Cardiovascular risk factors control according to diabetes status and prior cardiovascular events in patients managed in different settings

Lipoprotein(a) predicts recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with prior cardiovascular events post-PCI: five-year findings from a large single center cohort study

Background

It is well established that lipoprotein(a)[Lp(a)] play a vital role in atherosclerosis. Whether Lp(a) can predict recurrence of cardiovascular events (CVEs) in prior CVEs patients is still unclear. We aim to investigate its association with subsequent long-term adverse events in this high-risk population.

Methods

A total of 4,469 patients with prior CVEs history after PCI were consecutively enrolled and categorized according Lp(a) values of < 10 (low), 10 to 30 (medium), and ≥ 30 mg/dL (high). The primary endpoint was MACCE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and unplanned revascularization.

Results

During an average of 5.0 years of follow-up, 1,078 (24.1%) and 206 (4.6%) patients experienced MACCE and all-cause death with 134 (3.0%) of whom from cardiac death. The incidence of MACCE, all-cause death and cardiac death were significantly higher in the high Lp(a) group (p < 0.05). After adjustment of confounding factors, high Lp(a) level remained an independent risk factor for MACCE (adjusted HR 1.240, 95%CI 1.065–1.443, p = 0.006), all-cause death (adjusted HR 1.445, 95%CI 1.023–2.042, p = 0.037) and cardiac death (adjusted HR 1.724, 95%CI 1.108–2.681, p = 0.016). This correlation remained significant when treated as a natural logarithm-transformed continuous variable. This finding is relatively consistent across subgroups and confirmed again in two sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

Our present study confirmed that Lp(a) was an independent predictor for recurrent CVEs in patients with established CVEs, illustrating that Lp(a) level might be a valuable biomarker for risk stratification and prognostic assessment in this high-risk population.

Comparison of empagliflozin and vildagliptin for efficacy and safety in type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Pakistani population

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a chronic disease that needs early management to prevent complications and premature mortality. Therefore, it is essential to select evidence-based drugs available to control diabetes and limit the progression to related complications. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin and vildagliptin in people with type 2 DM.

METHODS

This was an open-label, parallel randomized controlled trial (NCT05359432) conducted at two tertiary care hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. After obtaining consent, participants were randomized into two groups. The first group was given empagliflozin (10 mg once or two times daily) with metformin, and the second group got vildagliptin (50 mg once or two times daily) with metformin. HbA1c, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, and body weight were measured at the baseline and 24-week visits.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients fulfilled the selection criteria and then underwent randomization to be placed into empagliflozin and vildagliptin groups. The mean change in HbA1c (-0.97% ± 0.68 for empagliflozin and -0.82% ± 1.57 for vildagliptin) was statistically similar in both groups (p-value = 0.980). No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups for safety parameters such as eGFR (p = 0.46), serum ALT (p = 0.13), LDL (p = 0.23), total cholesterol (p = 0.49), and triglycerides (p = 0.49).

CONCLUSION

Results of the study highlight that vildagliptin and empagliflozin have a significant beneficial effect in reducing HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, systolic blood pressure, and weight of participants. Both drugs had no differences when compared on safety parameters.