHF hospitalisation for heart failure, MACE major adverse cardiovascular event, T2DM type 2 diabetes mellitus
This has led to new treatment paradigms for SGLT2is including secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) disease and delaying progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in people with T2DM, as well as managing heart failure (HF) and CKD, regardless of the presence of diabetes [8,9,10,11,12].
The mechanisms behind the CV and renal protection associated with SGLT2is are likely to be multifactorial and are not yet fully elucidated. However, it has been suggested that osmotic diuresis and natriuresis, with subsequent reduction in volume overload and reduced blood pressure, together with a reduction in intraglomerular pressure and glomerular hyperfiltration, may play a role [2, 13]. In addition, metabolic effects (e.g. increases in glucosuria and reductions in HbA1c, glucotoxicity, weight gain and adiposity), improved cardiac remodelling, cardiac contractility and ion-homeostasis, as well as reductions in inflammation and oxidative stress are also likely to contribute to the observed cardiorenal benefits [14, 15] (Fig. 1).
The broad range of benefits of SGLT2is for both people with and without diabetes has led to differing licence indications, which has the potential to result in confusion as to the prescribing of these agents and which may be a contributing factor to the slow uptake of these drugs. With this in mind, it may now be time to challenge the paradigm of SGLT2is in clinical practice and implement a holistic approach to reduce the burden of disease across the cardiorenal metabolic spectrum, instead of focusing on single comorbidities or conditions. A person-centred outcomes-driven approach that considers the presence of T2DM, high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), CKD, and HF, as well as individuals’ needs and preferences (e.g. weight loss in overweight or obese people, desire to avoid hypoglycaemia), alongside HbA1c, may now be considered the best approach in deciding whether the management plan of those with cardiorenal metabolic disease should include SGLT2is [16,17,18]. As such, healthcare professionals involved in the care and management of people with cardiorenal metabolic disease should be encouraged to change their thinking from ‘is there an indication for an SGLT2i in this person with cardiorenal metabolic disease?’ to ‘why is this person with cardiorenal metabolic disease not on an SGLT2i?’ Since the majority of people with cardiorenal metabolic disease are managed in primary care it is important that healthcare professionals working in primary care are fully aware of the role of SGLT2is in clinical practice as a holistic outcomes-driven treatment with the potential to reduce disease burden and associated costs across the cardiorenal metabolic spectrum. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
SGLT2is in T2DM
Clinical Value of SGLT2is in T2DM
Historically, therapeutic efforts for people with T2DM have focused on achieving optimal glycaemic targets, to prevent microvascular and macrovascular complications. However, although glycaemic control with diabetes treatments such as metformin, thiazolidinediones (TZD), sulfonylureas (SU) and dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitors (DPP4is) has been associated with decreased risk of microvascular complications, a similar reduction has not been observed for macrovascular complications or CV events [19, 20]. Consequently a large proportion of people with T2DM remain at high residual risk for renal/CV disease progression [21]. In fact, some of these drugs may actually increase the risk of CV events, as well as being associated with additional side effects such as hypoglycaemia and weight gain [22,23,24]. For example, although pioglitazone was associated with reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), the risks of heart failure, bone fracture, oedema and weight gain were increased [25]. Consequently, there is a need for novel treatments that provide both glycaemic and non-glycaemic benefits. In this context, SGLT2is have emerged as an interesting therapeutic option, demonstrating multiple effects including glycaemic control, weight and blood pressure lowering, as well as cardiorenal protection.
The beneficial impact of SGLT2is in T2DM is supported by a large body of evidence. Several randomised controlled studies have demonstrated that SGLT2is (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, canagliflozin and ertugliflozin) significantly reduce HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, 2-h post prandial glucose, body weight, systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared to placebo, both when used as monotherapy and as add-on therapy to insulin or other diabetes drugs including metformin, SU, DPP4is and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].
SGLT2is have also demonstrated reductions in overall morbidity and mortality in people with T2DM, by reducing CV and renal complications. Several clinical trials have assessed the impact of SGLT2is on CV outcomes: EMPA-REG OUTCOMES [52], CANVAS [53], VERTIS CV [54], and DECLARE TIMI 58 [55]. These studies have brought to light the cardioprotective benefits of this class of drugs in terms of reduction vs. placebo in hospitalisations for heart failure (HHF) (HRs between 0.65 and 0.73), composite of death from CV causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke (HRs between 0.86 and 0.97), and any cause mortality (HRs between 0.68 and 0.93) [52,53,54,55,56].
DECLARE-TIMI 58 is the broadest, largest, and longest SGLT2i cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) to date. Participants in the trial were more representative of the general T2DM population compared to previous trials, including people with either multiple known risk factors for CVD or established atherosclerotic CVD. In this population, dapagliflozin was found to be both cardio- and renoprotective. Indeed, dapagliflozin was shown to prevent HHF vs. placebo consistently across a broad range of people with T2DM, regardless of history of established CVD or HF. A significantly lower risk for HHF vs. placebo was observed both in people with established CVD (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63–0.97) and in people with multiple risk factors for CVD (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46–0.88). A lower risk for HHF was also observed in those with prior HF (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55–0.96) or no history of HF (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58–0.92). Of note, dapagliflozin was also associated with a significantly lower risk vs. placebo, of the cardiorenal composite of at least a 40% decrease in eGFR to less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), or death from renal or CV cause (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67–0.87) and of the renal specific composite of at least a 40% decrease in eGFR to less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, ESKD, or death from renal cause (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.43–0.66).
A systematic review and meta-analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOMES [52], CANVAS [53] and DECLARE TIMI 58 [55] conducted in 34,322 people with T2DM (60.2% with established atherosclerotic CVD), demonstrated that SGLT2is reduced the risk for CV death or HHF by 23% (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71–0.84) [57, 58]. Reduction in HHF was observed in all CVOTs analysed in the study, regardless of atherosclerotic CVD or history of HF [57, 58]. The VERTIS CV [54] trial, which investigated the impact of ertugliflozin on CV outcomes, did not show a significant difference vs. placebo in the composite of death from CV causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke; however, results demonstrated a decreased risk of death from CV causes or HHF in people receiving ertugliflozin. SGLT2is were also shown to reduce MACE incidence in older patients with T2DM. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis which evaluated both GLP1-RAs and SGLT2is showed that SGLT2is reduce MACE outcomes in older adults (over 65 years of age) by 16% (OR 0.831, 95% CI 0.699–0.989) [59]. The study included the main SGLT2i CVOTs (EMPA-REG OUTCOMES [52], CANVAS [53], DECLARE TIMI 58 [55] and CREDENCE [60]).
