Contrast-induced nephropathy in a patient with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease: a case report.

Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is the impairment of kidney function defined as a serum creatinine increase of 25% or 44 µmol/L compared with baseline, usually occurring 24 to 48 hours after the use of intravenous contrast. Important risk factors for CIN include female sex, advanced age (>65 years), type 2 diabetes (T2D), kidney disease, advanced heart failure, and intravascular volume depletion. We herein present a male patient with T2D, moderately reduced renal function, no albuminuria, and a positive echocardiography stress test. He underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and two drug-eluting stents (in the left anterior descending coronary artery) and three bare-metal stents (in the right coronary artery) were implanted. Despite adequate rehydration (0.9% intravenous NaCl with 8.4% sodium bicarbonate) before and after the procedures, he developed irreversible kidney injury after coronary angiography and PCI. This case report demonstrates the unpredictable clinical course of CIN. Patients with T2D are at high risk for the occurrence of CIN, so careful clinical assessment is recommended with global renal functional reserve evaluation.

Effects of the Soluble Guanylate Cyclase Stimulator Praliciguat in Diabetic Kidney Disease: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Impaired nitric oxide signaling through soluble guanylate cyclase has been implicated in the pathophysiology of diabetic kidney disease. Praliciguat, a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator that amplifies nitric oxide signaling, inhibited kidney inflammation and fibrosis in animal models. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In a phase 2 trial, 156 adults with type 2 diabetes, eGFR 30-75 ml/min per 1.73 m2, and urine albumin-creatinine ratio 200-5000 mg/g treated with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were randomly allocated 1:1:1 to placebo, 20 mg praliciguat, or 40 mg praliciguat daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were change from baseline to weeks 8 and 12 in urine albumin-creatinine ratio and treatment-emergent adverse events, respectively. Other outcomes assessed were 24-hour ambulatory BP and metabolic parameters. RESULTS: Of 156 participants randomized, 140 (90%) completed the study. The primary efficacy analysis demonstrated a mean change from baseline in urine albumin-creatinine ratio of -28% (90% confidence interval, -36 to -18) in the pooled praliciguat group and -15% (-28 to 0.4) in the placebo group (difference -15%; -31 to 4; P=0.17). Between-group decreases from baseline to week 12 for praliciguat versus placebo were seen in mean 24-hour systolic BP (-4 mm Hg; -8 to -1), hemoglobin A1c (-0.3%; -0.5 to -0.03), and serum cholesterol (-10 mg/dl; -19 to -1). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in the pooled praliciguat and placebo groups (42% and 44%, respectively). Serious adverse events, events leading to study drug discontinuation, and events potentially related to BP lowering were reported at higher frequency in the 40-mg group but were similar in 20-mg and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Praliciguat treatment for 12 weeks did not significantly reduce albuminuria compared with placebo in the primary efficacy analysis. Nonetheless, the observed changes in urine albumin-creatinine ratio, BP, and metabolic variables may support further investigation of praliciguat in diabetic kidney disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: A Study to Evaluate the Soluble Guanylate Cyclase (sGC) Stimulator IW-1973 in Diabetic Nephropathy/Diabetic Kidney Disease as Measured by Albuminuria, NCT03217591.

