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.

Can the cardiovascular risk reductions observed with empagliflozin in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial be explained by concomitant changes seen in conventional cardiovascular risk factor levels?

AIM: To perform post-hoc analyses of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial examining the degree to which empagliflozin-induced changes in conventional cardiovascular (CV) risk factors might explain the observed CV benefits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We estimated 3-year EMPA-REG OUTCOME CV event rates using a type 2 diabetes-specific clinical outcomes simulation model applied to annual patient-level data. Variables included were atrial fibrillation, smoking, albuminuria, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, glycated haemoglobin, heart rate, white cell count, haemoglobin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and histories of ischaemic heart disease, heart failure, amputation, blindness, renal failure, stroke, myocardial infarction or diabetic ulcer. Multiple simulations were performed for each participant to minimize uncertainty and optimize confidence interval precision around CV risk point estimates. Observed and simulated cardiovascular relative risk reductions were compared. RESULTS: Model-predicted relative risk reductions were smaller than those observed in the trial, with empagliflozin-associated changes in conventional CV risk factor values appearing to explain only 12% of the observed relative risk reduction for all-cause death (4% of 32%), 7% for CV death (3% of 39%) and 15% for heart failure (4% of 29%). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin-associated changes in conventional CV risk factors in EMPA-REG OUTCOME appear to explain only a small proportion of the CV and all-cause death reductions observed. Alternative risk-reduction mechanisms need to be explored to determine if the observed CV risk changes can be explained by other factors, or possibly by a direct drug-specific effect.

Empagliflozin and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Established Cardiovascular Disease, and Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established cardiovascular disease in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients). Urinary glucose excretion with empagliflozin decreases with declining renal function, resulting in less potency for glucose lowering in patients with kidney disease. We investigated the effects of empagliflozin on clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, established cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease. METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, established cardiovascular disease, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥30 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 at screening were randomized to receive empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, or placebo once daily in addition to standard of care. We analyzed cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, all-cause hospitalization, and all-cause mortality in patients with prevalent kidney disease (defined as eGFR <60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 and/or urine albumin-creatinine ratio >300 mg/g) at baseline. Additional analyses were performed in subgroups by baseline eGFR (<45, 45-<60, 60-<90, ≥90 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2) and baseline urine albumin-creatinine ratio (>300, 30-≤300, <30 mg/g). RESULTS: Of 7020 patients treated, 2250 patients had prevalent kidney disease at baseline, of whom 67% had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus for >10 years, 58% were receiving insulin, and 84% were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. In patients with prevalent kidney disease at baseline, empagliflozin reduced the risk of cardiovascular death by 29% compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.98), the risk of all-cause mortality by 24% (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.99), the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 39% (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.87), and the risk of all-cause hospitalization by 19% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.92). Effects of empagliflozin on these outcomes were consistent across categories of eGFR and urine albumin-creatinine ratio at baseline and across the 2 doses studied. The adverse event profile of empagliflozin in patients with eGFR <60 mL·min-1·1.73 m-2 was consistent with the overall trial population. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin improved clinical outcomes and reduced mortality in vulnerable patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, established cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01131676.

Empagliflozin and Progression of Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes confers an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular and renal events. In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events. We wanted to determine the long-term renal effects of empagliflozin, an analysis that was a prespecified component of the secondary microvascular outcome of that trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 30 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area to receive either empagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg or 25 mg) or placebo once daily. Prespecified renal outcomes included incident or worsening nephropathy (progression to macroalbuminuria, doubling of the serum creatinine level, initiation of renal-replacement therapy, or death from renal disease) and incident albuminuria. RESULTS: Incident or worsening nephropathy occurred in 525 of 4124 patients (12.7%) in the empagliflozin group and in 388 of 2061 (18.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the empagliflozin group, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.70; P<0.001). Doubling of the serum creatinine level occurred in 70 of 4645 patients (1.5%) in the empagliflozin group and in 60 of 2323 (2.6%) in the placebo group, a significant relative risk reduction of 44%. Renal-replacement therapy was initiated in 13 of 4687 patients (0.3%) in the empagliflozin group and in 14 of 2333 patients (0.6%) in the placebo group, representing a 55% lower relative risk in the empagliflozin group. There was no significant between-group difference in the rate of incident albuminuria. The adverse-event profile of empagliflozin in patients with impaired kidney function at baseline was similar to that reported in the overall trial population. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, empagliflozin was associated with slower progression of kidney disease and lower rates of clinically relevant renal events than was placebo when added to standard care. (Funded by the Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly and Company Diabetes Alliance; EMPA-REG OUTCOME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01131676.).

