Body mass index and cardiorenal outcomes in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial: Principal findings and meta-analysis with the DELIVER trial.

AIMS: Both low and high body mass index (BMI) are associated with poor heart failure outcomes. Whether BMI modifies benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) requires further investigation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using EMPEROR-Preserved data, the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo on the risks for the primary outcome (hospitalization for heart failure [HHF] or cardiovascular [CV] death), change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slopes, change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score (KCCQ-CSS), and secondary outcomes across baseline BMI categories (<25 kg/m2, 25 to <30 kg/m2, 30 to <35 kg/m2, 35 to <40 kg/m2 and ≥40 kg/m2) were examined, and a meta-analysis conducted with DELIVER. Forty-five percent had a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2. For the primary outcome, there was a consistent treatment effect of empagliflozin versus placebo across the BMI categories with no formal interaction (p trend = 0.19) by BMI categories. There was also no difference in the effects on secondary outcomes including total HHF (p trend = 0.19), CV death (p trend = 0.20), or eGFR slope with slower declines with empagliflozin regardless of BMI (range 1.12-1.71 ml/min/1.73 m2 relative to placebo, p trend = 0.85 for interaction), though there was no overall impact on the composite renal endpoint. The difference in weight change between empagliflozin and placebo was -0.59, -1.48, -1.54, -0.87, and - 2.67 kg in the lowest to highest BMI categories (p trend = 0.016 for interaction). A meta-analysis of data from EMPEROR-Preserved and DELIVER showed a consistent effect of SGLT2i versus placebo across BMI categories for the outcome of HHF or CV death. There was a trend toward greater absolute KCCQ-CSS benefit at 32 weeks with empagliflozin at higher BMIs (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin treatment resulted in broadly consistent cardiac effects across the range of BMI in patients with HFpEF. SGLT2i treatment yields benefit in patients with HFpEF regardless of baseline BMI.

Cardiac and kidney benefits of empagliflozin in heart failure across the spectrum of kidney function: Insights from the EMPEROR-Preserved trial.

AIM: In the EMPEROR-Preserved trial, empagliflozin improved clinical outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction. In this pre-specified analysis, we aim to study the effect of empagliflozin on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes across the spectrum of kidney function. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were categorized by the presence or absence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) at baseline (CKD defined by an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or urine albumin to creatinine ratio >300 mg/g). The primary and key secondary outcomes were (i) a composite of cardiovascular death or first HF hospitalization (primary outcome); (ii) total number of HF hospitalization, (iii) eGFR slope; and a pre-specified exploratory composite kidney outcome including a sustained ≥40% decline in eGFR, chronic dialysis or renal transplant. The median follow-up was 26.2 months. A total of 5988 patients were randomized to empagliflozin or placebo, of whom 3198 (53.5%) had CKD. Irrespective of CKD status, empagliflozin reduced the primary outcome (with CKD: hazard ratio [HR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-0.94; without CKD: HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.95; interaction p = 0.67) and total (first and recurrent) hospitalizations for HF (with CKD: HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86; without CKD: HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66-1.21; interaction p = 0.17). Empagliflozin slowed the slope of eGFR decline by 1.43 (1.01-1.85) ml/min/1.73 m2 /year in patients with CKD and 1.31 (0.88-1.74) ml/min/1.73 m2 /year in patients without CKD (interaction p = 0.70). Empagliflozin did not reduce the pre-specified kidney outcome in patients with or without CKD (with CKD: HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71-1.34; without CKD: HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.58-1.48; interaction p = 0.86) but slowed progression to macroalbuminuria and reduced the risk of acute kidney injury. The effect of empagliflozin on the primary composite outcome and the key secondary outcomes was consistent across five baseline eGFR categories (all interaction p >0.05). Empagliflozin was well tolerated independent of CKD status. CONCLUSIONS: In EMPEROR-Preserved, empagliflozin had a beneficial effect on the key efficacy outcomes in patients with and without CKD. Overall, the benefit and safety of empagliflozin was consistent across a wide range of kidney function spectrum, down to a baseline eGFR of 20 ml/min/1.73 m2 .

Incident and recurrent hypoglycaemia with linagliptin and glimepiride over a median of 6 years in the CAROLINA cardiovascular outcome trial.

