Metformin treatment is associated with improved outcome in patients with diabetes and advanced heart failure (HFrEF)

Pharmacokinetic Profile and Comparative Bioavailability of an Oral Fixed-Dose Combination of Metformin and Acetylsalicylic Acid (Aspirin)

Patients with diabetes face a 2-4-fold greater cardiovascular risk compared to those without diabetes. Both metformin and acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) treatment have demonstrated a significant reduction in this risk. This single-center, open-label, sequence randomized, 2 × 2 crossover, single-dose clinical trial evaluated the pharmacokinetics profile and comparative bioavailability of a novel oral fixed-dose combination (FDC) of metformin/acetylsalicylic acid (500/100 mg tablet) versus the reference mono-drugs administered concomitantly, metformin 500 mg tablet and acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg tablet, in 22 healthy Mexican adult volunteers under fasting conditions. Blood samples were collected predose and at specified intervals across a 24-hour period following administration and were analyzed for metformin and salicylic acid using high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. Test products were considered to have comparative bioavailability if confidence intervals of natural log-transformed (maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax), (area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve form 0 up to last sampling time (AUC0 -t), and (area under the plasma drug concentration-time cruve from 0 up to infinity (AUC0 ∞) data were within the range of 80%-125%. The results obtained from the present clinical study demonstrate the comparative bioavailability of the FDC when compared with the coadministration of reference mono-drugs. There were no adverse events or adverse reactions reported throughout the study.

Preadmission metformin use increased the incidence of hyperlactatemia at admission and 30-day in-hospital mortality among T2D patients with heart disease at high risk of hypoxia

BACKGROUND

Surprisingly, despite the high prevalence of metformin use in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients with heart disease, limited safety data is available regarding metformin use in patients with acute and critical heart disease.

METHODS

In this single-center retrospective study, patients admitted to the cardiology department for heart failure (HF) or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) between December 2013 and December 2021 and who underwent arterial blood gas analysis at admission with an estimated glomerular clearance rate of ≥45 ml/min/1.73 m2 were identified. The incidences of hyperlactatemia, acidosis, and 30-day in-hospital mortality were compared between preadmission metformin users and nonusers.

RESULTS

Of 526 admissions, 193/193 metformin users/nonusers were selected in a propensity score-matched model. Metformin users had greater lactate levels (2.55 ± 2.07 mmol/l vs. 2.00 ± 1.80 mmol/l P < 0.01), a greater incidence of hyperlactatemia [odds ratio (OR) = 2.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.63-3.98; P < 0.01] and acidosis (OR = 1.78; 95% CI, 1.00-3.16; P < 0.05) at admission and a greater incidence of in-hospital mortality (OR = 3.83; 95% CI, 1.05-13.94; P < 0.05), especially those with HF/acute myocardial infarction, elderly age, or without preadmission insulin use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that, compared to metformin nonusers, preadmission use of metformin may be associated with a greater incidence of hyperlactatemia and acidosis at admission and greater 30-day in-hospital mortality among T2D patients with HF or ACS at high risk of hypoxia, particularly those without preadmission insulin use. The safety of metformin in this population needs to be confirmed in prospective controlled trials.

Clinical outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients with chronic heart failure treated with metformin: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore outcomes of metformin (Met) as an antihyperglycemic agent in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) combined with chronic heart failure (CHF).

METHODS

This article employed a meta-analysis approach to systematically search several databases. Stata 15.1 software was employed for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis encompassed 15 randomized controlled trials, involving 20,595 patients with T2DM and CHF. The results revealed that in comparison to the non-Met group, the Met group exhibited a significantly reduced risk of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.60-0.87) and a notably lower risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR = 0.52, 95%CI:0.29-0.92). However, there was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalization due to heart failure (RR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.70-1.04). Furthermore, the Met group demonstrated significant improvements in NT-proBNP levels compared to the non-Met group (WMD = -132.91, 95%CI: -173.03, -92.79). Regarding the enhancement of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Dimension levels, no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In individuals with T2DM and CHF, the use of Met is linked to a decreased likelihood of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular-related mortality. Furthermore, it can enhance cardiac function in CHF patients without elevating the risk of hospitalization due to heart failure, establishing its safety and potential benefits.

A consensus statement from the Japan Diabetes Society: A proposed algorithm for pharmacotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes - 2nd edition (English version)

This algorithm was issued for the appropriate use of drugs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan. The revisions include safety considerations, fatty liver disease as a comorbidity to be taken into account and the position of tirzepatide.