Effects of empagliflozin on risk for cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization across the spectrum of heart failure risk in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® trial.

Aims: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and established CV disease (CVD) in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® trial. We investigated whether the benefit of empagliflozin was observed across the spectrum of HF risk. Methods and results: Seven thousand and twenty patients with T2D (HbA1c 7-10% and eGFR > 30 mL/min/1.73 m2) were treated with empagliflozin 10 or 25 mg, or placebo once daily and followed for median 3.1 years. In patients without HF at baseline (89.9%), we derived the 5-year risk for incident HF using the 9-variable Health ABC HF Risk score [classified as low-to-average (<10%), high (10-20%), and very high (≥ 20%)]. Overall, 67.2% of the population had low-to-average, 24.2% high, and 5.1% very high 5-year HF risk. Across these groups, the effect on CV death and HF hospitalization with empagliflozin was consistent [hazard ratio 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.52, 0.96), 0.52 (0.36, 0.75), and 0.55 (0.30, 1.00), respectively]. Effects on CV death in the ostensibly highest HF risk group (HF at baseline and/or incident HF during the trial) in whom 37.9% of the overall CV deaths occurred, was also beneficial [0.67 (0.47, 0.97)], yet, similar benefits were seen in the lower risk patients. Conclusion: In patients with T2D and established CVD, a sizeable proportion without HF at baseline are at high or very high risk for HF outcomes, indicating the need for active case finding in this patient population. Empagliflozin consistently improved HF outcomes both in patients at low or high HF risk.

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.

Pooled analysis of Phase III trials indicate contrasting influences of renal function on blood pressure, body weight, and HbA1c reductions with empagliflozin.

Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce HbA1c, blood pressure, and weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. To investigate the effect of renal function on reductions in these parameters with the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, we assessed subgroups by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) in pooled data from five 24-week trials of 2286 patients with type 2 diabetes randomized to empagliflozin or placebo. Reductions in HbA1c with empagliflozin versus placebo significantly diminished with decreasing baseline eGFR. Reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) with empagliflozin were maintained in patients with lower eGFR. The mean placebo-corrected changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure at week 24 with empagliflozin were -3.2 (95% confidence interval -4.9,-1.5) mmHg, -4.0 (-5.4, -2.6) mmHg, -5.5 (-7.6, -3.4) mmHg, and -6.6 (-11.4, -1.8) mmHg in patients with an eGFR of 90 or more, 60 to 89, 30 to 59, and under 30 ml/min/1.73m2, respectively. Similar trends were observed for diastolic blood pressure. Weight loss with empagliflozin versus placebo tended to be attenuated in patients with a lower eGFR. Results were consistent in a 12-week ambulatory blood pressure monitoring trial in 823 patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. Thus, unlike HbA1c reductions, systolic blood pressure and weight reductions with empagliflozin are generally preserved in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The effects of empagliflozin, an inhibitor of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2, in addition to standard care, on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk are not known. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to receive 10 mg or 25 mg of empagliflozin or placebo once daily. The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, as analyzed in the pooled empagliflozin group versus the placebo group. The key secondary composite outcome was the primary outcome plus hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: A total of 7020 patients were treated (median observation time, 3.1 years). The primary outcome occurred in 490 of 4687 patients (10.5%) in the pooled empagliflozin group and in 282 of 2333 patients (12.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the empagliflozin group, 0.86; 95.02% confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.04 for superiority). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of myocardial infarction or stroke, but in the empagliflozin group there were significantly lower rates of death from cardiovascular causes (3.7%, vs. 5.9% in the placebo group; 38% relative risk reduction), hospitalization for heart failure (2.7% and 4.1%, respectively; 35% relative risk reduction), and death from any cause (5.7% and 8.3%, respectively; 32% relative risk reduction). There was no significant between-group difference in the key secondary outcome (P=0.08 for superiority). Among patients receiving empagliflozin, there was an increased rate of genital infection but no increase in other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events who received empagliflozin, as compared with placebo, had a lower rate of the primary composite cardiovascular outcome and of death from any cause when the study drug was added to standard care. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPA-REG OUTCOME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01131676.).

