UK Kidney Association Clinical Practice Guideline: Sodium-Glucose Co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) Inhibition in Adults with Kidney Disease 2023 UPDATE.

Large placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated kidney and cardiovascular clinical benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors. Data from the EMPA-KIDNEY and DELIVER trials and associated meta-analyses triggered an update to the UK Kidney Association Clinical Practice Guideline on Sodium-Glucose Co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) Inhibition in Adults with Kidney Disease. We provide a summary of the full guideline and highlight the rationale for recent updates. The use of SGLT-2 inhibitors in people with specific medical conditions, including type 1 diabetes, kidney transplants, and people admitted to hospital with heart failure is also considered, along with Recommendations for future research and Recommendations for implementation. A full "lay" summary of the guidelines is provided as an appendix to ensure that these guidelines are accessible and understandable to people who are not medical professionals.

Net effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibition in different patient groups: a meta-analysis of large placebo-controlled randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The net absolute effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors across different patient groups have not been quantified. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of published large (>500 participants/arm) placebo-controlled SGLT-2 inhibitor trials after systematically searching MEDLINE and Embase databases from inception to 28th August 2021 (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021240468). FINDINGS: Four heart failure trials (n=15,684 participants), four trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus at high atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk (n=42,568), and three trials in chronic kidney disease (n=19,289) were included. Relative risks (RRs) for all cardiovascular, renal and safety outcomes were broadly similar across these three patient groups, and between people with or without diabetes. Overall, compared to placebo, allocation to SGLT-2 inhibition reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death by 23% (RR=0.77, 95%CI 0.73-0.80; n=6658), cardiovascular death by 14% (0.86, 0.81-0.92; n=3962), major adverse cardiovascular events by 11% (0.89, 0.84-0.94; n=5703), kidney disease progression by 36% (0.64, 0.59-0.70; n=2275), acute kidney injury by 30% (0.70, 0.62-0.79; n=1013 events) and severe hypoglycaemia by 13% (0.87, 0.79-0.97; n=1484). There was no effect of SGLT-2 inhibition on risk of non-cardiovascular death (0.93, 0.86-1.01; n=2226), but a net 12% reduction in all-cause mortality remained evident (0.88, 0.84-0.93; n=6188). However, the risk of ketoacidosis was 2-times higher among those allocated SGLT-2 inhibitors compared to placebo (2.03, 1.41-2.93; n=159; absolute excess in people with diabetes ∼0.3/1000 patient years). A small increased risk of urinary tract infection was evident (1.07, 1.02-1.13; n=5384) alongside a known increased risk of mycotic genital infections. Overall, risk of lower limb amputations was increased by 16% (1.16, 1.02-1.31; n=1074), but this risk was largely driven by a single outlying trial (CANVAS). INTERPRETATIONS: The relative effects of SGLT-2 inhibition on key safety and efficacy outcomes are consistent across the different studied groups of patient. Consequently, absolute benefits and harms are determined by the absolute baseline risk of particular outcomes, with absolute benefits on mortality and on non-fatal serious cardiac/renal outcomes substantially exceeding the risks of amputation and ketoacidosis in the main patient groups studied to date. FUNDING: MRC-UK & KRUK.

Association of Aspirin Use for Primary Prevention With Cardiovascular Events and Bleeding Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The role for aspirin in cardiovascular primary prevention remains controversial, with potential benefits limited by an increased bleeding risk. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of aspirin use for primary prevention with cardiovascular events and bleeding. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase were searched on Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest available date through November 1, 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials enrolling at least 1000 participants with no known cardiovascular disease and a follow-up of at least 12 months were included. Included studies compared aspirin use with no aspirin (placebo or no treatment). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were screened and extracted independently by both investigators. Bayesian and frequentist meta-analyses were performed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was any major bleeding (defined by the individual studies). RESULTS: A total of 13 trials randomizing 164 225 participants with 1 050 511 participant-years of follow-up were included. The median age of trial participants was 62 years (range, 53-74), 77 501 (47%) were men, 30 361 (19%) had diabetes, and the median baseline risk of the primary cardiovascular outcome was 9.2% (range, 2.6%-15.9%). Aspirin use was associated with significant reductions in the composite cardiovascular outcome compared with no aspirin (57.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 61.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% credible interval, 0.84-0.95]; absolute risk reduction, 0.38% [95% CI, 0.20%-0.55%]; number needed to treat, 265). Aspirin use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events compared with no aspirin (23.1 per 10 000 participant-years with aspirin and 16.4 per 10 000 participant-years with no aspirin) (HR, 1.43 [95% credible interval, 1.30-1.56]; absolute risk increase, 0.47% [95% CI, 0.34%-0.62%]; number needed to harm, 210). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The use of aspirin in individuals without cardiovascular disease was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events and an increased risk of major bleeding. This information may inform discussions with patients about aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and bleeding.

