The Impact of Metabolic Syndrome Components on Erectile Function in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

Erectile dysfunction is commonly encountered in diabetic patients and in patients with metabolic syndrome; however, only a few studies have assessed patients with metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) regarding their sexual function. The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of metabolic syndrome and its components on the erectile function of T2DM patients. A cross-sectional study including T2DM patients was conducted from November 2018 until November 2020. Participants were evaluated for the presence of metabolic syndrome and their sexual function was assessed using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire. A total of 45 consecutive male patients participated in this study. Metabolic syndrome was diagnosed in 84.4% and erectile dysfunction (ED) in 86.7% of them. Metabolic syndrome was not associated with ED or ED severity. Among metabolic syndrome components, only high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) was associated with ED [x2 (1, n = 45) = 3.894, p = 0.048; OR = 5.5 (95% CI: 0.890-33.99)] and with the IIEF erectile function scores (median 23 vs. 18, U = 75, p = 0.012). Multiple regression analyses showed that HDL was non-significantly associated with the IIEF erectile function scores. In conclusion, among T2DM patients HDL is associated with ED.

The Associations between Kidney Function and Sexual Dysfunction among Males and Females with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Background and Objectives: Diabetic kidney disease (DKD), expressed either as albuminuria, low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or both, and sexual dysfunction (SD), are common complications among type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. This study aims to assess whether an association exists between DKD and SD, erectile dysfunction (ED) or female sexual dysfunction (FSD) in a T2DM population. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was designed and conducted among T2DM patients. The presence of SD was assessed using the International Index of Erectile Function and the Female Sexual Function Index questionnaires for males and females, respectively, and patients were evaluated for DKD. Results: Overall, 80 patients, 50 males and 30 females, agreed to participate. Sexual dysfunction was present in 80% of the study population. Among the participants, 45% had DKD, 38.5% had albuminuria and/or proteinuria and 24.1% had an eGFR below 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. The eGFR was associated with SD, ED and FSD. Moreover, SD and ED were proven as significant determinants for lower eGFR values in multiple linear regression analyses. DKD was associated with lower lubrication scores and eGFR was associated with lower desire, arousal, lubrication and total scores; however, the multivariate linear regression analyses showed no significant associations between them. Older age resulted in significantly lower arousal, lubrication, orgasm and total FSFI scores. Conclusions: SD is commonly encountered in older T2DM patients and DKD affects almost half of them. The eGFR has been significantly associated with SD, ED and FSD, while SD and ED were proven to be significant determinants for the eGFR levels.

Effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on cardiac autonomic function in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) is a common complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We sought to determine whether sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors affect indices of CAN in patients with T2DM. METHODS: We searched for parallel group or cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling adult subjects with T2DM, assigned to a SGLT-2 inhibitor versus placebo or active comparator and addressing their effect on CAN. PubMed, Cochrane Library and gray literature sources were searched. We set as primary efficacy outcome the change in the low-frequency-to-high-frequency (LF/HF) ratio. We set as secondary efficacy outcomes: first, the change in the standard deviation of all 5 min mean normal RR intervals and second, the change in the square root of the mean of the sum of the squares of differences between adjacent RR intervals (r-MSSD). Protocol has not been registered at a publicly available repository. RESULTS: We pooled data from four RCTs in a total of 247 subjects with T2DM. SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment did not have a significant effect on LF/HF ratio (MD = - 0.11, 95% CI - 0.35 to 0.12, I2 = 0%, p = 0.36). SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment did not have a significant impact either on SDNN (MD = - 2.83, 95% CI - 7.41 to 1.75, I2 = 31%, p = 0.23), or on r-MSSD (MD = - 0.14, 95% CI - 3.52 to 3.25, I2 = 46%, p = 0.94). Overall risk of bias was graded as low across the selected RCTs. CONCLUSION: SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment in patients with T2DM does not seem to provide any significant beneficial effect on CAN indices.

Effect of Empagliflozin and Dapagliflozin on Ambulatory Arterial Stiffness in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Co-Morbidities: A Prospective, Observational Study.

Background and Objectives: Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Arterial stiffness is an independent prognostic marker for cardiovascular disease development. We aimed at determining the effect of two different sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors on ambulatory arterial stiffness in individuals with T2DM. Materials and Methods: In this single-center, single-arm, prospective study performed from January 2020 to August 2021, we planned to enroll adult subjects with T2DM and stable antidiabetic and antihypertensive treatment, assigned either to empagliflozin or dapagliflozin for 6 months. All eligible subjects underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. We set as the primary efficacy outcome the change in ambulatory pulse wave velocity (PWV) from baseline to week 24. Results: We finally enrolled 46 diabetic subjects, with a mean age of 62.89 (8.53) years and mean T2DM duration of 9.72 (6.37) years. Thirty patients received dapagliflozin, while sixteen patients received empagliflozin. Due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictive measures during the study, the mean follow-up period extended from 6 months to 9.98 (3.27) months. Regarding the prespecified primary efficacy outcome, we found that the SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment did not have a significant effect on PWV (p = 0.65). Prior history of cardiovascular disease did not significantly affect the observed effects. Other indices of arterial stiffness, such as augmentation index and central pulse pressure, were not significantly affected, neither by empagliflozin nor by dapagliflozin. Conclusions: SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment with empagliflozin or dapagliflozin in subjects with T2DM failed to improve ambulatory PWV over a mean follow-up of 10 months. Registration number: ISRCTN88851713.

