2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2018.04.040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Are the favorable cardiovascular outcomes of empagliflozin treatment explained by its effects on multiple cardiometabolic risk factors? A simulation of the results of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
8
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…First, some drug classes, notably SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, have reported treatment effects that cannot be explained only by improvements in known biomarker risk factors, and hence models including these risk factors in their risk predictions cannot be expected to fully capture the reported outcomes, at least until the mechanisms of action are better understood. [20][21][22] The Ninth Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge has confirmed this finding. Second, widely used risk equations such as the UKPDS 68 and the UKPDS 82 reflect cohorts initially recruited in an earlier "therapeutic era," since when improved clinical care and many other factors have contributed to secular declines in morbidity and mortality in type 2 diabetes and in cardiovascular disease generally.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…First, some drug classes, notably SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, have reported treatment effects that cannot be explained only by improvements in known biomarker risk factors, and hence models including these risk factors in their risk predictions cannot be expected to fully capture the reported outcomes, at least until the mechanisms of action are better understood. [20][21][22] The Ninth Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge has confirmed this finding. Second, widely used risk equations such as the UKPDS 68 and the UKPDS 82 reflect cohorts initially recruited in an earlier "therapeutic era," since when improved clinical care and many other factors have contributed to secular declines in morbidity and mortality in type 2 diabetes and in cardiovascular disease generally.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…18 These cardioprotective effects reported cannot be fully explained by improvements in known biomarker risk factors. 19 Applications with 3 independent diabetes simulation models have failed to replicate these treatment effects based on changes in surrogate biomarkers for most CV outcomes, [20][21][22] highlighting an important challenge for economic decision makers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, a wealth of evidence on head-to-head differences in biomarker changes to inform economic analysis exists. This approach has been shown to capture only part of the cardiovascular benefit [17, 19, 20] using well-established cardiovascular risk prediction equations such as those from UKPDS. When this approach is used to perform economic assessments comparing agents with and without demonstrated cardiovascular benefits, results will be biased.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based as they are on known biomarkers, existing risk prediction equations may not have good predictive accuracy for modeling agents that have shown cardioprotection since these benefits cannot be explained fully by these known risk factors. Indeed, studies attempting to replicate EMPA-REG OUTCOME [17, 18], LEADER [18], SUSTAIN-6 [19], and the CANVAS Program [20] have confirmed that economic modeling with these risk prediction equations can capture only part of the cardiovascular benefit, and those interested in risk prediction and economic modeling in T2DM have taken notice. For example, CADTH (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health) and NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) have called into question the ability of the risk prediction equations underlying the UKPDS Outcomes Model to accurately predict event risks for cardioprotective agents [21, 22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…О практической пользе эмпаглифлозина для этой категории больных говорит и промежуточный анализ результатов лечения 35 000 пациентов в исследовании EMPRISE, подтвердивший, что эмпаглифлозин снижает риск госпитализаций по поводу ХСН на 44% по сравнению с терапией ингибиторами дипептидилпептидазы 4 типа (иДПП4), по данным реальной клинической практики [8]. Данный препарат эффективен, не способствует гипогликемиям, ведет к снижению массы тела [1,9,10,11], уменьшает риск госпитализаций по причине сердечной недостаточности на 35% (в том числе у больных, исходно не имевших ХСН) [3,4], характеризуется такими позитивными плейотропными эффектами, как уменьшение артериального давления без роста частоты сердечных сокращений [4,12], снижение уровня мочевой кислоты в крови [4,13], нефропротективное действие с улучшением тубуло-интерстициальных взаимодействий, уменьшением воспалительных изменений в почках и микроальбуминурии [9,14,15], снижение потребности в инсулине [9], симпатической активности сердца и риска аритмий [16]. При этом позитивный эффект эмпаглифлозина на сердечно-сосудистые риски оказался столь значительным, что его трудно объяснить даже комбинированным воздействием всех перечисленных факторов.…”
unclassified