Furthermore, although designed to primarily assess CV outcomes, many CVOTs have shown that SGLT2is exert renal protective effects. The EMPA-REG OUTCOMES [52], CANVAS [53], VERTIS CV [54], and DECLARE TIMI 58 [55] trials assessed CV and renal outcomes in people with diabetes receiving empagliflozin, canagliflozin, ertugliflozin and dapagliflozin, respectively, in addition to standard of care. Results from these trials showed significant benefits over placebo in terms of composite renal outcome of doubling serum creatinine/sustained decrease of 40% or more in eGFR, ESKD or death from renal or CV cause (HRs between 0.54 and 0.76) [53,54,55, 61]. A recent meta-analysis of CVOTs indicated that SGLT2is reduced the risk of progression of renal disease by 45% (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.48–0.64), with a similar benefit in people with and without atherosclerotic CVD [57]. Overall, both the renal and CV endpoint data (Table 1) strongly indicate that SGLT2is are an effective tool to manage T2DM across the cardiorenal continuum.
Economic Value of SGLT2is in T2DM
Besides showing significant clinical benefits, SGLT2is have also demonstrated economic value for the treatment of T2DM. In a UK study assessing the economic implications of dapagliflozin in T2DM, based on DECLARE TIMI data, use of dapagliflozin over 4 years resulted in 1.5 fewer ESKD events and 8.9 fewer HHF events per 1000 patients, with an estimated 27% reduction in total HHF-related length of stay (LOS), compared to placebo. Avoidance of these events translated into a reduction of £141,209 per 1000 patients over 4 years (£142 per person); and £2.7 million over a lifetime (40-year projections) [62].
A systematic review that included SGLT2i cost-effectiveness studies available up to 2018 (15 dapagliflozin, 10 canagliflozin and 12 empagliflozin studies) concluded that SGLT2is were the most cost-effective treatment, compared to other oral antidiabetes therapies and insulin, in uncontrolled T2DM [63]. For example, in the economic studies conducted in the UK setting, dapagliflozin (as monotherapy or combination therapy) yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging between £1847 and £30,795/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained [63]. These conclusions, however, were mostly based on the antihyperglycaemic effects of SGLT2is and so did not capture the full economic value of these drugs, such as the burden associated with CV and renal complications. In a modelling study analysing the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in high-risk T2DM, capturing long-term CV and renal outcomes, dapagliflozin was deemed dominant compared to placebo, providing 0.06 QALY gains and £2552 savings per person [64]. Similar results were observed in all subgroups analysed, with the greatest benefit observed in individuals with prior HF (+ 0.11 QALYs and £4150 saved) and in those with established CVD (+ 0.09 QALYs and £2831 saved) [64]. Of note, this study adopted a conservative approach by assuming that dapagliflozin would be discontinued when eGFR reached values below 45 mL/min/1.73 m2. However, more recently, the DAPA-CKD study has shown that dapagliflozin benefits can persist beyond this threshold; thus, the actual savings may be greater than the ones estimated in the study [6].
Recently, a multinational economic analysis was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of the SGLT2is as a class, versus standard of care in people with T2DM with and without established CV disease [65]. The analysis took into consideration evidence from both CVOTs and real-world studies and demonstrated that SGLT2is were cost-saving or cost-effective at relevant willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds in the UK, USA and China. The study highlighted that although associated with increased treatment costs, SGLT2is reduced costs associated with CV and microvascular complications, while also extending life expectancy [65]. Subgroup analysis in people with established CVD, MRF, previous history of HF and no prior HF confirmed the cost-effectiveness of SGLT2is. In the UK setting, SGLT2is were deemed dominant across all subgroups, yielding a net monetary benefit (NMB) over lifetime of £15,345/person and with the highest benefits observed in people with established CVD and prior HF (NMB £17,834 and £17,440) [65].
These conclusions together with the clinical evidence indicate that for all patients across the continuum of T2DM (T2DM ± HF ± CKD), SGLT2is inhibitors represent good clinical and economic value. Indeed, this drug class serves the objective of reducing the overall burden of disease well, helping to address T2DM from a holistic viewpoint, rather than according to the traditional approach of controlling each risk factor or comorbidity as a separate entity. In clinical practice thinking needs to be directed towards the patient and why they are not being considered for an SGLT2i.
SGLT2is in HF
Clinical Value of SGLT2is in HF
It is estimated that there are approximately 23 million individuals with HF worldwide, and approximately 50% of these cases are attributed to HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) [56]. Current treatment options for HFrEF include angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), beta blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), in combination with diuretic therapy. However, substantial mortality and morbidity is still observed in this population, indicating a need for more effective treatments [56]. Recently, SGLT2is have emerged as a novel strategy to reduce the clinical burden of HFrEF.
Previous CVOTs have shown that SGLT2is reduce the risk of new-onset HF in people with T2DM, as demonstrated by a reduction in CV events and HHF [52,53,54,55]. Data from the DAPA-HF study [4] demonstrated that dapagliflozin improved outcomes in individuals with established HF. The trial included 4744 people with NYHA class II to IV HFrEF (less than 40%) receiving standard of care, and the results demonstrated that dapagliflozin in addition to standard of care reduced the primary outcome of risk of worsening of HF and CV death by 26% (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65–0.85). Of note, 55% of DAPA-HF trial participants did not have T2DM [4], and the results were similar irrespective of the presence of diabetes, with HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.60–0.88) and HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.63–0.90) in people with and without diabetes, respectively. Dapagliflozin significantly reduced death from CV causes (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69–0.98) and death from any cause (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71–0.97). In addition, dapagliflozin was associated with clinically meaningful improvement in symptoms as demonstrated by a 5-point or more change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.07–1.21). A trend towards a better preservation of renal function was also observed in the dapagliflozin group as indicated by the composite of reduction of 50% or more in the eGFR sustained for at least 28 days, ESKD, or death from renal causes (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44–1.16). Dapagliflozin benefits were also consistent independent of age [66].
The beneficial effects of SGLT2is were also confirmed by the EMPEROR-Reduced trial [5], which investigated the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in 3730 people with class II to IV HFrEF (40%). In this study, the incidence of CV death or hospitalisation for HF was significantly lower with empagliflozin (25% reduction) compared with placebo. Similarly to the DAPA-HF trial, significant benefits were observed regardless of diabetes status [5]. EMPEROR-Reduced also highlighted the renal benefits of SGLT2is, as shown by the mean slope of change in eGFR per year (difference 1.73; p < 0.001) and the composite renal outcome of chronic dialysis or renal transplantation or a sustained reduction in the eGFR (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32–0.77) [5]. Benefits in terms of the primary composite of CV death or HHF and the composite renal outcomes were consistent across a broad range of baseline kidney function, including people with eGFR as low as 20 mL/min/1.73 m2 [67].