Effect of Praliciguat on Peak Rate of Oxygen Consumption in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The CAPACITY HFpEF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is often characterized by nitric oxide deficiency. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of praliciguat, an oral soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, in patients with HFpEF. Design, Setting, and Participants: CAPACITY HFpEF was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Fifty-nine sites enrolled 196 patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of at least 40%, impaired peak rate of oxygen consumption (peak V̇o2), and at least 2 conditions associated with nitric oxide deficiency (diabetes, hypertension, obesity, or advanced age). The trial randomized patients to 1 of 3 praliciguat dose groups or a placebo group, but was refocused early to a comparison of the 40-mg praliciguat dose vs placebo. Participants were enrolled from November 15, 2017, to April 30, 2019, with final follow-up on August 19, 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 12 weeks of treatment with 40 mg of praliciguat daily (n = 91) or placebo (n = 90). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in peak V̇o2 in patients who completed at least 8 weeks of assigned dosing. Secondary end points included the change from baseline in 6-minute walk test distance and in ventilatory efficiency (ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope). The primary adverse event end point was the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: Among 181 patients (mean [SD] age, 70 [9] years; 75 [41%] women), 155 (86%) completed the trial. In the placebo (n = 78) and praliciguat (n = 65) groups, changes in peak V̇o2 were 0.04 mL/kg/min (95% CI, -0.49 to 0.56) and -0.26 mL/kg/min (95% CI, -0.83 to 0.31), respectively; the placebo-adjusted least-squares between-group difference in mean change from baseline was -0.30 mL/kg/min ([95% CI, -0.95 to 0.35]; P = .37). None of the 3 prespecified secondary end points were statistically significant. In the placebo and praliciguat groups, changes in 6-minute walk test distance were 58.1 m (95% CI, 26.1-90.1) and 41.4 m (95% CI, 8.2-74.5), respectively; the placebo-adjusted least-squares between-group difference in mean change from baseline was -16.7 m (95% CI, -47.4 to 13.9). In the placebo and praliciguat groups, the placebo-adjusted least-squares between-group difference in mean change in ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope was -0.3 (95% CI, -1.6 to 1.0). There were more dizziness (9.9% vs 1.1%), hypotension (8.8% vs 0%), and headache (11% vs 6.7%) TEAEs with praliciguat compared with placebo. The frequency of serious TEAEs was similar between the groups (10% in the praliciguat group and 11% in the placebo group). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with HFpEF, the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator praliciguat, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve peak V̇o2 from baseline to week 12. These findings do not support the use of praliciguat in patients with HFpEF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03254485.

Rationale and design for a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study evaluating the safety and efficacy of the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator praliciguat over 12 weeks in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (CAPACITY HFpEF).

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Exercise intolerance is the main symptom of HFpEF and is associated with a poor quality of life and increased mortality. Currently, there are no approved medications for the treatment of HFpEF. Praliciguat (IW-1973), a novel soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator that may help restore deficient nitric oxide-soluble guanylate cyclase-cyclic guanosine 3',5'-monophosphate signaling, is being investigated for the treatment of patients with HFpEF. METHODS: CAPACITY HFpEF is a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of praliciguat over 12 weeks in approximately 184 patients with HFpEF. Eligible patients must have evidence supporting clinical HFpEF and at least 2 of the following 4 conditions associated with NO deficiency: diabetes/prediabetes, hypertension, obesity, and age >70 years. The primary efficacy end point is the change from baseline in peak VO2 by cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). Secondary end points include the change from baseline in 6-minute walk test distance and the change in ventilatory efficiency on CPET, as well as number of CPET responders. Other exploratory end points include changes in echocardiographic parameters, New York Heart Association functional classification, cardiac events, blood and urine biomarkers pathophysiologically relevant to heart failure, and patient-reported outcomes including Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The CAPACITY HFpEF trial will provide data on short-term safety and efficacy of praliciguat on peak exercise capacity, as well as multiple secondary end points of submaximal functional capacity, patient-reported outcomes, and biomarkers.

Potential mechanisms of beneficial effect of sacubitril/valsartan on glycemic control.

Heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) frequently coexist, with a prevalence of DM of 35-40% in patients with HF, independent of the level of impairment of the ejection fraction (EF). Furthermore, DM is considered a strong independent risk factor for the progression of HF with either preserved or reduced EF and is associated with poor prognosis. The ability of neprilysin inhibitors to elevate levels of biologically active natriuretic peptides has made them a potential therapeutic approach in HF. In the Prospective comparison of ARNi with ACEi to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and morbidity in Heart Failure (PARADIGM-HF) trial, a dual-acting angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and HF hospitalization in patients with HF with reduced EF. In addition, in a post-hoc analysis of this trial, among patients with DM, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan resulted in improved glycemic control compared with enalapril. Also, there are additional studies suggesting beneficial metabolic effects of this class of drugs. In this review we discuss potential mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan effect on glycemic control. Sacubitril/valsartan concomitantly blocks the renin-angiotensin system and inhibits neprilysin, a ubiquitous enzyme responsible for the breakdown of more than 50 vasoactive peptides, including the biologically active natriuretic peptides, bradykinin, angiotensin I and II, endothelin 1, glucagon, glucagon-like peptide-1, insulin-B chain, and others. There are a number of potential mechanisms by which inhibition of neprilysin may lead to improvement in glycemic control, with most evidence suggesting modulation of neprilysin circulating substrates. Although there is some evidence suggesting the improvement of glucose metabolism by renin-angiotensin system inhibition, this effect is most likely modest. As these mechanisms are not fully understood, detailed mechanistic studies, as well as large randomized clinical trials in patients with DM, are needed to further clarify beneficial metabolic properties of sacubitril/valsartan.