Association Between Use of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors, Glucagon-like Peptide 1 Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitors With All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: The comparative clinical efficacy of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors for treatment of type 2 diabetes is unknown. Objective: To compare the efficacies of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and DPP-4 inhibitors on mortality and cardiovascular end points using network meta-analysis. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, and published meta-analyses from inception through October 11, 2017. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials enrolling participants with type 2 diabetes and a follow-up of at least 12 weeks were included, for which SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists, and DPP-4 inhibitors were compared with either each other or placebo or no treatment. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were screened by 1 investigator and extracted in duplicate by 2 investigators. A Bayesian hierarchical network meta-analysis was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome: all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes: cardiovascular (CV) mortality, heart failure (HF) events, myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, and stroke; safety end points: adverse events and hypoglycemia. Results: This network meta-analysis of 236 trials randomizing 176 310 participants found SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute risk difference [RD], -1.0%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.71 to 0.89]) and GLP-1 agonists (absolute RD, -0.6%; HR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.81 to 0.94]) were associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality than the control groups. SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute RD, -0.9%; HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.68 to 0.90]) and GLP-1 agonists (absolute RD, -0.5%; HR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.96]) were associated with lower mortality than were DPP-4 inhibitors. DPP-4 inhibitors were not significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality (absolute RD, 0.1%; HR, 1.02 [95% CrI, 0.94 to 1.11]) than were the control groups. SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute RD, -0.8%; HR, 0.79 [95% CrI, 0.69 to 0.91]) and GLP-1 agonists (absolute RD, -0.5%; HR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.94]) were significantly associated with lower CV mortality than were the control groups. SGLT-2 inhibitors were significantly associated with lower rates of HF events (absolute RD, -1.1%; HR, 0.62 [95% CrI, 0.54 to 0.72]) and MI (absolute RD, -0.6%; HR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.77 to 0.97]) than were the control groups. GLP-1 agonists were associated with a higher risk of adverse events leading to trial withdrawal than were SGLT-2 inhibitors (absolute RD, 5.8%; HR, 1.80 [95% CrI, 1.44 to 2.25]) and DPP-4 inhibitors (absolute RD, 3.1%; HR, 1.93 [95% CrI, 1.59 to 2.35]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this network meta-analysis, the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists was associated with lower mortality than DPP-4 inhibitors or placebo or no treatment. Use of DPP-4 inhibitors was not associated with lower mortality than placebo or no treatment.

Effects of aliskiren on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes and adverse events in patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13,395 patients.

BACKGROUND: Aliskiren was shown to increase adverse events in patients with diabetes and concomitant renin-angiotensin blockade. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of aliskiren in patients with diabetes and increased cardiovascular risk or established cardiovascular disease. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched for prospective studies comparing addition of aliskiren to standard medical therapy in patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease, or ⩾1 additional cardiovascular risk factor (hypertension, abnormal lipid profile, microalbuminuria/proteinuria, chronic kidney disease). Relative risk for efficacy (all-cause mortality, combined cardiovascular mortality and hospitalisation) and safety (hyperkalaemia, hypotension, renal impairment) outcomes was calculated. RESULTS: Of 2151 studies identified in the search, seven studies enrolling 13,395 patients were included. Aliskiren had no effect on all-cause mortality (relative risk: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.90 to 1.24, p = 0.53), or combined cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalisation (relative risk: 1.07, 95% confidence interval: 0.81 to 1.40, p = 0.64). Patients receiving aliskiren had a greater risk of developing hyperkalaemia (relative risk: 1.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 1.53, p = 0.0003) and renal impairment (relative risk: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.02 to 1.30, p = 0.03), but not hypotension. CONCLUSION: Patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk do not benefit from the addition of aliskiren to standard medical therapy. Detrimental safety profile in pooled analysis supports current warnings.

Discontinuation and non-publication of clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate dissemination of clinical data is crucial for minimising bias. Despite this, high rates of study discontinuation and non-publication have been reported among clinical trials. Cardiovascular medicine receives a substantial proportion of academic funding; however, predictors of non-publication among cardiovascular trials are not well-established. METHODS: The National Clinical Trials database was searched for cardiovascular trials completed between January 2010 and January 2014. Associated publications were identified in Medline or Embase. Relevant variables were extracted and subject to chi-squared and logistic regression to identify predictors of discontinuation and non-publication. RESULTS: After reviewing 2035 trials, 431 trials were included, of which 82.1% (n=354; 119,233 participants) were completed. Among completed trials, 70.3% (n=249; 99,095 participants) were published. Industry funding was associated with increased likelihood of non-publication (odds ratio [OR] 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47-5.51; P=0.002), while non-randomised studies were more likely to remain unpublished than randomised counterparts. Industry-funded studies were over three times more likely to be discontinued than those sponsored by academic institutions (OR 3.89; CI 1.54-9.83; P=0.004). Trials studying heart failure and atrial fibrillation were more likely to be discontinued compared to trials studying coronary artery disease (OR 2.83; CI 1.23-6.51; and OR 3.10; CI 1.21-7.96, respectively). Of the total 135,714 participants, 25,565 were recruited into unpublished studies. CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation and non-publication of cardiovascular trials are common, resulting in data from thousands of participants remaining unpublished. Funding source and randomisation are strong predictors of non-publication, while sponsor type, phase and blinding status are key predictors of discontinuation.