Empagliflozin compared with glimepiride in metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: 208-week data from a masked randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To report results at week 208, including a 104-week masked extension, of the EMPA-REG H2H-SU trial in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin, in which empagliflozin 25 mg given for 104 weeks provided a sustained reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) with a small but statistically significant benefit vs glimepiride, sustained reductions in weight and blood pressure, and low risk of hypoglycaemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c 53-86 mmol/mol (7% to 10%) were randomized to empagliflozin 25 mg or glimepiride 1 to 4 mg for 104 weeks as add-on to metformin. Patients who completed the randomized treatment period could participate in a 104-week extension in which they continued the double-blind treatment allocated at randomization. RESULTS: Of 765 and 780 patients treated with empagliflozin and glimepiride, 576 and 549 patients, respectively, entered the extension period of the study. At week 208, the adjusted mean difference in change from baseline in HbA1c with empagliflozin vs glimepiride was -1.96 mmol/mol, 95% CI -3.57, -0.35 (-0.18%, 95% CI -0.33, -0.03); P = 0.0172. Rescue therapy was given to 23% of patients on empagliflozin and 34% on glimepiride (odds ratio 0.56 [95% CI 0.45, 0.71]; P < 0.0001). Confirmed hypoglycaemic adverse events (plasma glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L and/or requiring assistance) occurred in 3% of patients on empagliflozin and 28% on glimepiride (odds ratio 0.08 [95% CI 0.05, 0.13]; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, empagliflozin 25 mg as add-on to metformin for 208 weeks reduced HbA1c with a significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia and a significantly smaller proportion of patients receiving rescue therapy compared with glimepiride.

Empagliflozin and Cerebrovascular Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus at High Cardiovascular Risk.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients), empagliflozin added to standard of care in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk reduced the risk of 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events, driven by a reduction in cardiovascular mortality, with no significant difference between empagliflozin and placebo in risk of myocardial infarction or stroke. In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, the hazard ratio for stroke was 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.56; P=0.26). We further investigated cerebrovascular events. METHODS: Patients were randomized to empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, or placebo; 7020 patients were treated. Median observation time was 3.1 years. RESULTS: The numeric difference in stroke between empagliflozin and placebo in the modified intent-to-treat analysis was primarily because of 18 patients in the empagliflozin group with a first event >90 days after last intake of study drug (versus 3 on placebo). In a sensitivity analysis based on events during treatment or ≤90 days after last dose of drug, the hazard ratio for stroke with empagliflozin versus placebo was 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.45; P=0.60). There were no differences in risk of recurrent, fatal, or disabling strokes, or transient ischemic attack, with empagliflozin versus placebo. Patients with the largest increases in hematocrit or largest decreases in systolic blood pressure did not have an increased risk of stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk, there was no significant difference in the risk of cerebrovascular events with empagliflozin versus placebo. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01131676.

Impact of empagliflozin on blood pressure in dipper and non-dipper patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension.

In the EMPA-REG BP trial, empagliflozin significantly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) compared with placebo at week 12 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension. In a post-hoc analysis, we assessed the effect of empagliflozin on SBP and DBP using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring in patients categorized as dippers (sleep-time mean SBP ≤ 90% of awake-time mean; n = 417) or non-dippers (sleep-time mean SBP > 90% of awake-time mean; n = 350). In dippers, adjusted mean (SE) changes from baseline in mean 24-hour SBP (mm Hg) at week 12 were -0.2 (0.7) with placebo vs -3.8 (0.6) and -3.9 (0.7) with empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively (both P < .001 vs placebo). In non-dippers, these changes were 1.0 (0.7) with placebo vs -1.6 (0.7) with empagliflozin 10 mg ( P = .013 vs placebo) and -3.8 (0.7) with empagliflozin 25 mg ( P < .001 vs placebo). In both dippers and non-dippers, SBP and DBP patterns over 24 hours were maintained. There were no clinically relevant changes in heart rate with empagliflozin. In conclusion, empagliflozin significantly reduced mean 24-hour SBP compared with placebo in dippers and non-dippers.