AIM: The CAROLINA trial established non-inferiority of linagliptin versus glimepiride for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk. In pre-specified and post-hoc analyses, we investigated treatment effects on total hypoglycaemic burden in CAROLINA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized and treated with 5 mg linagliptin (n = 3014) or 1-4 mg glimepiride (n = 3000) once daily added to standard care. Hypoglycaemia captured from investigator-reported adverse events was analysed with Poisson and negative binomial regressions for the first and total (first plus recurrent) events, respectively. The influence of insulin initiation and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change on the treatment effect for hypoglycaemia was also explored. RESULTS: Over 6.3 years median follow-up, average HbA1c over time did not differ between linagliptin versus glimepiride (weighted mean difference [95% confidence interval]: 0.00%, [-0.05, 0.05]), nor did insulin initiation (18.6% vs. 19.2% of patients, respectively), whereas body weight was lower with linagliptin (-1.54 kg, [-1.80, -1.28]). Hypoglycaemia frequency was lower with linagliptin across all hypoglycaemia categories, including severe episodes. Rate ratios (95% confidence interval) for first and total events for investigator-reported hypoglycaemia were 0.21 (0.19-0.24) and 0.12 (0.10-0.14), respectively, with 8.7 first and 60.8 total estimated events prevented/100 patient-years with linagliptin versus glimepiride. These differences occurred during night-time and daytime, and in subgroup analyses of total events. Treatment differences in hypoglycaemia were neither impacted by HbA1c changes nor insulin initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Across the severity spectrum, linagliptin substantially reduced the hypoglycaemic burden versus glimepiride in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk.

Weight change and clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insights from EMPEROR-Reduced.

AIMS: Baseline body mass index (BMI) and weight loss promoted by sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors may impact outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We assessed in the EMPEROR-Reduced population treated with empagliflozin versus placebo the relationship between baseline BMI, weight loss and effects on the primary (time to first hospitalization for heart failure [HHF] or cardiovascular death) and key secondary outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We categorized patients according to their baseline BMI: <20 kg/m2 (n = 180); 20 to <25 kg/m2 (n = 1038); 25 to <30 kg/m2 (n = 1345); 30 to <35 kg/m2 (n = 774) and ≥35 kg/m2 (n = 393). The treatment effect of empagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across all BMI categories (hazard ratios in subgroups 0.66-0.88, interaction trend p = 0.32), as was the effect on total (first plus recurrent) HHF (interaction trend p = 0.31). Empagliflozin reduced the rate of estimated glomerular filtration rate decline consistently across the BMI categories (interaction trend p = 0.67). Overall, incidence rates of any or serious adverse events were comparable between the treatment groups across all BMI categories. A total of 313 (17.4%) patients treated with empagliflozin experienced a weight loss of more than 5% at week 52 versus 230 (12.8%) in placebo. When analysed separately within each treatment group, presence of weight loss was similarly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: The benefits of empagliflozin versus placebo were consistently present across all BMI categories in HFrEF patients. Weight loss was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality, regardless of treatment group.

Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin in Patients With Diabetic Kidney Disease in the United States: Findings Based on the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors on kidney outcomes have been demonstrated in clinical trials. Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular (CV) disease enrolled in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01131676), empagliflozin added to standard of care (SOC) reduced the risk of incident or worsening nephropathy compared with SOC alone. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus SOC alone in the subpopulation with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) from the perspective of US commercial insurers and Medicare. STUDY DESIGN: Discrete event simulation model. SETTING & POPULATION: Patients with DKD in a US health care system. INTERVENTIONS: Empagliflozin 10 or 25mg with SOC versus SOC alone. SOC included glucose-lowering therapies and medications to treat CV risk factors. OUTCOMES: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2020 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). Costs and QALYs were discounted 3.0% per year. MODEL, PERSPECTIVE, & TIME FRAME: Cost-effectiveness analysis, commercial insurers and Medicare perspective, lifetime horizon. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin with SOC versus SOC alone was $25,974 per QALY. Empagliflozin added 0.67 QALYs and $17,322 per patient over a lifetime horizon. Results were driven by fewer clinical events (including CV death, heart failure hospitalization, albuminuria progression, and a composite kidney outcome) experienced by patients receiving empagliflozin with SOC versus SOC alone. Results were sensitive to rates of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure hospitalization, as well as to drug costs and time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated 91% of simulations at <$50,000 per QALY. LIMITATIONS: The EMPA-REG OUTCOME study was not powered to assess treatment benefits in a subgroup and excluded patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate<30mL/min/1.73m2. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study, this cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that, for commercial insurers and Medicare, adding empagliflozin to SOC may be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with DKD.

