Addressing cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a report from the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Roundtable

The efficacy and safety of tadalafil in the management of erectile dysfunction with diabetes and blood circulation issues

BACKGROUND

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common diabetes-related complication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study examined the effect of daily low-dose tadalafil (5 mg) on patients' quality of life (including that of sex life) and blood circulation. Erectile dysfunction questionnaires were administered to 20 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and ED. The safety and efficacy of tadalafil were evaluated using laboratory tests, and the effect on blood circulation was measured through nail fold capillaroscopy.

RESULTS

Daily tadalafil use by patients with T2DM and ED showed a statistically significant increase in the erectile reliability score from of 1.15 to 3.20 (p < .00012). Capillary blood circulation improvement tests showed a statistically significant increase in apical limb width from 13.1 to 14.64 µm (p = .04829) and flow from 9035 to 11946 μm³/s (p = .04405). Although not significant, increased capillary width and speed (rate of blood flow) confirmed improved blood circulation. There were no significant changes in the cardiac indicators (troponin, prostate-specific antigen, or electrocardiogram tests) before and after tadalafil administration, supporting the safety of its low-dose daily administration.

CONCLUSIONS

A small dose of daily tadalafil was shown to safely improve erectile dysfunction and peripheral blood flow in patients with T2DM, in which peripheral arterial diseases should not be considered separately but rather as complex entities.

Research progress on the effects of novel hypoglycemic drugs in diabetes combined with myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) reperfusion is associated with ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury, which leads to enlarged myocardial infarction size, poor healing of the infarcted myocardium, and poor left ventricular remodeling, thus increasing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Diabetes increases myocardial susceptibility to I/R injury, decreases myocardial responsiveness to cardioprotective strategies, exacerbates myocardial I/R injury, and expands the infarct size of AMI, thereby increasing the incidence of malignant arrhythmias and heart failure. Currently, evidence regarding pharmacological interventions for diabetes combined with AMI and I/R injury is lacking. Traditional hypoglycemic drugs have a limited role in the prevention and treatment of diabetes combined with I/R injury. Current evidence suggests that novel hypoglycemic drugs may exert a preventive effect on diabetes combined with myocardial I/R injury, especially glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-dependent glucose transporter protein 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), which may increase coronary blood flow, reduce acute thrombosis, attenuate I/R injury, decrease myocardial infarction size, inhibit structural and functional remodeling of the ischemic heart, improve cardiac function, and reduce the occurrence of MACEs of diabetes patients combined with AMI via mechanisms such as reduction of inflammatory response, inhibition of oxidative stress, and improvement of vascular endothelial function. This paper will systematically elaborate the protective role and molecular mechanisms of GLP-1 RA and SGLT2i in diabetes combined with myocardial I/R injury, aiming to provide clinical assistance.

Association of alcohol consumption with all-cause mortality, new-onset stroke, and coronary heart disease in patients with abnormal glucose metabolism-Findings from a 10-year follow-up of the REACTION study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and diabetic complications threaten human health seriously. Healthy lifestyles can lower the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and long-term complications. However, the relationship between alcohol consumption and CVD mortality is still controversial, and there is a lack of evidence from large-scale longitudinal studies in the Chinese population. Based on the REACTION study (Risk Evaluation of Cancers in Chinese Diabetic Individuals: A Longitudinal Study), this paper explores the association between alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality, stroke, and coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients with abnormal glucose metabolism during a 10-year follow-up period to provide evidence for lifestyle counselling for these patients.

METHODS

First, baseline data were collected from the REACTION study cohort in Changchun, Jilin Province, China, in 2011-2012. A questionnaire survey was performed among patients with abnormal glucose metabolism aged over 40 years. The frequency of their alcohol intake, the type of alcohol, and the amount of alcohol consumed daily were surveyed. Physical and biochemical examinations were also performed. Then, through the Primary Public Health Service System of Jilin Province, we collected outcomes during the 10-year follow-up up to October 1, 2021, including all-cause mortality, stroke, and CHD. Next, we conducted logistic regression to analyze the relationship between baseline alcohol consumption and 10-year outcomes, and risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI were calculated by adjusting for different clinical indicators. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 4855 patients with T2DM and prediabetes (35.2% men and 64.8% women) were included in the baseline analysis. Outcomes of 3521 patients during the 10-year follow-up were obtained, including 227 deaths, 296 new-onset strokes and 445 new-onset CHD. Occasional drinking (less than once a week) was associated with a reduced 10-year all-cause mortality, with an RR of 0.511 (95% CI [0.266, 0.982]) after adjustment for age, gender, medical history, and lifestyles and an RR of 0.50 (95% CI [0.252, 0.993]) in a fully adjusted model including additional biochemical indicators. In addition, heavy alcohol consumption (≥30 g/day for men and ≥15 g/day for women) was significantly associated with an increased incidence of stroke, with an RR of 2.503 (95% CI [1.138, 5.506]) after the adjustment for age, gender, medical history, lifestyles, and biochemical indicators. No significant association was found between alcohol consumption and new-onset CHD.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with abnormal glucose metabolism, occasional drinking (less than once a week) reduces the risk of all-cause mortality, while heavy alcohol consumption (≥30 g/day for men and ≥15 g/day for women) significantly increases the risk of new-onset stroke. They should avoid heavy alcohol intake, but light alcohol consumption or occasional drinking is acceptable. Additionally, it is crucial to control blood glucose and blood pressure and keep performing physical activities.