Linagliptin as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: Two 24-week randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trials.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of linagliptin vs placebo as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with inadequate glycaemic control despite stable-dose metformin received open-label empagliflozin 10 mg (study 1) or 25 mg (study 2) as add-on therapy for 16 weeks. Subsequently, those with HbA1c ≥7.0 and ≤10.5% (>53 and ≤91 mmol/mol) (N = 482) were randomized to 24 weeks' double-blind, double-dummy treatment with linagliptin 5 mg or placebo in study 1, or to linagliptin 5 mg or placebo in study 2; all patients continued treatment with metformin and empagliflozin 10 mg (study 1) or metformin and empagliflozin 25 mg (study 2). The primary endpoint was change from baseline (defined as the last value before first intake of randomized, double-blind treatment) in HbA1c at week 24. RESULTS: At week 24, HbA1c (mean baseline 7.82-8.04 [62-64 mmol/mol]) was significantly reduced with linagliptin vs placebo; adjusted mean (SE) differences in change from baseline in HbA1c with linagliptin vs placebo were -.32% (.10) (-3.59 [1.08] mmol/mol) ( P = .001) for patients on empagliflozin 10 mg and metformin, and -0.47% (0.10) (-5.15 [1.04] mmol/mol) ( P < 0.001) for patients on empagliflozin 25 mg and metformin. Adverse events were reported in more patients receiving placebo than in those receiving linagliptin: 55.5% vs 48.4% in study 1 and 58.9% vs 52.7% in study 2. CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin as add-on to empagliflozin and metformin for 24 weeks improved glycaemic control vs placebo, and was well tolerated.

Heart failure outcomes with empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk: results of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® trial.

AIMS: We previously reported that in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME(®) trial, empagliflozin added to standard of care reduced the risk of 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular and all-cause death, and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk. We have now further investigated heart failure outcomes in all patients and in subgroups, including patients with or without baseline heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized to receive empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, or placebo. Seven thousand and twenty patients were treated; 706 (10.1%) had heart failure at baseline. Heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death occurred in a significantly lower percentage of patients treated with empagliflozin [265/4687 patients (5.7%)] than with placebo [198/2333 patients (8.5%)] [hazard ratio, HR: 0.66 (95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.79); P < 0.001], corresponding to a number needed to treat to prevent one heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death of 35 over 3 years. Consistent effects of empagliflozin were observed across subgroups defined by baseline characteristics, including patients with vs. without heart failure, and across categories of medications to treat diabetes and/or heart failure. Empagliflozin improved other heart failure outcomes, including hospitalization for or death from heart failure [2.8 vs. 4.5%; HR: 0.61 (0.47-0.79); P < 0.001] and was associated with a reduction in all-cause hospitalization [36.8 vs. 39.6%; HR: 0.89 (0.82-0.96); P = 0.003]. Serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported by a higher proportion of patients with vs. without heart failure at baseline in both treatment groups, but were no more common with empagliflozin than with placebo. CONCLUSION: In patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk, empagliflozin reduced heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death, with a consistent benefit in patients with and without baseline heart failure.