Erratum to: Effect of linagliptin versus placebo on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in nephrotic-range proteinuria and type 2 diabetes (t2d): the carmelina randomised controlled trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfaa225.].

Regional and ethnic influences on the response to empagliflozin in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction: the EMPEROR-Reduced trial.

AIMS: The aim of this article is to explore the influence of region and race/ethnicity on the effects of empagliflozin in the Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Reduced) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 3730 patients, 1353 (36.3%) were enrolled in Europe, 1286 (34.5%) in Latin America, 425 (11.4%) in North America, and 493 (13.2%) in Asia; 2629 (70.5%) were White, 257 (6.9%) Black, and 672 (18.0%) Asian. Placebo event rates (per 100 patient-years) for cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization varied by region (Asia 27.7, North America 26.4, Latin America 21.4, and Europe 17.5) and race/ethnicity (Black 34.4, Asian 24.3, and White 18.7); driven by differences in HF hospitalization. The ratio of total HF hospitalization to cardiovascular death varied from 5.4 in Asia and 4.8 in North America to 2.1 in Europe; and from 4.8 in Black and 4.2 in Asian to 2.2 in White patients. Groups with the highest ratio had the greatest reduction in the primary outcome with empagliflozin. Inclusion of outpatient worsening HF episodes added more events in Europe vs. other regions; enhanced the placebo event rates in Europe vs. other regions; and increased the relative risk reduction with empagliflozin in Europe from 6% to 26%. CONCLUSIONS: There were notable differences in the placebo event rates for major HF events across diverse regions and race/ethnic groups. The benefit of empagliflozin was most pronounced in groups with the highest ratio of HF hospitalization to cardiovascular death. Regional differences were attenuated when the definition of HF events was expanded to include outpatient worsening HF events.

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or standard of care in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION: Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, is approved in the USA to reduce risk of cardiovascular (CV) death in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established CV disease, based on EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients) trial results. Empagliflozin reduced major adverse CV event (MACE) by 14%, CV death by 38%, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 35% vs placebo, each on top of standard of care (SoC). SGLT-2 inhibitors canagliflozin and dapagliflozin have also been compared with placebo, all on top of SoC, in CV outcome trials. In the CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) Program, canagliflozin reduced MACE by 14% and HHF by 33%. Dapagliflozin reduced HHF by 27% in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (Multicenter Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Cardiovascular Events). This analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, or SoC, in US adults with T2DM and established CV disease. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Individual patient-level discrete-event simulation was conducted to predict time-to-event for CV and renal outcomes, and specific adverse events over patients' lifetimes. Occurrence of events in EMPA-REG OUTCOME was estimated based on event-free survival curves with time-dependent covariates. An HR for canagliflozin or dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin on each clinical event was estimated from published CANVAS, DECLARE-TIMI 58, and EMPA-REG OUTCOME data using indirect treatment comparison. Public sources provided US costs and utilities. RESULTS: The model predicted longer survival for empagliflozin versus canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and SoC mainly due to direct reduction in CV death. Empagliflozin dominated canagliflozin, yielding more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 0.38) at a lower cost (-US$306). Compared with dapagliflozin and SoC, empagliflozin yielded 0.50 and 0.84 incremental QALYs at US$1517 and US$27 539 incremental costs, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$3054/QALY and US$32 848/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin was projected to dominate canagliflozin and be highly cost-effective compared with dapagliflozin and SoC using US healthcare costs.