Impact of Primary Aldosteronism in Resistant Hypertension.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this narrative review, we aim to summarize the latest data on the association between primary aldosteronism and resistant hypertension, as well as to emphasize the necessity for screening for primary aldosteronism all patients with resistant hypertension. RECENT FINDINGS: Epidemiological data suggests that up to one out of five patients with resistant hypertension suffer from primary aldosteronism. Patients with primary aldosteronism have increased incidence of renal disease, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, and obstructive sleep apnea, as well as they are characterized by an extended target organ damage and increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Specific treatments for primary hyperaldosteronism (adrenalectomy and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) have significant impact on blood pressure, can reverse target organ damage, and mitigate cardiovascular risk. All patients with resistant hypertension should be evaluated for primary aldosteronism. Patients diagnosed with the disease may further undergo lateralization with adrenal vein sampling in order to receive the optimal therapeutic option which results in significant improvements in quality of life and cardiovascular profile.

Cardiovascular efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: A meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials.

BACKGROUND: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a generally safe and well tolerated antidiabetic drug class with proven efficacy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Recently, a series of large, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing cardiovascular outcomes with DPP-4 inhibitors have been published. AIM: To pool data from the aforementioned trials concerning the impact of DPP-4 inhibitors on surrogate cardiovascular efficacy outcomes and on major cardiac arrhythmias. METHODS: We searched PubMed and grey literature sources for all published RCTs assessing cardiovascular outcomes with DPP-4 inhibitors compared to placebo until October 2020. We extracted data concerning the following "hard" efficacy outcomes: fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for coronary revascularization and cardiovascular death. We also extracted data regarding the risk for major cardiac arrhythmias, such as atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, ventricular fibrillation and ventricular tachycardia. RESULTS: We pooled data from 6 trials in a total of 52520 patients with T2DM assigned either to DPP-4 inhibitor or placebo. DPP-4 inhibitors compared to placebo led to a non-significant increase in the risk for fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction [risk ratio (RR) = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.94-1.11, I 2 = 0%], hospitalization for heart failure (RR = 1.09, 95%CI: 0.92-1.29, I 2 = 65%) and cardiovascular death (RR = 1.02, 95%CI: 0.93-1.11, I 2 = 0%). DPP-4 inhibitors resulted in a non-significant decrease in the risk for fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.85-1.08, I 2 = 0%) and coronary revascularization (RR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.90-1.09, I 2 = 0%), Finally, DPP-4 inhibitors demonstrated a neutral effect on the risk for hospitalization due to unstable angina (RR = 1.00, 95%CI: 0.85-1.18, I 2 = 0%). As far as cardiac arrhythmias are concerned, DPP-4 inhibitors did not significantly affect the risk for atrial fibrillation (RR = 0.95, 95%CI: 0.78-1.17, I 2 = 0%), while they were associated with a significant increase in the risk for atrial flutter, equal to 52% (RR = 1.52, 95%CI: 1.03-2.24, I 2 = 0%). DPP-4 inhibitors did not have a significant impact on the risk for any of the rest assessed cardiac arrhythmias. CONCLUSION: DPP-4 inhibitors do not seem to confer any significant cardiovascular benefit for patients with T2DM, while they do not seem to be associated with a significant risk for any major cardiac arrhythmias, except for atrial flutter. Therefore, this drug class should not be the treatment of choice for patients with established cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors, except for those cases when newer antidiabetics (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors) are not tolerated, contraindicated or not affordable for the patient.

Risk Scores and Prediction Models in Chronic Heart Failure: A Comprehensive Review.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure affects a substantial proportion of the adult population, with an estimated prevalence of 1-2% in developed countries. Over the previous decades, many prediction models have been introduced for this specific population in an attempt to better stratify and manage heart failure patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is the systematic review of recent, relevant literature regarding risk scores or prediction models in ambulatory patients with an established diagnosis of chronic heart failure. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature in PubMed and CENTRAL from their inception up till December 2019 for studies assessing the performance of risk scores and prediction models and original research studies. Grey literature was searched as well. This review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: We included 16 eligible studies in this systematic review. Major heart failure risk scores derived from large heart failure populations were among the included studies. Due to significant heterogeneity regarding the main endpoints, a direct comparison of the included prediction scores was inevitable. The majority referred to patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, while only two out of 16 prediction scores have been developed exclusively for heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction. Ischemic heart disease was the most common aetiology of heart failure in the included studies. Finally, more than half of the prediction scores have not been externally validated. CONCLUSION: Prediction models aiming at heart failure patients with a preserved or mid-range ejection fraction are lacking. Prediction scores incorporating recent advances in pharmacotherapy should be developed in the future.

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Evidence for Significant Geographical Disparities.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While the COVID-19 pandemic is constantly evolving, it remains unclear whether the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) affects the clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this meta-analysis, PubMed, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from their inception to 19 May 2020 for randomized, controlled trials or observational studies that evaluate the association between the use of either ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the risk for major clinical endpoints (infection, hospitalization, admission to ICU, death) in adult patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, a subgroup geographical analysis of outcomes was performed. Studies including less than 100 subjects were excluded from our analysis. RECENT FINDINGS: In total, 25 observational studies were included. ACE inhibitors and ARBs were not associated with increased odds for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital, severe or critical illness, admission to ICU, and SARS-CoV-2-related death. In Asian countries, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs decreased the odds for severe or critical illness and death (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.89, I2 = 83%, and OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, I2 = 0%, respectively), whereas they increased the odds for ICU admission in North America and death in Europe (OR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.37-2.23, I2 = 0%, and OR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.05-2.70, I2 = 82%, respectively). ACE inhibitors might be marginally protective regarding SARS-CoV-2-related death compared with ARBs (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-1.00, I2 = 0%). Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the aforementioned associations between ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and SARS-CoV-2.