The effect of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition with empagliflozin on microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibition lowers HbA1c, systolic BP (SBP) and weight in patients with type 2 diabetes and reduces renal hyperfiltration associated with type 1 diabetes, suggesting decreased intraglomerular hypertension. As lowering HbA1c, SBP, weight and intraglomerular pressure is associated with anti-albuminuric effects in diabetes, we hypothesised that SGLT2 inhibition would reduce the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) to a clinically meaningful extent. METHODS: We examined the effect of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin on UACR by pooling data from patients with type 2 diabetes and prevalent microalbuminuria (UACR = 30-300 mg/g; n = 636) or macroalbuminuria (UACR > 300 mg/g; n = 215) who participated in one of five phase III randomised clinical trials. Primary assessment was defined as percentage change in geometric mean UACR from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: After controlling for clinical confounders including baseline log-transformed UACR, HbA1c, SBP and estimated GFR (according to the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD] formula), treatment with empagliflozin significantly reduced UACR in patients with microalbuminuria (-32% vs placebo; p < 0.001) or macroalbuminuria (-41% vs placebo; p < 0.001). Intriguingly, in regression models, most of the UACR-lowering effect with empagliflozin was not explained by SGLT2 inhibition-related improvements in HbA1c, SBP or weight. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In patients with type 2 diabetes and either micro- or macroalbuminuria, empagliflozin reduced UACR by a clinically meaningful amount. This effect was largely independent of the known metabolic or systemic haemodynamic effects of this drug class. Our results further support a direct renal effect of SGLT2 inhibitors. Prospective studies are needed to explore the potential of this intervention to alter the course of kidney disease in high-risk patients with diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01177813 (study 1); NCT01159600 (study 2); NCT01159600 (study 3); NCT01210001 (study 4); and NCT01164501 (study 5).

Efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes from Asian countries: pooled data from four phase III trials.

We investigated the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin over 24 weeks in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) using pooled data from four phase III trials. In these trials, patients were randomized to receive empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg or placebo as monotherapy or add-on to metformin, metformin plus sulphonylurea or pioglitazone ± metformin. In total, 1326 patients from Asia received ≥1 dose of study drug. At week 24, adjusted mean differences versus placebo in change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were -0.66% [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.76, -0.56] and -0.73% (95% CI -0.83, -0.64) and in weight were -1.6 kg (95% CI -1.9, -1.3) and -1.8 kg (95% CI -2.1, -1.5) with empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg, respectively (all p < 0.001). Empagliflozin significantly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The proportion of patients reporting ≥1 adverse event was similar across treatment groups, but events consistent with genital infection were more common in patients treated with empagliflozin 10 mg (3.4%) or 25 mg (2.3%) than placebo (0.9%). Thus in Asian patients with T2DM, empagliflozin reduced HbA1c, weight and blood pressure, and was well tolerated.

Renal hemodynamic effect of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this mechanistic open-label, stratified clinical trial was to determine the effect of 8 weeks' sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibition with empagliflozin 25 mg QD on renal hyperfiltration in subjects with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D). METHODS AND RESULTS: Inulin (glomerular filtration rate; GFR) and paraaminohippurate (effective renal plasma flow) clearances were measured in individuals stratified based on having hyperfiltration (T1D-H, GFR ≥ 135 mL/min/1.73m(2), n=27) or normal GFR (T1D-N, GFR 90-134 mL/min/1.73m(2), n=13) at baseline. Renal function and circulating levels of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system mediators and NO were measured under clamped euglycemic (4-6 mmol/L) and hyperglycemic (9-11 mmol/L) conditions at baseline and end of treatment. During clamped euglycemia, hyperfiltration was attenuated by -33 mL/min/1.73m(2) with empagliflozin in T1D-H, (GFR 172±23-139±25 mL/min/1.73 m(2), P<0.01). This effect was accompanied by declines in plasma NO and effective renal plasma flow and an increase in renal vascular resistance (all P<0.01). Similar significant effects on GFR and renal function parameters were observed during clamped hyperglycemia. In T1D-N, GFR, other renal function parameters, and plasma NO were not altered by empagliflozin. Empagliflozin reduced hemoglobin A1c significantly in both groups, despite lower insulin doses in each group (P≤0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, short-term treatment with the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor empagliflozin attenuated renal hyperfiltration in subjects with T1D, likely by affecting tubular-glomerular feedback mechanisms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01392560.