Effect of linagliptin versus placebo on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in nephrotic-range proteinuria and type 2 diabetes: the CARMELINA randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Nephrotic-range proteinuria (NRP) is associated with rapid kidney function loss and increased cardiovascular (CV) disease risk. We assessed the effects of linagliptin (LINA) on CV and kidney outcomes in people with Type 2 diabetes (T2D) with or without NRP. METHODS: Cardiovascular and renal microvascular outcome study with LINA randomized participants with T2D and CV disease and/or kidney disease to LINA 5 mg or placebo (PBO). The primary endpoint [time to first occurrence of 3-point major adverse cardiac events (3P-MACE)], and kidney outcomes, were evaluated by NRP status [urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) ≥2200 mg/g] at baseline (BL) in participants treated with one or more dose of study medication. RESULTS: NRP was present in 646/6979 [9.3% (LINA/PBO n = 317/n = 329); median UACR 3486 (Q1: 2746/Q3: 4941) mg/g] participants, who compared with no-NRP were younger (62.3/66.1 years) and had lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (39.9/56.1 mL/min/1.73 m2). Over a median of 2.2 years, 3P-MACE occurred with a 2.0-fold higher rate in NRP versus no-NRP (PBO group), with a neutral LINA effect, regardless of NRP. The composite of time to renal death, end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) or decrease of ≥40 or ≥50% in eGFR, occurred with 12.3- and 13.6-fold higher rate with NRP (PBO group); evidence of heterogeneity of effects with LINA was observed for the former [NRP yes/no: hazard ratio 0.80 (0.63-1.01)/1.25 (1.02-1.54); P-interaction 0.005], but not the latter [0.83 (0.64-1.09)/1.17 (0.91-1.51), P-interaction 0.07]. No heterogeneity was observed for renal death or ESKD [0.88 (0.64-1.21)/0.94 (0.67-1.31), P-interaction 0.79]. Glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was significantly reduced regardless of NRP, without increasing hypoglycaemia risk. Regression to normoalbuminuria [1.20 (1.07-1.34)] and reduction of UACR ≥50% [1.15 (1.07-1.25)] from BL, occurred more frequently with LINA, regardless of NRP status (P-interactions >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with T2D and NRP have a high disease burden. LINA reduces their albuminuria burden and HbA1c, without affecting CV or kidney risk.

Cardiac and Kidney Benefits of Empagliflozin in Heart Failure Across the Spectrum of Kidney Function: Insights From EMPEROR-Reduced.

BACKGROUND: In EMPEROR-Reduced (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), empagliflozin reduced cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations, and slowed the progressive decline in kidney function in patients with HF and a reduced ejection fraction, with and without diabetes. We aim to study the effect of empagliflozin on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes across the spectrum of kidney function. METHODS: In this prespecified analysis, patients were categorized by the presence or absence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) at baseline (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or albumin-to-creatine ratio >300 mg/g). The primary and key secondary outcomes were: (1) a composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome); (2) total HF hospitalizations; and (3) eGFR slope. The direct impact on kidney events was investigated by a prespecified composite kidney outcome (defined as a sustained profound decline in eGFR, chronic dialysis, or transplant). The median follow-up was 16 months. RESULTS: Of 3730 patients who were randomized to empagliflozin or placebo, 1978 (53%) had CKD. Empagliflozin reduced the primary outcome and total HF hospitalizations in patients with and without CKD: hazard ratio (HR)=0.78 (95% CI, 0.65-0.93) and HR=0.72 (95% CI, 0.58-0.90), respectively (interaction P=0.63). Empagliflozin slowed the slope of eGFR decline by 1.11 (0.23-1.98) ml/min/1.73 m2/yr in patients with CKD and by 2.41 (1.49-3.32) ml/min/1.73 m2/yr in patients without CKD. The risk of the composite kidney outcome was reduced similarly in patients with and without CKD: HR=0.53 (95% CI, 0.31-0.91) and HR=0.46 (95% CI, 0.22-0.99), respectively. The effect of empagliflozin on the primary composite outcome and key secondary outcomes was consistent across a broad range of baseline kidney function, measured by clinically relevant eGFR subgroups or by albuminuria, including patients with eGFR as low as 20 ml/min/1.73 m2. Empagliflozin was well tolerated in CKD patients. CONCLUSIONS: In EMPEROR-Reduced, empagliflozin had a beneficial effect on the key efficacy outcomes and slowed the rate of kidney function decline in patients with and without CKD, and regardless of the severity of kidney impairment at baseline. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057977.

SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a meta-analysis of the EMPEROR-Reduced and DAPA-HF trials.