A recent meta-analysis of the two trials confirmed the clinical benefits of SGLT2is in HFrEF, showing a significant reduction in all cause (13%) and CV mortality (14%) as well as in first HHF and the composites of first HHF or CV mortality, and all HHF or CV mortality [68]. Sotagliflozin, a dual SGLT2/1 inhibitor, has also been associated with a significant reduction in the composite endpoint of CV deaths, HHF and urgent HF visits in both people with acute decompensated HF (SOLOIST-WHF trial; 33% reduction) and people with T2DM and additional CV risk factors (SCORED trial; 26% reduction) [69, 70]. Additionally, in the SCORED trial, sotagliflozin was associated with a 23% decrease in the total number of deaths from CV causes, non-fatal myocardial infarctions, and non-fatal strokes. The benefits of SGLT2is in HF are also supported by the DEFINE-HF trial, in which dapagliflozin led to improvement in HF symptoms, based on KCCQ, over 12 weeks in 263 people with NYHA II–III HFrEF (40% or less), irrespective of T2DM [71]. This body of evidence supports consistent clinical benefits of SGLT2is in HFrEF in terms of prevention of CV complications and preservation of renal function (low rate of eGFR decline and ESKD or transplantation) across all thresholds of eGFR [67].
Interestingly, the EMPEROR-Preserved trial has recently shown that empagliflozin reduces the risk of HHF or CV death in people with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), regardless of the presence of diabetes (people with diabetes: HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69–0.90; people without diabetes: 0.78, 95% CI 0.64–0.95), thus paving the way for the use of SGLT2 inhibition in HFpEF [72]. The role of SGLT2is in the management of HFpEF will be further explored in the DELIVER study [73].
Economic Value of SGLT2is in HF
Besides showing significant clinical benefits, SGLT2is have also demonstrated health economic value in the treatment of HF. In a modelling study conducted in the UK setting, introduction of dapagliflozin to the treatment algorithm for HFrEF was estimated to yield a cost-offset of £26.2 million over 5 years. Savings were mainly driven by reduction in HHF, urgent HF visits and CV deaths [74].
Dapagliflozin, added to standard therapy, has been shown to be cost-effective, compared to standard therapy alone in people with HFrEF, with or without diabetes, in various settings. Dapagliflozin was estimated to increase life-years and QALYs and reduce lifetime hospitalisation; this was associated with ICERs well below the accepted WTP threshold in the UK, Germany, and Spain (ICERs were £5822, €5379 and €9406/QALY, respectively) [75]. Dapagliflozin was particularly cost-effective in high-risk subgroups yielding ICERS of £5625/QALY with prior HHF (vs. £5968 with no prior HHF) and £5648/QALY in people with more than 2 years duration of HF (vs. £ 6114 of people with lower duration) [75]. Conversely, the ICER was higher in people with T2DM than in people without diabetes (£6350 vs. £5419/QALY) [75]. The economic value of dapagliflozin was also investigated by two studies in the US setting, with both studies indicating that dapagliflozin provided incremental QALYs as compared to standard therapy alone [76, 77].
Whilst the economic value for dapagliflozin was assessed in people with HF with and without diabetes, data for empagliflozin are only available for people with HF and T2DM. In this population, empagliflozin has been found to be cost-effective when added to standard of care. In the UK setting, empagliflozin was associated with increased life years and QALYs, with an ICER of £2093/QALY gained [78].
Overall, the evidence presented indicates that SGLT2is provide good clinical and economic value for all individuals with HF, across the whole cardiorenal metabolic continuum (HF ± T2DM ± CKD).
In clinical practice, thinking needs to be directed toward the patient with cardiorenal metabolic disease and why they are not being considered for an SGLT2i.
SGLT2is in CKD
Clinical Value of SGLT2is in CKD
CKD affects approximately 13.4% of the global population [79], and is associated with high morbidity and mortality, which is mainly determined by a progressive deterioration of kidney function, ultimately leading to ESKD and increased risk of CV mortality; CV events are the leading cause of death in this population [80,81,82,83]. Diabetic kidney disease, ageing, hypertension and obesity are among the key drivers of CKD prevalence and mortality. As such, the cornerstones of CKD treatment include blockade of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) pathway, as well as optimisation of glucose and blood pressure control. However, despite available treatments, risk of CKD progression and CV mortality remain high and there is an unmet need for novel renoprotective therapies. Recently, data from the SGTL2i CVOTs (as described in the previous sections) have firmly established SGLT2is, in addition to standard of care, as an effective strategy to slow down the progression of CKD and reduce some of its associated complications in people with diabetes (EMPA-REG OUTCOMES [52], CANVAS [53], VERTIS CV [54], and DECLARE TIMI 58 [55]) and HF (DAPA-HF [4] and EMPEROR-Reduced [5]). Prompted by these results, recent randomised control trials (RCTs) were specifically designed to evaluate primary renal endpoints and confirmed that SGLT2is are an effective strategy to slow down the progression of renal disease in people with established CKD, regardless of diabetes. In the DAPA-CKD trial [6], which included 4304 individuals with an eGFR of 25–75 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urine albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) of at least 200 mg/g (22.6 mg/mmol) and at most 5000 mg/g (565 mg/mmol), dapagliflozin was associated with a significant decrease in the composite endpoint of sustained decline in the eGFR of at least 50%, ESKD, or death from renal or CV causes (HR 0.56, p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for the composite kidney outcome of a sustained decline in the eGFR of at least 50%, ESKD, or death from renal causes (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45–0.68) and in the composite CV outcome of HHF or death from CV causes (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55–0.92). The results were consistent in both people with CKD with and without diabetes and across different eGFR thresholds.
The renoprotective effects of SGLT2is are also supported by data from the SCORED [70] and CREDENCE [60] studies. The former, indicated that sotagliflozin may slow progression of CKD in people with diabetes and CKD regardless of the presence of albuminuria. In this study, sotagliflozin showed a trend toward a reduction, over placebo, in the composite endpoint of first occurrence of a sustained decrease of 50% or more in the eGFR, from baseline for at least 30 days, long-term dialysis, renal transplantation, or sustained eGFR of less than 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 for at least 30 days (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46–1.08). The CREDENCE study, which included people with T2DM and diabetic kidney disease as evidenced by UACR greater than 30 mg/mmol and eGFR greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 showed a significant reduction in the risk of renal composite of ESKD, doubling of creatinine levels or death from renal causes in people treated with canagliflozin (34% reduction; HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53–0.81).
The benefits of SGLT2is, in terms of preventing renal outcomes, have been confirmed in the real-world setting. The CVD-REAL 3 study, a multinational, observational cohort study including data from 65,231 participants, showed that initiation of SGLT2is was associated with a 51% decrease in relative risk of the renal composite outcome of 50% decline in eGFR or ESKD, compared with other glucose-lowering drugs [7].