Safety, tolerability and effects on cardiometabolic risk factors of empagliflozin monotherapy in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes: a double-blind extension of a Phase III randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of empagliflozin monotherapy compared with placebo and sitagliptin in drug-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Of 899 patients randomized to receive empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, placebo, or sitagliptin 100 mg once daily for 24 weeks, 615 continued in a double-blind extension trial for ≥52 weeks. Exploratory endpoints included changes from baseline in HbA1c, weight and blood pressure at week 76. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, adjusted mean changes from baseline in HbA1c at week 76 were -0.78 % (95 % CI -0.94, -0.63; p < 0.001) and -0.89 % (95 % CI -1.04, -0.73; p < 0.001) for empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg, respectively. Compared with placebo, adjusted mean changes from baseline in weight at week 76 were -1.8 kg (95 % CI -2.4, -1.3; p < 0.001) and -2.0 kg (95 % CI -2.6, -1.5; p < 0.001) for empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg, respectively. Empagliflozin led to reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with placebo in the primary analysis but not in sensitivity analyses. Compared with sitagliptin, empagliflozin 25 mg reduced HbA1c and both empagliflozin doses reduced weight and SBP. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 76.8, 78.0, 76.4 and 72.2 % of patients on empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, placebo and sitagliptin, respectively. Confirmed hypoglycaemic AEs (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/l and/or requiring assistance) were reported in two patients (0.9 %) per treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin monotherapy for ≥76 weeks was well tolerated and led to sustained reductions in HbA1c and weight compared with placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01289990.

Exposure-response modelling for empagliflozin, a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To provide model-based clinical development decision support including dose selection guidance for empagliflozin, an orally administered sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, through developed exposure-response (E-R) models for efficacy and tolerability in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: Five randomized, placebo-controlled, multiple oral dose studies of empagliflozin in patients with T2DM (n = 974; 1-100 mg once daily, duration ≤12 weeks) were used to develop E-R models for efficacy (glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA1c ], fasting plasma glucose [FPG] and urinary glucose excretion). Two studies (n = 748, 12 weeks) were used to evaluate tolerability E-R. RESULTS: The efficacy model predicted maximal decreases in FPG and HbA1c of 16% and 0.6%, respectively, assuming a baseline FPG concentration of 8 mm (144 mg dl(-1) ) and 10-25 mg every day empagliflozin targeted 80-90% of these maximums. Increases in exposure had no effect on incidence rates of hypoglycaemia (n = 4), urinary tract infection (n = 17) or genital/vulvovaginal-related (n = 16) events, although low prevalence rates may have precluded more accurate evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: E-R analyses indicated that 10 and 25 mg once daily empagliflozin doses achieved near maximal glucose lowering efficacy.

Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of a 4-year (208-week) phase III trial of empagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with insufficient glycemic control.

BACKGROUND: Sulfonylureas (SUs) are commonly used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), usually as second-line treatment after the failure of metformin. However, SUs are associated with poor durability, hypoglycemia and weight gain. Empagliflozin is a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor in development for the treatment of T2DM. In Phase II/III trials, empagliflozin reduced hyperglycemia, body weight and blood pressure, with a low incidence of hypoglycemia. The aim of this Phase III study is to compare the effects of empagliflozin and the SU glimepiride as second-line therapy in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin immediate release (IR) and diet/exercise. METHOD: After a 2-week placebo run-in, patients were randomized to receive empagliflozin 25 mg once daily (qd) or glimepiride 1-4 mg qd double-blind for 2 years, in addition to metformin IR. Patients who participate in the initial 2-year randomization period will be eligible for a 2-year double-blind extension. The primary endpoint is change from baseline in HbA1c. Secondary endpoints are change from baseline in body weight, the incidence of confirmed hypoglycemia and changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Exploratory endpoints include markers of insulin secretion, body composition and responder analyses. Safety endpoints include the incidence of adverse events (AEs) (including macro- and microvascular adverse events) and changes from baseline in clinical laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Between August 2010 and June 2011, 1549 patients were randomized and 1545 patients were treated. At baseline, mean (SD) age was 55.9 (10.4) years, HbA1c was 7.92 (0.84)%, body mass index was 30.11 (5.59) kg/m², systolic blood pressure was 133.5 (15.9) mmHg and diastolic blood pressure was 79.5 (9.4) mmHg. DISCUSSION: This is the largest study to compare the efficacy and safety of an SGLT2 inhibitor with an SU in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on metformin to date. In addition to determining the effects of these treatments on glycemic control over the long term, this study will investigate effects on beta-cell function, cardiovascular risk factors and markers of renal function/damage. The results will help to inform the choice of second-line treatment in patients with T2DM who have failed on metformin. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01167881.