BACKGROUND: Both DAPA-HF (assessing dapagliflozin) and EMPEROR-Reduced (assessing empagliflozin) trials showed that sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibition reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with or without diabetes. However, neither trial was powered to assess effects on cardiovascular death or all-cause death or to characterise effects in clinically important subgroups. Using study-level published data from DAPA-HF and patient-level data from EMPEROR-Reduced, we aimed to estimate the effect of SGLT2 inhibition on fatal and non-fatal heart failure events and renal outcomes in all randomly assigned patients with HFrEF and in relevant subgroups from DAPA-HF and EMPEROR-Reduced trials. METHODS: We did a prespecified meta-analysis of the two single large-scale trials assessing the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HFrEF with or without diabetes: DAPA-HF (assessing dapagliflozin) and EMPEROR-Reduced (assessing empagliflozin). The primary endpoint was time to all-cause death. Additionally, we assessed the effects of treatment in prespecified subgroups on the combined risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure. These subgroups were based on type 2 diabetes status, age, sex, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) treatment, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, race, history of hospitalisation for heart failure, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), body-mass index, and region (post-hoc). We used hazard ratios (HRs) derived from Cox proportional hazard models for time-to-first event endpoints and Cochran's Q test for treatment interactions; the analysis of recurrent events was based on rate ratios derived from the Lin-Wei-Yang-Ying model. FINDINGS: Among 8474 patients combined from both trials, the estimated treatment effect was a 13% reduction in all-cause death (pooled HR 0·87, 95% CI 0·77-0·98; p=0·018) and 14% reduction in cardiovascular death (0·86, 0·76-0·98; p=0·027). SGLT2 inhibition was accompanied by a 26% relative reduction in the combined risk of cardiovascular death or first hospitalisation for heart failure (0·74, 0·68-0·82; p<0·0001), and by a 25% decrease in the composite of recurrent hospitalisations for heart failure or cardiovascular death (0·75, 0·68-0·84; p<0·0001). The risk of the composite renal endpoint was also reduced (0·62, 0·43-0·90; p=0·013). All tests for heterogeneity of effect size between trials were not significant. The pooled treatment effects showed consistent benefits for subgroups based on age, sex, diabetes, treatment with an ARNI and baseline eGFR, but suggested treatment-by-subgroup interactions for subgroups based on NYHA functional class and race. INTERPRETATION: The effects of empagliflozin and dapagliflozin on hospitalisations for heart failure were consistent in the two independent trials and suggest that these agents also improve renal outcomes and reduce all-cause and cardiovascular death in patients with HFrEF. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Effects of Linagliptin on Cardiovascular and Kidney Outcomes in People With Normal and Reduced Kidney Function: Secondary Analysis of the CARMELINA Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Type 2 diabetes is a leading cause of kidney failure, but few outcome trials proactively enrolled individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We performed secondary analyses of cardiovascular (CV) and kidney outcomes across baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) categories (≥60, 45 to <60, 30 to <45, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2) in Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin (CARMELINA), a cardiorenal placebo-controlled outcome trial of the dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor linagliptin (NCT01897532). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants with CV disease and/or CKD were included. The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke (three-point major adverse CV event [3P-MACE]), with a secondary outcome of renal death, end-stage kidney disease, or sustained ≥40% decrease in eGFR from baseline. Other end points included progression of albuminuria, change in HbA1c, and adverse events (AEs) including hypoglycemia. RESULTS: A total of 6,979 subjects (mean age 65.9 years; eGFR 54.6 mL/min/1.73 m2; 80.1% albuminuria) were followed for 2.2 years. Across eGFR categories, linagliptin as compared with placebo did not affect the risk for 3P-MACE (hazard ratio 1.02 [95% CI 0.89, 1.17]) or the secondary kidney outcome (1.04 [0.89, 1.22]) (interaction P values >0.05). Regardless of eGFR, albuminuria progression was reduced with linagliptin, as was HbA1c, without increasing risk for hypoglycemia. AEs were balanced among groups overall and across eGFR categories. CONCLUSIONS: Across all GFR categories, in participants with type 2 diabetes and CKD and/or CV disease, there was no difference in risk for linagliptin versus placebo on CV and kidney events. Significant reductions in risk for albuminuria progression and HbA1c and no difference in AEs were observed.

Linagliptin and cardiorenal outcomes in Asians with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular and/or kidney disease: subgroup analysis of the randomized CARMELINA® trial.

