Baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the EMPACT-MI trial.

AIMS: Empagliflozin has been shown to reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and in those with heart failure. The impact of empagliflozin in post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Study to Test the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (EMPACT-MI) trial screened 6610 participants with AMI and randomized 6522 to empagliflozin or placebo in addition to standard of care. The median (interquartile) age was 64 (56-71) years and 75.1% of patients were male. Major comorbidities included hypertension (69.1%), type 2 diabetes (31.7%), prior myocardial infarction (13.0%), and atrial fibrillation (10.9%). The majority (74.3%) of patients presented with an ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Overall, 56.9% of patients had acute signs or symptoms of congestion requiring treatment and 78.3% had left ventricular systolic dysfunction with ejection fraction <45%. Clinical characteristics, including baseline demographics, rates of revascularization, and cardiovascular medications at discharge were largely comparable to recent trials of the post-AMI population. CONCLUSION: The EMPACT-MI trial will establish the benefit and risks of empagliflozin treatment in patients with AMI.

Cardiovascular outcomes and safety with linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared with the sulphonylurea glimepiride in older people with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of the randomized CAROLINA trial.

AIM: To compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of linagliptin with glimepiride in older and younger participants in the CAROLINA trial in both prespecified and post hoc analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: People aged 40 to 85 years with relatively early type 2 diabetes, inadequate glycaemic control and elevated CV risk were randomly assigned to linagliptin 5 mg or glimepiride 1 to 4 mg. The primary endpoint was time to first occurrence of three-point major adverse CV events (MACE: CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke). We evaluated clinical and safety outcomes across age groups. RESULTS: Of 6033 participants, 50.7% were aged <65 years, 35.3% were aged 65 to 74 years, and 14.0% were aged ≥75 years. During the 6.3-year median follow-up, CV/mortality outcomes did not differ between linagliptin and glimepiride overall (hazard ratio [HR] for three-point MACE 0.98, 95.47% confidence interval [CI] 0.84, 1.14) or across age groups (interaction P >0.05). Between treatment groups, reductions in glycated haemoglobin were comparable across age groups but moderate-to-severe hypoglycaemia was markedly reduced with linagliptin (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.15, 0.21) with no differences among age groups (P = 0.23). Mean weight was -1.54 kg (95% CI -1.80, -1.28) lower for linagliptin versus glimepiride. Adverse events increased with age, but were generally balanced between treatment groups. Significantly fewer falls or fractures occurred with linagliptin. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin and glimepiride were comparable for CV/mortality outcomes across age groups. Linagliptin had significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia and falls or fractures than glimepiride, including in "older-old" individuals for whom these are particularly important treatment considerations.

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.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is the recommended first-line pharmacotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. There is no consensus on the optimum second-line pharmacotherapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin and the sulfonylurea glimepiride as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In this double-blind phase 3 trial, patients (aged ≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c concentrations of 7-10%, despite metformin treatment and diet and exercise counselling, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio with a computer-generated random sequence, stratified by HbA1c, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and region, to empagliflozin (25 mg once daily, orally) or glimepiride (1-4 mg once daily, orally) as add-on to metformin for 104 weeks. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c levels at weeks 52 and 104. Differences in the primary endpoint were first tested for non-inferiority (based on a margin of 0·3%). If non-inferiority was shown, differences in the primary endpoint at week 104 were then tested for superiority. Analysis was done on the full-analysis set-ie, patients who were treated with at least one dose of study drug and had a baseline HbA1c value. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01167881. A 104-week extension is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between August, 2010, and June, 2011, 1549 patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin (n=769) or glimepiride (n=780); four patients in the empagliflozin group did not receive the assigned treatment. Empagliflozin was non-inferior to glimepiride at both timepoints. At week 104, adjusted mean difference in change from baseline in HbA1c with empagliflozin versus glimepiride was -0·11% (95% CI -0·19 to -0·02; p=0·0153 for superiority). Adverse events were reported in 661 (86%) patients treated with empagliflozin and 673 (86%) patients treated with glimepiride. Severe adverse events were reported in 72 (9%) patients in the empagliflozin group and 68 (9%) in the glimepiride group. Serious adverse events were reported in 119 (16%) patients in the empagliflozin group and 89 (11%) in the glimepiride group. Confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events (plasma glucose ≤3·9 mmol/L or requiring assistance) at week 104 were reported in 19 (2%) patients treated with empagliflozin and 189 (24%) patients treated with glimepiride. INTERPRETATION: Empagliflozin might be an effective and a well tolerated second-line treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes who have not achieved good glycaemic control on metformin. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly.