Prognostic Impact of Diabetes and Prediabetes on Survival Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: A Post‐Hoc Analysis of the GISSI‐HF (Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nella Insufficienza Cardiaca‐Heart Failure) Trial

192

133

Background The aims of this study were to: (i) report the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse‐outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA‐HF) trial, (ii) compare DAPA‐HF patients to participants in contemporary heart failure (HF) registries and in other recent HF trials, and (iii) compare individuals with diabetes, pre‐diabetes and a normal glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in DAPA‐HF. Methods and results Adults with HF in New York Heart Association functional class ≥ II, a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%, an elevated N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide concentration and receiving standard treatment were eligible for DAPA‐HF, which is comparing dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily to matching placebo. In patients without a history of diabetes, previously undiagnosed diabetes was defined as a confirmed HbA1c ≥ 6.5%. Among patients without known or undiagnosed diabetes, pre‐diabetes was defined as a HbA1c ≥ 5.7% The remainder of patients, with a HbA1c < 5.7%, were defined as normoglycaemic. Of the 4744 patients (mean age 66 years; 23% women) randomized, 42% had known diabetes and 3% undiagnosed diabetes. Of the remainder, 67% had pre‐diabetes and 33% normal HbA1c. Overall, DAPA‐HF patients were generally similar to those in recent registries and in relevant trials and had high levels of background therapy: 94% angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor, 96% beta‐blocker, and 71% mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist; 26% had a defibrillator. Patients with diabetes had worse HF status, more co‐morbidity, and greater renal impairment but received similar HF therapy. Patients with diabetes received non‐insulin hypoglycaemic therapy alone in 49%, insulin alone in 11%, both in 14%, and none in 26%. Conclusions Patients randomized in DAPA‐HF were similar to those in other contemporary HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) registries and trials. These patients were receiving recommended HFrEF therapy and those with diabetes were also treated with conventional glucose‐lowering therapy. Consequently, DAPA‐HF will test the incremental efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in HFrEF patients with and without diabetes. Clinical Trial Registration: http://ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03036124

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

The Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse‐outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA‐HF) trial: baseline characteristics

McMurray

DeMets

Inzucchi

et al. 2019

192

133

“…In one single‐centre observational study of 123 young patients with advanced HF and T2DM, patients with a HbA 1c of <7% had higher rates of all‐cause mortality . In the GISSI‐HF study, including 6935 chronic HF patients, the presence of T2DM and higher HbA 1c levels was an independent predictor of all‐cause mortality (HRs 1.43 and 1.21, respectively) and the composite outcome of mortality and CV hospitalization (HRs 1.21 and 1.14, respectively) …”

Section: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Clinical Status and Outcomes In Pamentioning

confidence: 99%

Type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure: a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

Seferović

Petrie

Filippatos

et al. 2018

Self Cite

509

379

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.

“…Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is common (∼20-40%) in patients with heart failure (HF), 1 and is associated with worse symptoms and quality of life, a greater burden of HF hospitalisation, and higher mortality rates compared to patients without T2DM. [2][3][4][5][6][7] Increased levels of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ) have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients with T2DM and HF not receiving treatment with glucose-lowering drugs. 8,9 However, once treatment of T2DM has been initiated, this relationship may no longer be linear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

European Society of Cardiology/Heart Failure Association position paper on the role and safety of new glucose‐lowering drugs in patients with heart failure

Seferović

Coats

Ponikowski

et al. 2019

149

122

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.