OBJECTIVE: Linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, demonstrated cardiovascular and renal safety in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) with albuminuria and/or kidney disease in the multinational CARMELINA® trial. We investigated the effects of linagliptin in Asian patients in CARMELINA®. METHODS: T2DM patients with HbA1c 6.5-10.0% and established CVD with urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) > 30 mg/g, and/or prevalent kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 15-< 45 ml/min/1.73 m2 or ≥ 45-75 with UACR > 200 mg/g), were randomized to linagliptin or placebo added to usual care. The primary endpoint was time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke (3-point MACE). RESULTS: Of the 6979 patients, 555 (8.0%) were Asians living in Asia. During a median follow-up of 2.2 years, 3-point MACE occurred in 29/272 (10.7%) and 33/283 (11.7%) of linagliptin and placebo patients, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-1.48), consistent with the overall population (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.89-1.17; P value for treatment-by-region interaction: 0.3349). Similar neutrality in Asian patients was seen for other cardiorenal events including the secondary kidney endpoint of death from renal failure, progression to end-stage kidney disease, or ≥ 40% eGFR decrease (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.58-1.59). Linagliptin was associated with a nominal decrease in the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.24-0.95). Overall in Asian patients, linagliptin had an adverse event rate similar to placebo, consistent with the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin showed cardiovascular and renal safety in Asian patients with T2DM and established CVD with albuminuria and/or kidney disease.

Choice of endpoint in kidney outcome trials: considerations from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® trial.

BACKGROUND: Doubling of serum creatinine [equivalent to 57% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)] is an established surrogate for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD); however, this endpoint necessitates lengthy follow-up and large sample sizes in clinical trials. We explored whether alternative eGFR decline thresholds provide more feasible surrogate kidney endpoints. METHODS: The study involved post hoc analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® trial. Adults with type 2 diabetes, high cardiovascular risk and eGFR ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2 were assigned empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg (n = 4687) or placebo (n = 2333), on top of standard of care. We assessed composite endpoints incorporating different eGFR decline thresholds (≥30, ≥40, ≥50 or ≥57%) combined with initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) or renal death. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01131676). RESULTS: Empagliflozin versus placebo significantly lowered the risk of decline in eGFR for each threshold listed above, combined with initiation of RRT or renal death, ranging from a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.91] for endpoints based on 30% eGFR decline to an HR of 0.37 (0.23-0.61) for endpoints based on 57% eGFR decline. Lower thresholds (e.g. 30%) were associated with higher event rates but weaker treatment effects. The time to the 95% CI of the HR falling to <1.0 decreased with increasing eGFR threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The composite of 40% decline in eGFR, ESKD or renal death appears to provide reliable results similar to the traditional 57% decline in eGFR.

Efficacy and safety of empagliflozin as add-on to insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin as add-on to insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized Japanese patients with T2D insufficiently controlled with insulin (1:1:1) to empagliflozin 10 mg (n=89), empagliflozin 25 mg (n=90) or placebo (n=90) for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 16 weeks. RESULTS: At 16 weeks, empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg significantly decreased HbA1c: adjusted mean difference -0.92% (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.11, -0.73) and -1.00% (95% CI -1.18, -0.82; both P<0.0001) compared with placebo. This difference was maintained up to 52 weeks: adjusted mean difference at 52 weeks -0.90% (95% CI -1.09, -0.70) and -0.96% (95% CI -1.15, -0.77; both P<0.0001). At 52 weeks, significant improvements in fasting plasma glucose (adjusted mean difference -27.62 mg/dL [95% CI -36.15, -19.08] and -31.99 mg/dL [95% CI -40.35, -23.62]) and in body weight (-1.78 kg [95% CI -2.46, -1.10] and -1.92 kg [95% CI -2.58, -1.25]) were also seen with empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg compared with placebo (all P<0.0001). At 52 weeks, the frequency of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs was similar in the three treatment groups; confirmed hypoglycaemia was reported slightly more in participants in the empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg groups (23.3% and 22.2% vs 14.4%). All hypoglycaemic events were mild in severity; no episodes required assistance. CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese patients with insufficiently controlled T2D, adding empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg to insulin treatment was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in HbA1c at 16 weeks and was generally well tolerated.