Economic Value of SGLT2is in CKD
Given the renal protective effects of SGLT2is and the substantial healthcare costs associated with CKD, several studies have sought to determine the heath economic value of SGLT2is in CKD.
In a study assessing the budget impact of dapagliflozin for the treatment of CKD in the UK setting, use of this treatment in the eligible population (based on CKD prevalence and DAPA-CKD criteria) led to a reduction in total 3-year costs associated with CKD management of approximately £3.3 million [84].
In a multinational study, based on data from DAPA-CKD, dapagliflozin was shown to improve clinical outcomes (i.e. rates of CKD progression and life expectancy) and quality of life in people with and without T2DM, at a cost well below the WTP thresholds in UK, Germany, and Spain (ICERs of £5940, €11,687 and €10,699, respectively) [85, 86]. Results were consistent across different subgroups (people with and without T2DM, eGFR at least and at most 45 mL/min/1.73 m2, age less than and greater than 65, UACR 30–299 mg/g and UACR greater than 300 mg/g), with all ICERs falling below the accepted WTP threshold.
The economic value of SGLT2is is also supported by a cost-effectiveness analysis of the use of canagliflozin in people with diabetic kidney disease. The study, which was based on data from the CREDENCE trial, demonstrated significant health gains (e.g. preservation of eGFR, reductions in the risks of dialysis, CV events, and mortality) and cost savings of £4706 per person over 10 years, in the UK setting [87]. Overall, the evidence presented indicates that SGLT2is provide good clinical and economic value for all individuals with CKD, across the whole cardiorenal metabolic continuum (CKD ± T2DM ± HF). As such, SGLT2is should no longer be considered solely as a glucose-lowering treatment and should be included as part of standard care for CKD management. In clinical practice thinking needs to be directed toward the patient with cardiorenal metabolic disease and why they are not being considered for an SGLT2i.
SGLT2is in Cardiorenal Metabolic Disease
Cardiorenal metabolic disease represents a significant burden in primary care. However, the evidence is compelling with respect to the outcome benefits associated with SGLT2is across the continuum of cardiorenal metabolic disease, highlighting the importance of these agents as key tools for primary care. Indeed, this drug class has been associated with significant reductions in HbA1c, blood pressure and body weight, thus substantially improving glycaemic and metabolic control in T2DM [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51], as well as offering cardiac protection through its effects on reducing MACE, HHF and CV death [52,53,54,55,56, 59], and renal protection in terms of reductions in renal adverse outcomes, albuminuria, eGFR worsening and ESKD [6, 7, 52,53,54,55,56, 59, 60, 70] (Fig. 1).
These outcome benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors have been consistent across many patient subgroups, including those with and without T2DM, at different stages of CKD, with and without established atherosclerotic disease and with and without a previous history of HF [6, 7, 26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56, 59, 60, 70]. As such, SGLT2is should be considered as cornerstones of integrated care strategies in primary care in order to address the burden of cardiorenal metabolic disease, rather than being considered as discrete therapy options within individual disease states. The use of SGLT2is to manage cardiorenal patients from a holistic perspective offers an opportunity to reduce the disease burden and is likely to result in a substantial reduction in the number of hospitalisations, disease prevalence and associated costs over the next decade [88].
Despite the obvious outcomes benefits there is still an element of confusion around implementation of these agents in clinical practice, which is driven by variety of factors including confusion around label indications and dosing strategies, and misconceptions and concerns around adverse event profiles. With these issues in mind, understanding the practical considerations around SGLT2i use in the context of cardiorenal metabolic disease is essential in order to ensure optimal and appropriate use of these agents in primary care.
Practical Considerations
While the outcome benefits and clinical and economic value for SGLT2is are clear to appreciate from the wealth of evidence, timely and appropriate prescription of these agents, particularly in primary care, requires some consideration to optimise the risk–benefit profile.
Recent clinical trials have included individuals with eGFRs as low as 25 mL/min/1.73 m2, thereby providing reassurance that eGFR itself is not a contraindication; however, different SGLT2is have differing licences based on their respective pivotal studies (Table 2). Thus, clinicians ought to refer to the respective licence when initiating a SGLT2i. A modest decline in eGFR (approx. 3 to 4 mL/min/1.73 m2) is expected after initiation and should not automatically lead to drug discontinuation. For this reason, although periodic monitoring is recommended in people with CKD, guidelines do not recommend routine additional assessment of renal function following prescription of SGLT2is [11, 89,90,91,92,93,94]. Specific considerations regarding SGLT2i initiation and eGFR in people with T2DM, HF and CKD have been summarised elsewhere [11, 95,96,97].
The SGLT2i CVOTs have demonstrated that SGLT2is are well tolerated with a low risk of serious adverse effects. A recent meta-analysis has sought to evaluate the overall safety of SGLT2is (ertugliflozin, empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin) in T2DM, HF and CKD using data from the SGLT2i CVOTs VERTIS-CV, EMPA-REG OUTCOME, EMPEROR-Reduced, CANVAS, CREDENCE, DECLARE–TIMI 58, DAPA-HF, and DAPA-CKD. Results are in line with previous reports from the literature, indicating that most of the adverse events associated with SGLT2is are consistent with the glycosuria mechanism of action of this drug class and include minor complications such as genital mycotic infections and volume depletion that should not overshadow the significant cardioprotective benefits [98] (Table 3).
The most common adverse event related to SGLT2is is genital fungal infections, which has been reported to occur in up to 11% of those receiving SGLT2i treatment [89,90,91, 99,100,101]. However, most SGLT2i-related genital mycotic infections are easily managed with topical antifungal agents, and do not require treatment discontinuation, except in cases of recurrent or persistent candidiasis [100]. Urinary infections may also occur; nevertheless, these infections are usually rare and can be addressed with standard antibiotics [102,103,104]. Individuals prescribed an SGLT2i should be informed about the possibility of urogenital infections and encouraged to maintain basic genital hygiene and seek medical attention if symptoms of urogenital infection develop [99, 100].
As a result of the osmotic diuretic effects associated with SGLT2is, mild volume depletion, orthostatic hypotension and dizziness may be observed in those receiving this treatment [2, 19]. Prior to initiation, blood pressure and volume status should be assessed and SGLT2is should not be initiated in hypotensive/hypovolaemic individuals [99]. This is of particular importance in those with either HFrEF or CKD. If a person with CKD develops hypotension, physicians should aim to maintain stable doses of RAAS inhibitor which have been demonstrated to confer prognostic benefit. Other antihypertensives may be reduced, particularly diuretic dosing which would address volume depletion [97]. If volume depletion occurs, SGLT2i treatment should be suspended until this is corrected [99]. Patient education around the importance of maintaining adequate hydration is essential to minimize the incidence of these complications [100].