Coordination chemistry suggests that independently observed benefits of metformin and Zn2+ against COVID-19 are not independent

Independent trials indicate that either oral Zn2+ or metformin can separately improve COVID-19 outcomes by approximately 40%. Coordination chemistry predicts a mechanistic relationship and therapeutic synergy. Zn2+ deficit is a known risk factor for both COVID-19 and non-infectious inflammation. Most dietary Zn2+ is not absorbed. Metformin is a naked ligand that presumably increases intestinal Zn2+ bioavailability and active absorption by cation transporters known to transport metformin. Intracellular Zn2+ provides a natural buffer of many protease reactions; the variable "set point" is determined by Zn2+ regulation or availability. A Zn2+-interactive protease network is suggested here. The two viral cysteine proteases are therapeutic targets against COVID-19. Viral and many host proteases are submaximally inhibited by exchangeable cell Zn2+. Inhibition of cysteine proteases can improve COVID-19 outcomes and non-infectious inflammation. Metformin reportedly enhances the natural moderating effect of Zn2+ on bioassayed proteome degradation. Firstly, the dissociable metformin-Zn2+ complex could be actively transported by intestinal cation transporters; thereby creating artificial pathways of absorption and increased body Zn2+ content. Secondly, metformin Zn2+ coordination can create a non-natural protease inhibitor independent of cell Zn2+ content. Moderation of peptidolytic reactions by either or both mechanisms could slow (a) viral multiplication (b) viral invasion and (c) the pathogenic host inflammatory response. These combined actions could allow development of acquired immunity to clear the infection before life-threatening inflammation. Nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid®) opposes COVID-19 by selective inhibition the viral main protease by a Zn2+-independent mechanism. Pending safety evaluation, predictable synergistic benefits of metformin and Zn2+, and perhaps metformin/Zn2+/Paxlovid® co-administration should be investigated.

A consensus statement from the Japan Diabetes Society (JDS): a proposed algorithm for pharmacotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes-2nd Edition (English version)

The Japan Diabetes Society (JDS) adopted a sweeping decision to release consensus statements on relevant issues in diabetes management that require updating from time to time and launched a "JDS Committee on Consensus Statement Development." In March 2020, the committee's first consensus statement on "Medical Nutrition Therapy and Dietary Counseling for People with Diabetes" was published. In September 2022, a second consensus "algorithm for pharmacotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes" was proposed. In developing an algorithm for diabetes pharmacotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes, the working concept was that priority should be given to selecting such medications as would appropriately address the diabetes pathology in each patient while simultaneously weighing the available evidence for these medications and the prescribing patterns in clinical practice in Japan. These consensus statements are intended to present the committee's take on diabetes management in Japan, based on the evidence currently available for each of the issues addressed. It is thus hoped that practicing diabetologists will not fail to consult these statements to provide the best available practice in their respective clinical settings. Given that the persistent dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide was approved in April 2023, these consensus statements have been revised1). In this revision, specifically, tirzepatide was added to the end of [likely involving insulin resistance] of "Obese patients" in Step 1: "Select medications to address the diabetes pathology involved" in Fig. 2. While the sentence, "Insulin insufficiency and resistance can be assessed by referring to the various indices listed in the JDS 'Guide to Diabetes Management.' was mentioned in the previous edition as well, "While insulin resistance is analogized based on BMI, abdominal obesity, and visceral fat accumulation, an assessment of indicators (e.g., HOMA-IR) is desirable" was added as information in order to more accurately recognize the pathology. Regarding Step 2: "Give due consideration to safety," "For renal excretion" was added to the "Rule of thumb 2: Avoid glinides in patients with renal impairment." The order of the medications in "rule of thumb 3: Avoid thiazolidinediones and biguanides in patients with heart failure (in whom they are contraindicated)." to thiazolidinediones then biguanides. In the description of the lowest part of Fig. 2, for each patient failing to achieve his/her HbA1c control goal, "while reverting to step 1" was changed to "while reverting to the opening" and "including reassessment if the patient is indicated for insulin therapy" was added. In the separate table, the column for tirzepatides was added, while the two items, "Characteristic side effects" and "Persistence of effect" were added to the area of interest. The revision also carried additional descriptions of the figure and table such as tirzepatides and "Characteristic side effects" in the statement, and while not mentioned in the proposed algorithm figure, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is covered from this revision for patients with comorbidities calling for medical attention. Moreover, detailed information was added to the relative/absolute indication for insulin therapy, the Kumamoto Declaration 2013 for glycemic targets, and glycemic targets for older people with diabetes. Again, in this revision, it is hoped that the algorithm presented here will not only contribute to improved diabetes management in Japan, but will continue to evolve into a better algorithm over time, reflecting new evidence as it becomes available.