An exploratory, randomised, placebo-controlled, 14 day trial of the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator praliciguat in participants with type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Praliciguat (IW-1973), a soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, amplifies nitric oxide signalling. This exploratory trial investigated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic profile and pharmacodynamic effects of praliciguat in individuals with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. METHODS: This Phase IIA, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigated praliciguat in 26 participants with type 2 diabetes and hypertension on stable glucose- and BP-lowering therapies. Participants were randomly allocated in a 3:5:5 ratio to three groups: placebo (n = 6), praliciguat 40 mg once daily for days 1-14 (n = 10), or praliciguat 20 mg twice daily for days 1-7 then 40 mg once daily for days 8-14 (n = 10). Assessments were made in clinic and included treatment-emergent adverse events, pharmacokinetics, metabolic variables, 24 h BP and heart rate, platelet function, reactive hyperaemia index (RHI) and plasma biomarkers. Participants, the sponsor, the investigator and clinic study staff (except designated pharmacy personnel) were blinded to group assignment. RESULTS: Participants treated for 14 days with praliciguat had least-square mean change-from-baseline differences vs placebo (95% CI) of -0.7 (-1.8, 0.4) mmol/l for fasting plasma glucose, -0.7 (-1.1, -0.2) mmol/l for total cholesterol, -0.5 (-1.0, -0.1) mmol/l for LDL-cholesterol, -23 (-56, 9) for HOMA-IR in those not being treated with insulin, and -5 (-10, 1) mmHg and 3 (-1, 6) beats/min for average 24 h mean arterial pressure and heart rate, respectively. Apart from one serious adverse event (SAE; upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage), praliciguat was well tolerated. Praliciguat did not affect platelet function or RHI. Among exploratory biomarkers, plasma levels of asymmetric dimethylarginine decreased in praliciguat vs placebo recipients. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In participants with type 2 diabetes and hypertension on standard therapies, over 14 days praliciguat was well tolerated, except for a single SAE, and showed positive trends in metabolic and BP variables. These results support further clinical investigation of praliciguat. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03091920. FUNDING: This trial was funded by Cyclerion Therapeutics.

Heart failure in cardiomyopathies: a position paper from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology.

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.

Left ventricular concentric geometry predicts incident diabetes mellitus independent of established risk factors in the general population: the Copenhagen City Heart Study.

BACKGROUND: Subtle impairments in left ventricular (LV) function and geometry are common findings in individuals with diabetes. However, whether these impairments precede the development of diabetes mellitus (DM) is not entirely clear. METHODS: Echocardiograms from 1710 individuals from the general population free of prevalent diabetes mellitus were analyzed. Left ventricular (LV) concentric geometry was defined as either LV concentric remodeling or LV concentric hypertrophy as directed in contemporary guidelines. The severity of LV concentricity was assessed by relative wall thickness (RWT) calculated as posterior wall thickness (PWT) indexed to left ventricular internal diameter at end diastole (LVIDd) (RWT = 2 * PWT/LVIDd). End-point was incident DM. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 12.6 years (IQR: 12.0-12.8 years). Follow-up was a 100%. A total of 55 participants (3.3%) developed DM during follow-up. At baseline, the prevalence of a concentric LV geometric pattern was significantly higher (41.8% vs 20.3%, p < 0.001) in individuals who developed DM during follow-up. In a final multivariable model adjusting for established DM risk factors including HbA1c, BMI and plasma glucose, LV concentric geometry and RWT remained significantly associated with incident DM (LV concentric geometry: HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.11-3.57, p = 0.021) (RWT: HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06-1.86, p = 0.017, per 0.1 increase). This association remained despite adjustment for established risk factors for DM. CONCLUSION: Altered LV geometry may precede the development of DM. LV concentric geometry determined by echocardiography and the severity of LV concentricity evaluated as RWT are associated with incident DM in the general population.