Although rare (0.1–0.5% in RCTs), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a serious life-threatening complication, can occur in people treated with SGLT2is [99, 105]. As a result of their insulin-independent effect on glycaemia, over a third of DKA cases associated with SGLT2is present in the absence of hyperglycaemia or with mildly elevated glucose levels (euglycaemic DKA), which can be difficult to diagnose [106,107,108]. Thus, people prescribed SGLT2is should be advised to seek immediate medical attention if experiencing DKA symptoms (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain) and should be evaluated for DKA and, if confirmed, SGLT2i therapy should be stopped [106, 109]. SGLT2is should not be restarted in individuals who have experienced DKA [110]. In addition, individuals prescribed SGLT2is should be educated around sick day rules in case of acute illness or in pre-operative settings which should include information regarding the frequency of monitoring of blood glucose and ketone levels and the identification of symptoms of DKA.
Although SGLT2is present a low risk of hypoglycaemia, this may occur when SGLT2is are combined with other antihyperglycaemic agents, such as insulin, sulfonylureas or glinides [99, 100, 111, 112]. Thus, dose adjustments for background antidiabetes therapies should be considered in people with optimal glucose control or that have already experienced hypoglycaemia [99, 100]. Individuals should be familiar with hypoglycaemia symptoms and be advised to regularly monitor their blood glucose when starting an SGLT2i if they are on any medications that are known to precipitate hypoglycaemia [99, 100].
An increased overall risk of fractures has been described for canagliflozin, in the CANVAS trial; however, these findings were not confirmed in subsequent studies. Volume depletion and related increased risk of falls may be a possible explanation for this observation, particularly given that most of the events occurred in the first 6 months of the trial [112, 113]. A significant increase in lower limb amputation risk has been observed with canagliflozin, in comparison to placebo (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.41–2.75) [109]; however, this was not observed in following studies such as the CREDENCE trial [60]. When considering initiation of SGLT2is in individuals at high risk of amputation the importance of routine preventative foot care and ongoing monitoring should be stressed [11, 109, 112].
As a result of the presence of several comorbidities in people with cardiorenal metabolic conditions, polypharmacy may also raise certain concerns among physicians, when initiating SGLT2i treatment. Nevertheless, in all RCTs supporting the multiple indications of SGLT2is, these agents were administered on top of current standard of care and demonstrated a positive safety and tolerability profile [89,90,91, 114]. In addition, a recent meta-analysis [115] assessed the impact on cardiorenal outcomes of SGLT2is in combination with RAAS inhibitors vs. SGLT2is alone in people with T2DM. This study suggested that the combination with RAAS inhibitors may show additive benefit compared to SGLT2is alone, while no significant differences in terms of safety were found between people receiving SGLT2 alone or in combination with RAAS inhibitors.
Taking into account the considerations discussed above, both healthcare professional and patient education are important to maximise the risk–benefit ratio of SGLT2is. Patient education should be structured and include information on topics such as how SGLT2is work, benefits and potential side effects, as well as when to stop or resume SGLT2i therapy, and sick day rules [116, 117]. In addition, specific education of healthcare professionals on the best use of SGLT2is in clinical practice is essential, particularly to ensure that all are aware of the benefits of these agents across the cardiorenal metabolic continuum [95, 118].
Summary
SGLT2is have changed the therapeutic landscape of cardiorenal metabolic disease management and its related complications, providing good clinical and economic value across the cardiorenal metabolic continuum.
Considering the benefits of SGLT2is in terms of CV, renal and metabolic outcomes, it is now time to start think differently around the paradigm of SGLT2is in clinical practice. Indeed, use of this class of drugs should not be solely focussed on a glucose-centric therapeutic approach, but rather a holistic person-centred one. Such an approach should be aimed at mitigating morbidity and mortality over the patient lifetime by maximising outcome benefits across the cardiorenal metabolic continuum, rather than defining the treatment plan based on individual indications. With this in mind, and in line with the recently updated NICE T2DM clinical guideline which recommends wider use of SGLT2 inhibitors, alongside metformin, in the first-line treatment of T2DM [93], we encourage those involved in primary care to recognise the remarkable benefits of SGLT2is and when managing patients with cardiorenal metabolic disease to think about their patient and why they have not been prescribed an SGLT2i.
References
Mudaliar S, Polidori D, Zambrowicz B, Henry RR. Sodium–glucose cotransporter inhibitors: effects on renal and intestinal glucose transport: from bench to bedside. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(12):2344–53.
Grubić Rotkvić P, Cigrovski Berković M, Bulj N, Rotkvić L, Ćelap I. Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors’ mechanisms of action in heart failure. World J Diabetes. 2020;11(7):269–79.
Hsia DS, Grove O, Cefalu WT. An update on sodium–glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2017;24(1):73–9.
McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(21):1995–2008.
Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, et al. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(15):1413–24.
Heerspink HJL, Stefánsson BV, Correa-Rotter R, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(15):1436–46.
Heerspink HJL, Karasik A, Thuresson M, et al. Kidney outcomes associated with use of SGLT2 inhibitors in real-world clinical practice (CVD-REAL 3): a multinational observational cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020;8(1):27–35.
KDIGO. Clinical practice guideline for diabetes management in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int. 2020;98(4):s1–115.
Cosentino F, Grant PJ, Aboyans V, et al. 2019 ESC guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(2):255–323.
Bashier A, Bin Hussain A, Abdelgadir E, Alawadi F, Sabbour H, Chilton R. Consensus recommendations for management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2019;11:80.
UK Kidney Association. UK kidney association clinical practice guideline: sodium–glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibition in adults with kidney disease. 2021. https://ukkidney.org/sites/renal.org/files/UKKA%20guideline_SGLT2i%20in%20adults%20with%20kidney%20disease%20v1%2018.10.21.pdf.
McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, et al. 2021 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(36):3599–726.
Škrtić M, Cherney DZ. Sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibition and the potential for renal protection in diabetic nephropathy. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2015;24(1):96–103.
Pabel S, Hamdani N, Luedde M, Sossalla S. SGLT2 inhibitors and their mode of action in heart failure-has the mystery been unravelled? Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2021;18(5):315–28.
Delanaye P, Scheen AJ. The diuretic effect of SGLT2 inhibitors: a comprehensive review of their specificities and their role in renal protection. Diabetes Metab. 2021:47(6):101285.
Purnell TS, Joy S, Little E, Bridges JF, Maruthur N. Patient preferences for noninsulin diabetes medications: a systematic review. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(7):2055–62.