Ongoing and Future Clinical Trials of Pharmacotherapy for Heart Failure

Increasing knowledge of the processes leading to heart failure (HF) has allowed significant developments in therapies for HF over the past few decades. Despite the evolution of HF treatment, it still places a large burden on patients and health care systems across the world.We used clinicaltrials.gov to gather information about clinical trials as of August 2023 studying pharmacotherapy for HF. We included interventional trials that were "active, not recruiting", "recruiting", or looking for participants but "not yet recruiting". In total, 119 studies met our criteria of ongoing clinical trials studying novel as well as currently approved HF pharmacotherapies. The major interventions were novel medications/already approved medications for other diseases 29 % (34 trials), sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors 21 % (25 trials), angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitors 10 % (12 trials), diuretics 14 % (17 trials) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists 5 % (6 trials). Ongoing research will aid in reducing the impact of HF and we summarize clinical trials leading the way to better HF treatment in this review.

Effect of Metformin on Oxidative Stress and Left Ventricular Geometry in Nondiabetic Heart Failure Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: There is an increasing interest in using metformin in cardiovascular diseases and its potential new roles. Only two randomized controlled trials investigated the effect of metformin in nondiabetic heart failure (HF) patients. However, none of these studies assess the role of metformin in reducing oxidative stress. We hypothesized that metformin might improve oxidative stress and left ventricular remodeling in nondiabetic HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and Methods: Seventy HFrEF patients (EF 37% ± 8%; median age 66 years) were randomized to metformin (n = 35) or standard of care (SOC) for HF (n = 35) for 6 months in addition to standard therapy. Outcomes included the difference in the change (Δ) in total antioxidant capacity (TAC) and malondialdehyde (MDA), both assessed colorimetrically and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) assessed through transthoracic echocardiography. Results: Compared with the SOC, metformin treatment increased TAC [Δ = 0.12 mmol/L, confidence intervals (95% CIs): 0.03-0.21; P = 0.007]. TAC increased significantly only in the metformin group (0.90 ± 0.08 mmol/L at baseline vs. 1.04 ± 0.99 mmol/L at 6 months, P < 0.05). Metformin therapy preserved LVMI (Δ = -23 g/m2, 95% CI: -42.91 to -4.92; P = 0.014) and reduced fasting plasma glucose (Δ = -6.16, 95% CI: -12.31 to -0.02, P = 0.047) compared with the SOC. Results did not change after adjusting for baseline values. Changes in MDA left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and blood pressure were not significantly different between groups. Conclusion: Metformin treatment in HF patients with reduced LVEF improved TAC and prevented the increase in LVMI compared with the SOC. These effects of metformin warrant further research in HF patients without diabetes to explore the potential benefits of metformin. Trial Registration Number: This protocol was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the number NCT05177588.

Metformin treatment is associated with improved survival in diabetic patients hospitalized with acute heart failure: A prospective observational study using the Korean acute heart failure registry data

AIMS

Although the hypothesis that metformin is beneficial for patients with diabetes and heart failure (HF) has been steadily raised, there is limited data on metformin use in patients with acute HF. We analyzed the association of metformin on all-cause mortality in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes and acute HF.

METHODS

The Korean Acute Heart Failure registry prospectively enrolled patients hospitalized for acute HF from 2011 to 2014. Among this cohort, we analyzed patients with diabetes with baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30 ml/min/1.73 m2 or more. We analyzed the all-cause mortality and re-hospitalization for HF within 1 year after discharge. Inverse probability treatment weighting method was used to adjust baseline differences on metformin treatment.

RESULTS

The study analyzed data from 1,309 patients with HF and diabetes (mean age 69 years, 56 % male). Among them, 613 (47 %) patients were on metformin at admission. During the median follow-up period of 11 months, 132 (19 %) and 74 (12 %) patients not receiving and receiving metformin treatment died, respectively. The mortality rate was lower in metformin users than in non-users (hazard ratio 0.616 [0.464-0.819] P<0.001). After adjustment, metformin was significantly associated with a lower risk for the mortality (hazard ratio 0.677 [0.495-0.928] P=0.015). In subgroup analyses, this association remains significant irrespective of baseline kidney function (eGFR <60 or ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2, P-for-interaction=0.176) or left ventricular ejection fraction (<40 %, 40-49 %, or ≥50 %, P-for-interaction=0.224).