Long-term mortality is increased in patients with undetected prediabetes and type-2 diabetes hospitalized for worsening heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the prevalence of newly diagnosed prediabetes and type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and their impact on long-term mortality in patients hospitalized for worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: We included patients hospitalized with HFrEF and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-III. Baseline two-hour oral glucose tolerance test was used to classify patients as normoglycaemic or having newly diagnosed prediabetes or T2DM. Outcomes included post-discharge all-cause and cardiovascular mortality during the median follow-up of 2.1 years. RESULTS: At baseline, out of 150 patients (mean-age 57 ± 12 years; 88% male), prediabetes was diagnosed in 65 (43%) patients, and T2DM in 29 (19%) patients. These patients were older and more often with NYHA class III symptoms, but distribution of comorbidities was similar to normoglycaemic patients. Taking normoglycaemic patients as a reference, adjusted risk of all-cause mortality was significantly increased both in patients with prediabetes (hazard ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-6.3; p = 0.040) and in patients with T2DM (hazard ratio, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.7-15.3; p = 0.023). Likewise, both prediabetes (hazard ratio, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.1-7.9; p = 0.041) and T2DM (hazard ratio, 9.7; 95% CI 2.9-36.7; p = 0.018) independently increased the risk of cardiovascular mortality compared with normoglycaemic individuals. There was no interaction between either prediabetes or T2DM and heart failure aetiology or gender on study outcomes (all interaction p-values > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Newly diagnosed prediabetes and T2DM are highly prevalent in patients hospitalized for worsening HFrEF and NYHA functional class II-III. Importantly, they impose independently increased long-term risk of higher all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

Unsupervised high-intensity interval training improves glycaemic control but not cardiovascular autonomic function in type 2 diabetes patients: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This is the first randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of unsupervised high-intensity interval training on cardiovascular autonomic function in adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A total of 22 individuals with type 2 diabetes (age 60 ± 2 years, 17 males) lay in a supine position for 20 min for evaluation of cardiovascular autonomic function, which included (1) time domain measures of heart rate variability, (2) frequency domain measures of heart rate variability and blood pressure variability and (3) baroreflex receptor sensitivity. Participants were randomised into 12 weeks of high-intensity interval training (3 sessions/week) or standard care control group. RESULTS: After 12 weeks, the between-group change in HbA1c (%) was significant (high-intensity interval training: 7.13 ± 0.31 to 6.87 ± 0.29 vs Control: 7.18 ± 0.17 to 7.36 ± 0.21, p = 0.03). There were no significant changes in measures of heart rate variability; R-R interval (ms) (high-intensity interval training: 954 ± 49 to 973 ± 53 vs Control: 920 ± 6 to 930 ± 32, p = 0.672), low frequency/high frequency (high-intensity interval training: 0.90 ± 0.21 to 0.73 ± 0.07 vs Control: 1.20 ± 0.29 to 1.00 ± 0.17, p = 0.203), or blood pressure variability; systolic blood pressure low frequency/high frequency (high-intensity interval training: 0.86 ± 0.21 to 0.73 ± 0.10 vs Control: 1.06 ± 0.26 to 0.91 ± 0.14, p = 0.169). At baseline, HbA1c was negatively correlated with baroreflex receptor sensitivity ( r = -0.592, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: High-intensity interval training improves glycaemic control but has limited effect on cardiovascular autonomic regulation in patients with type 2 diabetes.

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

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.

Increased left ventricular mass index is present in patients with type 2 diabetes without ischemic heart disease.

Left ventricular mass index (LVMI) increase has been described in hypertension (HTN), but less is known about its association with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). As these conditions frequently co-exist, we investigated the association of T2DM, HTN and both with echocardiographic parameters, and hypothesized that patients with both had highest LVMI, followed by patients with only T2DM or HTN. Study population included 101 T2DM patients, 62 patients with HTN and no T2DM, and 76 patients with T2DM and HTN, excluded for ischemic heart disease. Demographic and clinical data, biochemical measurements, stress echocardiography, transthoracic 2D Doppler and tissue Doppler echocardiography were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the independent association with T2DM. Linear regression models and Pearson's correlation were used to assess the correlations between LVMI and other parameters. Patients with only T2DM had significantly greater LVMI (84.9 ± 20.3 g/m2) compared to patients with T2DM and HTN (77.9 ± 16 g/m2) and only HTN (69.8 ± 12.4 g/m2). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, T2DM was associated with LVMI (OR 1.033, 95%CI 1.003-1.065, p = 0.029). A positive correlation of LVMI was found with fasting glucose (p < 0.001) and HbA1c (p = 0.0003). Increased LVMI could be a potential, pre-symptomatic marker of myocardial structural change in T2DM.