Harris SB, Cheng AYY, Davies MJ, Gerstein HC, Green JB, Skolnik N. Person-centered, outcomes-driven treatment: a new paradigm for type 2 diabetes in primary care. Arlington: American Diabetes Association; 2020.
General Medical Council. Guidance on professional standards and ethics for doctors. Decision making and consent. https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/gmc-guidance-for-doctors---decision-making-and-consent-english_pdf-84191055.pdf.
Tentolouris A, Vlachakis P, Tzeravini E, Eleftheriadou I, Tentolouris N. SGLT2 inhibitors: a review of their antidiabetic and cardioprotective effects. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(16):2965.
Nelinson DS, Sosa JM, Chilton RJ. SGLT2 inhibitors: a narrative review of efficacy and safety. J Osteopath Med. 2021;121(2):229–39.
Giugliano D, Maiorino MI, Bellastella G, Esposito K. The residual cardiorenal risk in type 2 diabetes. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2021;20(1):36.
Bain S, Druyts E, Balijepalli C, et al. Cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality associated with sulphonylureas compared with other antihyperglycaemic drugs: a Bayesian meta-analysis of survival data. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(3):329–35.
Mannucci E, Nreu B, Montereggi C, et al. Cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: an extensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;31(10):2745–55.
Chaudhury A, Duvoor C, Reddy Dendi VS, et al. Clinical review of antidiabetic drugs: implications for type 2 diabetes mellitus management. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2017;8:6.
Liao HW, Saver JL, Wu YL, Chen TH, Lee M, Ovbiagele B. Pioglitazone and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with insulin resistance, pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(1):e013927.
Häring HU, Merker L, Seewaldt-Becker E, et al. Empagliflozin as add-on to metformin plus sulfonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(11):3396–404.
Rosenstock J, Jelaska A, Frappin G, et al. Improved glucose control with weight loss, lower insulin doses, and no increased hypoglycemia with empagliflozin added to titrated multiple daily injections of insulin in obese inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(7):1815–23.
Stenlöf K, Cefalu WT, Kim KA, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of canagliflozin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with diet and exercise: findings from the 52-week CANTATA-M study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30(2):163–75.
Xiong W, Xiao MY, Zhang M, Chang F. Efficacy and safety of canagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine. 2016;95(48):e5473.
Neal B, Perkovic V, de Zeeuw D, et al. Efficacy and safety of canagliflozin, an inhibitor of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2, when used in conjunction with insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(3):403–11.
Bailey CJ, Gross JL, Hennicken D, Iqbal N, Mansfield TA, List JF. Dapagliflozin add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 102-week trial. BMC Med. 2013;11:43.
Bailey CJ, Gross JL, Pieters A, Bastien A, List JF. Effect of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control with metformin: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9733):2223–33.
Bailey CJ, Iqbal N, T’Joen C, List JF. Dapagliflozin monotherapy in drug-naïve patients with diabetes: a randomized-controlled trial of low-dose range. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2012;14(10):951–9.
Ferrannini E, Ramos SJ, Salsali A, Tang W, List JF. Dapagliflozin monotherapy in type 2 diabetic patients with inadequate glycemic control by diet and exercise: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(10):2217–24.
Bolinder J, Ljunggren Ö, Johansson L, et al. Dapagliflozin maintains glycaemic control while reducing weight and body fat mass over 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2013;16(2):159–69.
Bolinder J, Ljunggren Ö, Kullberg J, et al. Effects of dapagliflozin on body weight, total fat mass, and regional adipose tissue distribution in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycemic control on metformin. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(3):1020–31.
Jabbour SA, Hardy E, Sugg J, Parikh S. Dapagliflozin is effective as add-on therapy to sitagliptin with or without metformin: a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Diabetes Care. 2013;37(3):740–50.
Nauck MA, Del Prato S, Meier JJ, et al. Dapagliflozin versus glipizide as add-on therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycemic control with metformin: a randomized, 52-week, double-blind, active-controlled noninferiority trial. Diabetes Care. 2011;34(9):2015–22.
Rosenstock J, Vico M, Wei L, Salsali A, List JF. Effects of dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, on HbA(1c), body weight, and hypoglycemia risk in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on pioglitazone monotherapy. Diabetes Care. 2012;35(7):1473–8.
Strojek K, Yoon K-H, Hruba V, Sugg J, Langkilde AM, Parikh S. Dapagliflozin added to glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus sustains glycemic control and weight loss over 48 weeks: a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Diabetes Ther. 2014;5(1):267–83.
Strojek K, Yoon KH, Hruba V, Elze M, Langkilde AM, Parikh S. Effect of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control with glimepiride: a randomized, 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2011;13(10):928–38.
Wilding JPH, Woo V, Soler NG, et al. Long-term efficacy of dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving high doses of insulin. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(6):405–15.
Roden M, Weng J, Eilbracht J, et al. Empagliflozin monotherapy with sitagliptin as an active comparator in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2013;1(3):208–19.
Ridderstråle M, Andersen KR, Zeller C, Kim G, Woerle HJ, Broedl UC. Comparison of empagliflozin and glimepiride as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 104-week randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2014;2(9):691–700.
Kovacs CS, Seshiah V, Merker L, et al. Empagliflozin as add-on therapy to pioglitazone with or without metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clin Ther. 2015;37(8):1773-88.e1.
Terra SG, Focht K, Davies M, et al. Phase III, efficacy and safety study of ertugliflozin monotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with diet and exercise alone. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(5):721–8.
Rosenstock J, Frias J, Páll D, et al. Effect of ertugliflozin on glucose control, body weight, blood pressure and bone density in type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy (VERTIS MET). Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20(3):520–9.
Hollander P, Liu J, Hill J, et al. Ertugliflozin compared with glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin: the VERTIS SU randomized study. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9(1):193–207.
Miller S, Krumins T, Zhou H, et al. Ertugliflozin and sitagliptin co-initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes: the VERTIS SITA randomized study. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9(1):253–68.
Dagogo-Jack S, Liu J, Eldor R, et al. Efficacy and safety of the addition of ertugliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin and sitagliptin: the VERTIS SITA2 placebo-controlled randomized study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20(3):530–40.
Pratley RE, Eldor R, Raji A, et al. Ertugliflozin plus sitagliptin versus either individual agent over 52 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled with metformin: the VERTIS FACTORIAL randomized trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018;20(5):1111–20.
Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2117–28.
Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):644–57.
Cannon CP, Pratley R, Dagogo-Jack S, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes with ertugliflozin in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(15):1425–35.
Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP, et al. Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(4):347–57.
Gupta M, Rao S, Manek G, Fonarow GC, Ghosh RK. The role of dapagliflozin in the management of heart failure: an update on the emerging evidence. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2021;17:823–30.
Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, et al. SGLT2 inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials. Lancet. 2019;393(10166):31–9.
