The coexistence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF), either with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), is frequent (30-40% of patients) and associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization, all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality. The most important causes of HF in T2DM are coronary artery disease, arterial hypertension and a direct detrimental effect of T2DM on the myocardium. T2DM is often unrecognized in HF patients, and vice versa, which emphasizes the importance of an active search for both disorders in the clinical practice. There are no specific limitations to HF treatment in T2DM. Subanalyses of trials addressing HF treatment in the general population have shown that all HF therapies are similarly effective regardless of T2DM. Concerning T2DM treatment in HF patients, most guidelines currently recommend metformin as the first-line choice. Sulphonylureas and insulin have been the traditional second- and third-line therapies although their safety in HF is equivocal. Neither glucagon-like preptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, nor dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors reduce the risk for HF hospitalization. Indeed, a DPP4 inhibitor, saxagliptin, has been associated with a higher risk of HF hospitalization. Thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) are contraindicated in patients with (or at risk of) HF. In recent trials, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin, have both shown a significant reduction in HF hospitalization in patients with established CV disease or at risk of CV disease. Several ongoing trials should provide an insight into the effectiveness of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF in the absence of T2DM.

Summary Background Diabetes is an independent risk factor for heart failure progression. Sacubitril/valsartan, a combination angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, improves morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril, and improves peripheral insulin sensitivity in obese hypertensive patients. We aimed to investigate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on HbA1c and time to first-time initiation of insulin or oral antihyperglycaemic drugs in patients with diabetes and HFrEF. Methods In a post-hoc analysis of the PARADIGM-HF trial, we included 3778 patients with known diabetes or an HbA1c≥6·5% at screening out of 8399 patients with HFrEF who were randomly assigned to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril. Of these patients, most (98%) had type 2 diabetes. We assessed changes in HbA1c, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol and BMI in a mixed effects longitudinal analysis model. Times to initiation of oral antihyperglycaemic drugs or insulin in subjects previously not treated with these agents were compared between treatment groups. Findings There were no significant differences in HbA1c concentrations between randomised groups at screening. During the first year of follow-up, HbA1c concentrations decreased by 0·16% (SD 1·40) in the enalapril group and 0·26% (SD 1·25) in the sacubitril/valsartan group (between-group reduction 0·13%, 95% CI 0·05–0·22, p=0·0023). HbA1c concentrations were persistently lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the enalapril group over the 3-year follow-up (between-group reduction 0·14%, 95% CI 0·06–0·23, p=0·0055). New use of insulin was 29% lower in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (114 [7%] patients) compared with patients receiving enalapril (153 [10%]; hazard ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·56–0·90, p=0·0052). Similarly, fewer patients were started on oral antihyperglycaemic therapy (0·77, 0·58–1·02, p=0·073) in the sacubitril/valsartan group. Interpretation Patients with diabetes and HFrEF enrolled in PARADIGM-HF who received sacubitril/valsartan had a greater long-term reduction in HbA1c than those receiving enalapril. These data suggest that sacubitril/valsartan might enhance glycaemic control in patients with diabetes and HFrEF.

Cardiomyopathies are a heterogeneous group of heart muscle diseases and an important cause of heart failure (HF). Current knowledge on incidence, pathophysiology and natural history of HF in cardiomyopathies is limited, and distinct features of their therapeutic responses have not been systematically addressed. Therefore, this position paper focuses on epidemiology, pathophysiology, natural history and latest developments in treatment of HF in patients with dilated (DCM), hypertrophic (HCM) and restrictive (RCM) cardiomyopathies. In DCM, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has high incidence and prevalence and represents the most frequent cause of death, despite improvements in treatment. In addition, advanced HF in DCM is one of the leading indications for heart transplantation. In HCM, HF with preserved ejection (HFpEF) affects most patients with obstructive, and ∼10% of patients with non-obstructive HCM. A timely treatment is important, since development of advanced HF, although rare in HCM, portends a poor prognosis. In RCM, HFpEF is common, while HFrEF occurs later and more frequently in amyloidosis or iron overload/haemochromatosis. Irrespective of RCM aetiology, HF is a harbinger of a poor outcome. Recent advances in our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the development of HF in cardiomyopathies have significant implications for therapeutic decision-making. In addition, new aetiology-specific treatment options (e.g. enzyme replacement therapy, transthyretin stabilizers, immunoadsorption, immunotherapy, etc.) have shown a potential to improve outcomes. Still, causative therapies of many cardiomyopathies are lacking, highlighting the need for the development of effective strategies to prevent and treat HF in cardiomyopathies.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common in patients with heart failure (HF) and associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Significant advances have recently occurred in the treatment of T2DM, with evidence of several new glucose‐lowering medications showing either neutral or beneficial cardiovascular effects. However, some of these agents have safety characteristics with strong practical implications in HF [i.e. dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitors, glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1 RA), and sodium–glucose co‐transporter type 2 (SGLT‐2) inhibitors]. Regarding safety of DPP‐4 inhibitors, saxagliptin is not recommended in HF because of a greater risk of HF hospitalisation. There is no compelling evidence of excess HF risk with the other DPP‐4 inhibitors. GLP‐1 RAs have an overall neutral effect on HF outcomes. However, a signal of harm suggested in two small trials of liraglutide in patients with reduced ejection fraction indicates that their role remains to be defined in established HF. SGLT‐2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin) have shown a consistent reduction in the risk of HF hospitalisation regardless of baseline cardiovascular risk or history of HF. Accordingly, SGLT‐2 inhibitors could be recommended to prevent HF hospitalisation in patients with T2DM and established cardiovascular disease or with multiple risk factors. The recently completed trial with dapagliflozin has shown a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and HF events in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction, with or without T2DM. Several ongoing trials will assess whether the results observed with dapagliflozin could be extended to other SGLT‐2 inhibitors in the treatment of HF, with either preserved or reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence of T2DM. This position paper aims to summarise relevant clinical trial evidence concerning the role and safety of new glucose‐lowering therapies in patients with HF.