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin treatment at the time of admission was associated with a lower risk for 1-year mortality in patients with diabetes, hospitalized for acute HF.

Therapies for patients with coexisting heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are two common comorbidities that share similar pathophysiological mechanisms. There is a growing interest in the potential of targeted therapies to improve outcomes in patients with coexisting HFrEF and NAFLD. This manuscript reviews current and potential therapies for patients with coexisting HFrEF and NAFLD. Pharmacological therapies, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, mineralocorticoids receptor antagonist, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, have been shown to reduce fibrosis and fat deposits in the liver. However, there are currently no data showing the beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan, ivabradine, hydralazine, isosorbide nitrates, digoxin, or beta blockers on NAFLD in patients with HFrEF. This study highlights the importance of considering HFrEF and NAFLD when developing treatment plans for patients with these comorbidities. Further research is needed in patients with coexisting HFrEF and NAFLD, with an emphasis on novel therapies and the importance of a multidisciplinary approach for managing these complex comorbidities.

2023 UPDATE: Luso-Brazilian evidence-based guideline for the management of antidiabetic therapy in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The management of antidiabetic therapy in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) has evolved beyond glycemic control. In this context, Brazil and Portugal defined a joint panel of four leading diabetes societies to update the guideline published in 2020.

METHODS

The panelists searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) for the best evidence from clinical studies on treating T2D and its cardiorenal complications. The panel searched for evidence on antidiabetic therapy in people with T2D without cardiorenal disease and in patients with T2D and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), heart failure (HF), or diabetic kidney disease (DKD). The degree of recommendation and the level of evidence were determined using predefined criteria.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

All people with T2D need to have their cardiovascular (CV) risk status stratified and HbA1c, BMI, and eGFR assessed before defining therapy. An HbA1c target of less than 7% is adequate for most adults, and a more flexible target (up to 8%) should be considered in frail older people. Non-pharmacological approaches are recommended during all phases of treatment. In treatment naïve T2D individuals without cardiorenal complications, metformin is the agent of choice when HbA1c is 7.5% or below. When HbA1c is above 7.5% to 9%, starting with dual therapy is recommended, and triple therapy may be considered. When HbA1c is above 9%, starting with dual therapyt is recommended, and triple therapy should be considered. Antidiabetic drugs with proven CV benefit (AD1) are recommended to reduce CV events if the patient is at high or very high CV risk, and antidiabetic agents with proven efficacy in weight reduction should be considered when obesity is present. If HbA1c remains above target, intensification is recommended with triple, quadruple therapy, or even insulin-based therapy. In people with T2D and established ASCVD, AD1 agents (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1 RA with proven CV benefit) are initially recommended to reduce CV outcomes, and metformin or a second AD1 may be necessary to improve glycemic control if HbA1c is above the target. In T2D with HF, SGLT2 inhibitors are recommended to reduce HF hospitalizations and mortality and to improve HbA1c. In patients with DKD, SGLT2 inhibitors in combination with metformin are recommended when eGFR is above 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. SGLT2 inhibitors can be continued until end-stage kidney disease.

Cardiovascular Protection by Metformin: Latest Advances in Basic and Clinical Research

BACKGROUND

Metformin is among the most frequently prescribed antidiabetic drugs worldwide and remains the first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes due to its well-established glucose-lowering efficacy and favorable safety profile.

SUMMARY

Studies over the past decades show that metformin also exerts many other beneficial effects independent of its glucose-lowering effect both in experimental models and human subjects. Among them, the most notable is its cardiovascular protective effect. In this review, we discuss the latest cutting-edge research findings on metformin's cardiovascular protection from both preclinical studies and randomized clinical trials. We focus on describing novel basic research discoveries reported in influential journals and discussing their implications in the context of latest clinical trial findings related to common cardiovascular and metabolic disorders, including atherosclerosis and dyslipidemia, myocardial injury, and heart failure.

KEY MESSAGES

While substantial preclinical and clinical evidence suggests metformin as a potential cardiovascular protectant, large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to establish its clinical efficacy in treating patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and heart failure.