Tuttle KR, Brosius FC 3rd, Cavender MA, et al. SGLT2 inhibition for CKD and cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: report of a scientific workshop sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation. Diabetes. 2021;70(1):1–16.
Strain WD, Griffiths J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in biologically healthy older adults. Br J Diabetes. 2021;21(1):30–5.
Perkovic V, Jardine MJ, Neal B, et al. Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(24):2295–306.
Wanner C, Inzucchi SE, Lachin JM, et al. Empagliflozin and progression of kidney disease in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(4):323–34.
McEwan P, Bennett H, Kartman B, Edmonds C, Gause-Nilsson I, Wilding J. Estimating healthcare resource implications associated with use of dapagliflozin: model predictions using data from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial. Diabetologia. 2019;62:S396–7.
Rahman W, Solinsky PJ, Munir KM, Lamos EM. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of sodium–glucose transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2019;20(2):151–61.
McEwan P, Morgan AR, Boyce R, et al. The cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in treating high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an economic evaluation using data from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23(4):1020–9.
McEwan P, Bennett H, Khunti K, et al. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a comprehensive economic evaluation using clinical trial and real-world evidence. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020;22(12):2364–74.
Martinez FA, Serenelli M, Nicolau JC, et al. Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction according to age. Circulation. 2020;141(2):100–11.
Zannad F, Ferreira JP, Pocock SJ, et al. Cardiac and kidney benefits of empagliflozin in heart failure across the spectrum of kidney function: insights from EMPEROR-reduced. Circulation. 2021;143(4):310–21.
Zannad F, Ferreira JP, Pocock SJ, et al. SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a meta-analysis of the EMPEROR-reduced and DAPA-HF trials. Lancet. 2020;396(10254):819–29.
Bhatt DL, Szarek M, Steg PG, et al. Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and recent worsening heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(2):117–28.
Bhatt DL, Szarek M, Pitt B, et al. Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(2):129–39.
Nassif ME, Windsor SL, Tang F, et al. Dapagliflozin effects on biomarkers, symptoms, and functional status in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the DEFINE-HF trial. Circulation. 2019;140(18):1463–76.
Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, et al. Empagliflozin in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(16):1451–61.
Solomon SD, de Boer RA, DeMets D, et al. Dapagliflozin in heart failure with preserved and mildly reduced ejection fraction: rationale and design of the DELIVER trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2021;23(7):1217–25.
Qin L, Darlington O, Miller R, et al. Budget impact evaluation of the DAPA-HF trial: is dapagliflozin cost-saving for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction? Eur J Heart Fail. 2021;23(Suppl. S2):305.
McEwan P, Darlington O, McMurray JJV, et al. Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin as a treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a multinational health-economic analysis of DAPA-HF. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22(11):2147–56.
Parizo JT, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Salomon JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin for treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. JAMA Cardiol. 2021;6(8):926–35.
Isaza N, Calvachi P, Raber I, et al. Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(7):e2114501.
Reifsnider OS, Kansal AR, Franke J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in the UK in an EMPA-REG OUTCOME subgroup with type 2 diabetes and heart failure. ESC Heart Fail. 2020;7(6):3910–8.
Hill NR, Fatoba ST, Oke JL, et al. Global prevalence of chronic kidney disease—a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(7):e0158765.
GBD Chronic Kidney Disease Collaboration. Global, regional, and national burden of chronic kidney disease, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2020;395(10225):709–33.
Segall L, Nistor I, Covic A. Heart failure in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic integrative review. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:937398.
Thompson S, James M, Wiebe N, et al. Cause of death in patients with reduced kidney function. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26(10):2504–11.
Vanholder R, Massy Z, Argiles A, Spasovski G, Verbeke F, Lameire N. Chronic kidney disease as cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2005;20(6):1048–56.
Darlington O, McEwan P, Boyce R, Chen G, Martin B, Sörstadius E, Garcia Sanchez JJ, Rao N. MO876 Estimating the budget impact of dapagliflozin for the treatment of chronic kidney disease from a UK payer perspective. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2021;36(Supplement_1):gfab100-001.
McEwan P, Darlington O, Wheeler D, et al. POS-335 Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin as a treatment for chronic kidney disease: a health-economic analysis of DAPA-CKD. Kidney Int Rep. 2021;6(4):S14546.
McEwan P, Darlington O, Miller R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in addition to current background therapy as a treatment for chronic kidney disease. 2022. Unpublished data on file.
Willis M, Nilsson A, Kellerborg K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of canagliflozin added to standard of care for treating diabetic kidney disease (DKD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in England: estimates using the CREDEM-DKD model. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(1):313–28.
McEwan P, Morgan AR, Boyce R, Green N, Song B, Huang J, Bergenheim K. Cardiorenal disease in the United States: future health care burden and potential impact of novel therapies. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2022;12:1–10. https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2022.21385. Epub ahead of print.
EMC. SmPC: Forxiga 10 mg film-coated tablets. 2021. https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/7607/smpc.
EMC. SmPC: Invokana 100 mg and 300 mg film-coated tablets. https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/8855/smpc.
EMC. SmPC: Jardiance 10 mg and 25 mg tablets. https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/5441/smpc.
Vardeny O, Vaduganathan M. Practical guide to prescribing sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for cardiologists. JACC Heart Fail. 2019;7(2):169–72.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE guideline [NG28] type 2 diabetes in adults: management 2021. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng28/chapter/Recommendations#chronic-kidney-disease.
Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease 2013 [updated 09/12/2021]. https://kdigo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/KDIGO_2012_CKD_GL.pdf.
Dashora U, CaReMe UK Partnership. Manage diabetes and comorbidities with a joined-up strategy. Guidel Pract. 2021;24(5).
Evans M, Morgan AR, Yousef Z, et al. Optimising the heart failure treatment pathway: the role of SGLT2 inhibitors. Drugs. 2021;81(11):1243–55.
Evans M, Morgan AR, Whyte MB, Hanif W, Bain SC, Kalra PA, Davies S, Dashora U, Yousef Z, Patel DC, Strain WD. New Therapeutic Horizons in Chronic Kidney Disease: The role of SGLT2 inhibitors in clinical practice. Drugs. 2022;82(2):97–108.
Qiu M, Ding LL, Zhang M, Zhou HR. Safety of four SGLT2 inhibitors in three chronic diseases: a meta-analysis of large randomized trials of SGLT2 inhibitors. Diab Vasc Dis Res. 2021;18(2):14791641211011016.
Lam D, Shaikh A. Real-life prescribing of SGLT2 inhibitors: how to handle the other medications, including glucose-lowering drugs and diuretics. Kidney360. 2021;2(4):742–6.