Retinopathy, Neuropathy, and Subsequent Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Acute Coronary Syndrome in the ELIXA: The Importance of Disease Duration.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the association of diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy with increased risk of recurrent cardiovascular (CV) events in 6068 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) enrolled in the Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA). METHODS: History of retinopathy and neuropathy as well as duration of T2DM were self-reported at screening. Proportional hazards regression models were used to assess relationships between retinopathy, neuropathy, and recurrent CV events. RESULTS: At screening, retinopathy and neuropathy were reported in 10.7% and 17.5% of patients, respectively, while 5.7% reported both. When adjusted for randomized treatment only, both retinopathy and neuropathy were associated with a primary composite outcome (CV death, nonfatal MI, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina) (retinopathy: HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19-1.75; neuropathy: HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.12-1.57), CV composite (CV death, nonfatal MI, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HF)) (retinopathy: HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.31-1.88; neuropathy: HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19-1.62), myocardial infarction (retinopathy: HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.08-1.76; neuropathy: HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.54), HF hospitalization (retinopathy: HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48-2.78; neuropathy: HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.30-2.27), and all-cause mortality (retinopathy: HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.28-2.12; neuropathy: HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14-1.78). When included in the same model, and adjusted for T2DM duration, there were no independent associations of either with CV outcomes, while T2DM duration remained strongly associated with all outcomes. Addition of demographic characteristics and CV risk factors did not further alter these relationships. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM and recent ACS, a history of retinopathy and/or neuropathy and longer T2DM duration could be considered clinical markers for high risk of recurrent CV events. This trial is registered with the ELIXA (Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome), ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT01147250.

Three-question set from Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument adds independent prognostic information on cardiovascular outcomes: analysis of ALTITUDE trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The self-administered Michigan Neuropathy Screening Instrument (MNSI) is used to diagnose diabetic peripheral neuropathy. We examined whether the MNSI might also provide information on risk of death and cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the Aliskiren Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Using Cardio-Renal Endpoints (ALTITUDE) trial, we divided 8463 participants with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD) into independent training (n = 3252) and validation (n = 5211) sets. In the training set, we identified specific questions that were independently associated with a cardiovascular composite outcome (cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke, heart failure hospitalisation). We then evaluated the performance of these questions in the validation set. RESULTS: In the training set, three questions ('Are your legs numb?', 'Have you ever had an open sore on your foot?' and 'Do your legs hurt when you walk?') were significantly associated with the cardiovascular composite outcome. In the validation set, after multivariable adjustment for key covariates, one or more positive responses (n = 3079, 59.1%) was associated with a higher risk of the cardiovascular composite outcome (HR 1.54 [95% CI 1.28, 1.85], p < 0.001), heart failure hospitalisation (HR 1.74 [95% CI 1.29, 2.35], p < 0.001), myocardial infarction (HR 1.81 [95% CI 1.23, 2.69], p = 0.003), stroke (HR 1.75 [95% CI 1.20, 2.56], p = 0.003) and three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke) (HR 1.49 [95% CI 1.20, 1.85], p < 0.001) relative to no positive responses to all questions. Associations were stronger if participants answered positively to all three questions (n = 552, 11%). The addition of the total number of affirmative responses to existing models significantly improved Harrell's C statistic for the cardiovascular composite outcome (0.70 vs 0.71, p = 0.010), continuous net reclassification improvement (+22% [+10%, +31%], p = 0.027) and integrated discrimination improvement (+0.9% [+0.4%, +2.1%], p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: We identified three questions from the MNSI that provide additional prognostic information for individuals with type 2 diabetes and CKD and/or CVD. If externally validated, these questions may be integrated into the clinical history to augment prediction of CV events in high-risk individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on glycaemic control in patients with heart failure and diabetes: a post-hoc analysis from the PARADIGM-HF trial.

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. Time 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. FUNDING: Novartis.