Anti-Diabetic Therapy and Heart Failure: Recent Advances in Clinical Evidence and Molecular Mechanism

Diabetic patients have a two- to four-fold increase in the risk of heart failure (HF), and the co-existence of diabetes and HF is associated with poor prognosis. In randomized clinical trials (RCTs), compelling evidence has demonstrated the beneficial effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors on HF. The mechanism includes increased glucosuria, restored tubular glomerular feedback with attenuated renin-angiotensin II-aldosterone activation, improved energy utilization, decreased sympathetic tone, improved mitochondria calcium homeostasis, enhanced autophagy, and reduced cardiac inflammation, oxidative stress, and fibrosis. The RCTs demonstrated a neutral effect of the glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist on HF despite its weight-reducing effect, probably due to it possibly increasing the heart rate via increasing cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP). Observational studies supported the markedly beneficial effects of bariatric and metabolic surgery on HF despite no current supporting evidence from RCTs. Bromocriptine can be used to treat peripartum cardiomyopathy by reducing the harmful cleaved prolactin fragments during late pregnancy. Preclinical studies suggest the possible beneficial effect of imeglimin on HF through improving mitochondrial function, but further clinical evidence is needed. Although abundant preclinical and observational studies support the beneficial effects of metformin on HF, there is limited evidence from RCTs. Thiazolidinediones increase the risk of hospitalized HF through increasing renal tubular sodium reabsorption mediated via both the genomic and non-genomic action of PPARγ. RCTs suggest that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, including saxagliptin and possibly alogliptin, may increase the risk of hospitalized HF, probably owing to increased circulating vasoactive peptides, which impair endothelial function, activate sympathetic tones, and cause cardiac remodeling. Observational studies and RCTs have demonstrated the neutral effects of insulin, sulfonylureas, an alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, and lifestyle interventions on HF in diabetic patients.

Metformin: evidence from preclinical and clinical studies for potential novel applications in cardiovascular disease

INTRODUCTION

For a long time, metformin has been the first-line treatment for glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes, however, the results of recent cardiovascular outcome trials of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists have caused many to question metformin's position in the guidelines. Although there are several plausible mechanisms by which metformin might have beneficial cardiovascular effects, for example its anti-inflammatory effects and metabolic properties, and numerous observational data suggesting improved cardiovascular outcomes with metformin use, the main randomised clinical trial data for metformin was published over 20 years ago. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of participants in contemporary type 2 diabetes trials were prescribed metformin.

AREAS COVERED

In this review we will summarise the potential mechanisms of cardiovascular benefit with metformin, before discussing clinical data in individuals with or without diabetes.

EXPERT OPINION

Metformin may have some cardiovascular benefit in patients with and without diabetes, however the majority of clinical trials were small and are before the use SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1-RAs. Larger contemporary randomised trials with metformin evaluating its cardiovascular benefit are warranted.

Glucose-Induced Hemodynamic and Metabolic Response of Skeletal Muscle in Heart Failure Patients with Reduced vs. Preserved Ejection Fraction-A Pilot Study

(1) Background: Insulin resistance (IR) is a characteristic pathophysiologic feature in heart failure (HF). We tested the hypothesis that skeletal muscle metabolism is differently impaired in patients with reduced (HFrEF) vs. preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction. (2) Methods: carbohydrate and lipid metabolism was studied in situ by intramuscular microdialysis in patients with HFrEF (59 ± 14y, NYHA I-III) and HFpEF (65 ± 10y, NYHA I-II) vs. healthy subjects of similar age during the oral glucose load (oGL); (3) Results: There were no difference in fasting serum and interstitial parameters between the groups. Blood and dialysate glucose increased significantly in HFpEF vs. HFrEF and controls upon oGT (both p < 0.0001), while insulin increased significantly in HFrEF vs. HFpEF and controls (p < 0.0005). Muscle tissue perfusion tended to be lower in HFrEF vs. HFpEF and controls after the oGL (p = 0.057). There were no differences in postprandial increases in dialysate lactate and pyruvate. Postprandial dialysate glycerol was higher in HFpEF vs. HFrEF and controls upon oGL (p = 0.0016); (4) Conclusion: A pattern of muscle glucose metabolism is distinctly different in patients with HFrEF vs. HFpEF. While postprandial IR was characterized by impaired tissue perfusion and higher compensatory insulin secretion in HFrEF, reduced muscle glucose uptake and a blunted antilipolytic effect of insulin were found in HFpEF.