Zala A, Maple-Brown LJ, Shaw JE, Hare MJ. Current evidence and practical guidance for the use of sodium–glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes. Aust J Gen Pract. 2021;50(4):225–30.
Dashora U, Gregory R, Winocour P, et al. Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) and Diabetes UK joint position statement and recommendations for non-diabetes specialists on the use of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors in people with type 2 diabetes (January 2021). Clin Med (Lond). 2021;21(3):204–10.
Gadzhanova S, Pratt N, Roughead E. Use of SGLT2 inhibitors for diabetes and risk of infection: analysis using general practice records from the NPS MedicineWise MedicineInsight program. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017;130:180–5.
Geerlings S, Fonseca V, Castro-Diaz D, List J, Parikh S. Genital and urinary tract infections in diabetes: impact of pharmacologically-induced glucosuria. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2014;103(3):373–81.
Li D, Wang T, Shen S, Fang Z, Dong Y, Tang H. Urinary tract and genital infections in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sodium–glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(3):348–55.
Dashora U, Gallagher A, Dhatariya K, Winocour P, Gregory R, ABCD Committee. Association of British Clinical Diabetologists (ABCD) position statement on the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis associated with the use of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Br J Diabetes. 2016;16(4):206–9.
Goldenberg RM, Berard LD, Cheng AYY, et al. SGLT2 inhibitor-associated diabetic ketoacidosis: clinical review and recommendations for prevention and diagnosis. Clin Ther. 2016;38(12):2654-64.e1.
Hamblin PS, Wong R, Ekinci EI, et al. SGLT2 inhibitors increase the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis developing in the community and during hospital admission. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2019;104(8):3077–87.
Musso G, Saba F, Cassader M, Gambino R. Diabetic ketoacidosis with SGLT2 inhibitors. BMJ. 2020;371:m4147.
Wilding J, Fernando K, Milne N, et al. SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes management: key evidence and implications for clinical practice. Diabetes Ther. 2018;9(5):1757–73.
Evans K. Diabetic ketoacidosis: update on management. Clin Med (Lond). 2019;19(5):396–8.
Vasilakou D, Karagiannis T, Athanasiadou E, et al. Sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(4):262–74.
Lu H, Lu H, Kosinski C, et al. SGLT2 inhibitors, what the emergency physician needs to know: a narrative review. J Clin Med. 2021;10(9):2036.
Opingari E, Partridge ACR, Verma S, Bajaj HS. SGLT2 inhibitors: practical considerations and recommendations for cardiologists. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2018;33(6):676–82.
EMC. SmPC: Steglatro 5 mg and 15 mg tablets. https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/9803/smpc.
Seidu S, Kunutsor SK, Topsever P, Khunti K. Benefits and harms of sodium–glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2-I) and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAAS-I) versus SGLT2-Is alone in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab. 2021;5(1):e00303.
Zoungas S, de Boer IH. SGLT2 inhibitors in diabetic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021;16(4):631–3.
Evans M. Living with type 2 diabetes: patient commentary in response to the paper “SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes management: key evidence and implications for clinical practice.” Diabetes Ther. 2018;9(5):1729–32.
Kalra S, Baruah MP, Sahay R. Medication counselling with sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitor therapy. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2014;18(5):597–9.
Acknowledgements
Funding
This work was supported by a grant from AstraZeneca in respect of medical writing and publication costs. AstraZeneca has not influenced the content of the publication or been involved in the writing of this publication. AstraZeneca has reviewed this document for factual accuracy only.
Authorship
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.
Author Contribution
All authors have been involved in study concept and design and have contributed to discussions around manuscript content. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Angharad R. Morgan and Marc Evans. Angharad R. Morgan, Marc Evans, Stephen C. Bain, Sarah Davies, Umesh Dashora, Smeeta Sinha, Samuel Seidu, Dipesh C. Patel, Hannah Beba and W. David Strain all commented on this draft and contributed to subsequent versions of the manuscript.
Medical Writing, Editorial, and Other Assistance
We thank Marilena Appierto of Health Economics Outcomes Research Ltd. for providing medical writing and editorial support. Support for this assistance was funded by AstraZeneca.
Disclosures
Marc Evans reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, NovoNordisk, Takeda and NAPP, and research support from NovoNordisk outside the submitted work. Angharad R. Morgan is an employee of Health Economics and Outcomes Research Ltd., Cardiff, UK who received fees from AstraZeneca in relation to this study. Stephen C. Bain reports personal fees and other from Abbott, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees and other from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees and other from Eli Lilly, personal fees and other from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees and other from Novo Nordisk, personal fees and other from Sanofi-aventis, other from Cardiff University, other from Doctors.net, other from Elsevier, other from Onmedica, other from Omnia-Med, other from Medscape, other from All-Wales Medicines Strategy Group, other from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) UK, and other from Glycosmedia, outside the submitted work. Sarah Davies has received honorarium from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Takeda, MSD, NAPP, Bayer and Roche for attending and participating in educational events and advisory boards, outside the submitted work. Umesh Dashora reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Napp, Sanofi, BI, Lilly and Novo Nordisk, outside the submitted work. Smeeta Sinha has received research funding from Amgen, Ethicon, and AstraZeneca; has consultancy agreements with Sanifit; has received sponsorship to attend conferences from AstraZeneca, lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Napp Pharmaceuticals, Vifor Pharma, Novartis, Bayer, Sanofi-Genzyme and advisory board fees from Travere, Novartis, Advicenne and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Samuel Seidu reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Astrazeneca, personal fees from NAPP, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Novo Nordisk, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Sanofi-Aventis, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, grants from AstraZeneca, grants from Sanofi-Aventis, grants from Servier, grants from Janssen, outside the submitted work; Additionally, Dr Seidu is a board member for Primary Care Diabetes Europe and Primary Care Diabetes Society in UK and a member of the CaReMe UK group. He is supported by NIHR ARC East Midlands. Dipesh C. Patel reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Boehinger Ingelheim, personal fees from Eli Lilly, non-financial support from Napp, personal fees from Novo Nordisk, personal fees from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from Sanofi outside the submitted work. In addition, Dipesh C. Patel is an executive committee member of the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists and member of the CaReMe UK group. Hannah Beba has received speaker honoraria and consultancy fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Napp, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Takeda, outside the submitted work. W. David Strain holds research grants from Bayer, Novo Nordisk and Novartis and has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Napp, Novartis, Novo Nordisk and Takeda, outside the submitted work. WDS is supported by the NIHR Exeter Clinical Research Facility and the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for the South West Peninsula.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Data Availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Evans, M., Morgan, A.R., Bain, S.C. et al. Defining the Role of SGLT2 Inhibitors in Primary Care: Time to Think Differently. Diabetes Ther 13, 889–911 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-022-01242-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13300-022-01242-y