Heart failure (HF) is common and associated with a poor prognosis, despite advances in treatment. Over the last decade cardiovascular outcome trials with sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus have demonstrated beneficial effects for three SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin) in reducing hospitalisations for HF. More recently, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening HF or death from cardiovascular causes in patients with chronic HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus. A number of additional trials in HF patients with reduced and/or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction are ongoing and/or about to be reported. The present position paper summarises recent clinical trial evidence and discusses the role of SGLT2 inhibitors in the treatment of HF, pending the results of ongoing trials in different populations of patients with HF.

The Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has recently issued a position paper on the role of sodium–glucose co‐transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in heart failure (HF). The present document provides an update of the position paper, based of new clinical trial evidence. Accordingly, the following recommendations are given: • Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin empagliflozin, or ertugliflozin are recommended for the prevention of HF hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease or at high cardiovascular risk. • Dapagliflozin or empagliflozin are recommended to reduce the combined risk of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular death in symptomatic patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction already receiving guideline‐directed medical therapy regardless of the presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic highlighted a significant interplay between cardiovascular disease (CVD), COVID-19 related inflammatory status, and depression. Cardiovascular (CV) injury is responsible for a substantial percentage of COVID-19 deaths while COVID-19 social restrictions emerged as a non-negligible risk factor for CVD as well as a variety of mental health issues, and in particular, depression. Inflammation seems to be a shared condition between these two disorders. Gender represents a potential modifying factor both in CVD and depression, as well as in COVID-19 short- and long-term outcomes, particularly in cases involving long-term COVID complications. Results from emerging studies indicate that COVID-19 pandemic affected male and female populations in different ways. Women seem to experience less severe short-term complications but suffer worse long-term COVID complications, including depression, reduced physical activity, and deteriorating lifestyle habits, all of which may impact CV risk. Here, we summarize the current state of knowledge about the interplay between COVID-19, depression, and CV risk in women.

Increased body weight as well as type 2 diabetes (T2D) are found to be associated with increased incidence of hypertension, although the mechanisms facilitating hypertension in T2D or nondiabetic individuals are not clear. Therefore, in this study we compared the levels of insulin resistance (IR:OGIS), plasma insulin (PI:RIA) levels, and pro-inflammatory cytokines (IL-6 and TNF-α: ELISA), being risk factors previously found to be associated with hypertension, in T2D patients showing increased body weight (obese and overweight, BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2) with hypertension (group A, N = 30), or without hypertension (group B, N = 30), and in nonobese (BMI < 25 kg/m2), normotensive controls (group C, N = 15). We found that OGIS index was the lowest (A: 267 ± 35.42 vs. B: 342.89 ± 32.0, p < 0.01) and PI levels were the highest (A: 31.05 ± 8.24 vs. B: 17.23 ± 3.23, p < 0.01) in group A. In addition, IL-6 levels were higher in group A (A: 15.46 ± 5.15 vs. B: 11.77 ± 6.09; p < 0.05) while there was no difference in TNF-α levels. Our results have shown that appearance of hypertension in T2D patients with increased body weight was dependent on further increase in IR which was associated with the rise in pro-inflammatory IL-6 cytokine. The results imply that lifestyle intervention aimed to decrease IR might be beneficial in reducing the risk for hypertension in those T2D individuals.