Effect of Linagliptin vs Glimepiride on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The CAROLINA Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. In placebo-controlled cardiovascular safety trials, the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin demonstrated noninferiority, but it has not been tested against an active comparator. OBJECTIVE: This trial assessed cardiovascular outcomes of linagliptin vs glimepiride (sulfonylurea) in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes and risk factors for or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, with participant screening from November 2010 to December 2012, conducted at 607 hospital and primary care sites in 43 countries involving 6042 participants. Adults with type 2 diabetes, glycated hemoglobin of 6.5% to 8.5%, and elevated cardiovascular risk were eligible for inclusion. Elevated cardiovascular risk was defined as documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, multiple cardiovascular risk factors, aged at least 70 years, and evidence of microvascular complications. Follow-up ended in August 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive 5 mg of linagliptin once daily (n = 3023) or 1 to 4 mg of glimepiride once daily (n = 3010) in addition to usual care. Investigators were encouraged to intensify glycemic treatment, primarily by adding or adjusting metformin, α-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, or insulin, according to clinical need. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke with the aim to establish noninferiority of linagliptin vs glimepiride, defined by the upper limit of the 2-sided 95.47% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of linagliptin relative to glimepiride of less than 1.3. RESULTS: Of 6042 participants randomized, 6033 (mean age, 64.0 years; 2414 [39.9%] women; mean glycated hemoglobin, 7.2%; median duration of diabetes, 6.3 years; 42% with macrovascular disease; 59% had undergone metformin monotherapy) were treated and analyzed. The median duration of follow-up was 6.3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 356 of 3023 participants (11.8%) in the linagliptin group and 362 of 3010 (12.0%) in the glimepiride group (HR, 0.98 [95.47% CI, 0.84-1.14]; P < .001 for noninferiority), meeting the noninferiority criterion but not superiority (P = .76). Adverse events occurred in 2822 participants (93.4%) in the linagliptin group and 2856 (94.9%) in the glimepiride group, with 15 participants (0.5%) in the linagliptin group vs 16 (0.5%) in the glimepiride group with adjudicated-confirmed acute pancreatitis. At least 1 episode of hypoglycemic adverse events occurred in 320 (10.6%) participants in the linagliptin group and 1132 (37.7%) in the glimepiride group (HR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.21-0.26]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with relatively early type 2 diabetes and elevated cardiovascular risk, the use of linagliptin compared with glimepiride over a median 6.3 years resulted in a noninferior risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01243424.

Correction to: Cardiovascular Safety of Empagliflozin Versus Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Literature Review and Indirect Comparisons.

The authors have updated Fig. 3 which was incorrectly published in the original publication.

Linagliptin Effects on Heart Failure and Related Outcomes in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at High Cardiovascular and Renal Risk in CARMELINA.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus are at increased risk for heart failure (HF), particularly those with coexisting atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease. Some but not all dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors have been associated with increased HF risk. We performed secondary analyses of HF and related outcomes with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin versus placebo in CARMELINA (The Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin), a cardiovascular outcomes trial that enrolled participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease. METHODS: Participants in 27 countries with type 2 diabetes mellitus and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease were randomized 1:1 to receive once daily oral linagliptin 5 mg or placebo, on top of standard of care. All hospitalization for HF (hHF), cardiovascular outcomes, and deaths were prospectively captured and centrally adjudicated. In prespecified and post hoc analyses of HF and related events, Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for region and baseline history of HF were used. Recurrent hHF events were analyzed using a negative binomial model. In a subset of participants with left ventricular ejection fraction captured within the year before randomization, HF-related outcomes were assessed in subgroups stratified by left ventricular ejection fraction > or ≤50%. RESULTS: CARMELINA enrolled 6979 participants (mean age, 65.9 years; estimated glomerular filtration rate, mL/min per 1.73m2; hemoglobin A1c, 8.0%; 62.9% men; diabetes mellitus duration, 14.8 years), including 1873 (26.8%) with a history of HF at baseline. Median follow-up was 2.2 years. Linagliptin versus placebo did not affect the incidence of hHF (209/3494 [6.0%] versus 226/3485 [6.5%], respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.08), the composite of cardiovascular death/hHF (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08), or risk for recurrent hHF events (326 versus 359 events, respectively; rate ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.20). There was no heterogeneity of linagliptin effects on hHF by history of HF at baseline, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate or urine albumin-creatinine ratio, or prerandomization left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, international cardiovascular outcome trial in participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or kidney disease, linagliptin did not affect the risk of hHF or other selected HF-related outcomes, including among participants with and without a history of HF, across the spectrum of kidney disease, and independent of previous left ventricular ejection fraction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01897532.