Metformin, Empagliflozin, and Their Combination Modulate Ex-Vivo Macrophage Inflammatory Gene Expression

Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus is a complex, chronic illness characterized by persistent high blood glucose levels. Patients can be prescribed anti-diabetes drugs as single agents or in combination depending on the severity of their condition. Metformin and empagliflozin are two commonly prescribed anti-diabetes drugs which reduce hyperglycemia, however their direct effects on macrophage inflammatory responses alone or in combination are unreported. Here, we show that metformin and empagliflozin elicit proinflammatory responses on mouse bone-marrow-derived macrophages with single agent challenge, which are modulated when added in combination. In silico docking experiments suggested that empagliflozin can interact with both TLR2 and DECTIN1 receptors, and we observed that both empagliflozin and metformin increase expression of Tlr2 and Clec7a. Thus, findings from this study suggest that metformin and empagliflozin as single agents or in combination can directly modulate inflammatory gene expression in macrophages and upregulate the expression of their receptors.

Guidelines for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: JACC Guideline Comparison

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus. These high-risk patients benefit from aggressive risk factor management, with blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol treatment, glycemic control, kidney protection, and lifestyle intervention. There are several recommendation and guideline documents across cardiology, endocrinology, nephrology, and general medicine professional societies from the United States and Europe with recommendations for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although there are some noteworthy differences, particularly in risk stratification, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and blood pressure treatment targets, and the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, overall there is considerable alignment across recommendations from different professional societies.

HbA1c variability predicts cardiovascular complications in type 2 diabetes regardless of being at glycemic target

Background

HbA1c variability has emerged as risk factor for cardiovascular diseases in diabetes. However, the impact of HbA1c variability on cardiovascular diseases in subjects within the recommended HbA1c target has been relatively unexplored.

Methods

Using data from a large database, we studied 101,533 people with type 2 diabetes without cardiovascular diseases. HbA1c variability was expressed as quartiles of the standard deviation of HbA1c during three years (exposure phase). The primary composite outcome included non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality and was assessed during five years following the first three years of exposure to HbA1c variability (longitudinal phase). An expanded composite outcome including non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, coronary revascularization/reperfusion procedures, peripheral revascularization procedures, and all-cause mortality was also considered, as well as a series of specific cardiovascular complications. Cox models were adjusted for a large range of risk factors and results were expressed as adjusted hazard ratios.

Results

An association between HbA1c variability and all the outcomes considered was found. The correlation between HbA1c variability and cardiovascular complications development was confirmed in both the subgroups of subjects with a mean HbA1c ≤ 53 mmol/mol (recommended HbA1c target) or > 53 mmol/mol during the exposure phase. The risk related to HbA1c variability was higher in people with mean HbA1c ≤ 53 mmol/mol for the primary outcome (p for interaction 0.004), for the expanded secondary outcome (p for interaction 0.001) and for the stroke (p for interaction 0.001), even though HbA1c remained at the target during the follow-up.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that HbA1c variability may provide additional information for an optimized management of diabetes, particularly in people within the target of HbA1c.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12933-022-01445-4.

Cardiovascular risk profile and clinical characteristics of diabetic patients: a cross-sectional study in China

Background:

Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The aim of this study was to determine the CV risk in Chinese patients with T2D based on the 2019 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and CV diseases.

Methods:

A total of 25,411 patients with T2D, who participated in the study of China Cardiometabolic Registries 3B study, were included in our analysis. We assessed the proportions of patients in each CV risk category according to 2019 ESC/EASD guidelines.

Results:

Based on the 2019 ESC/EASD guidelines, 16,663 (65.6%), 1895 (7.5%), and 152 (0.6%) of patients were included in “very high risk,” “high risk,” and “moderate risk” categories, respectively. The proportions of patients in each category varied based on age, sex, body mass index, and duration. While 58.7% (9786/16,663) of elderly patients were classified to “very high risk” group, 89.6% (3732/4165) of patients with obesity were divided into “very high risk” group. Almost all patients with a duration of diabetes >10 years had “very high risk” or “high risk.” However, 6701 (26.4%) of Chinese T2D patients, who had shorter duration, and one or two risk factors, could not be included in any category (the “unclear risk” category).

Conclusions:

In China, most patients with T2D have “very high” or “high” CV risk based on 2019 ESC/EASD guidelines. However, the risk of patients in “unclear risk” group needs to be further classified.

Personalized approach for type 2 diabetes pharmacotherapy: where are we and where do we need to be?

INTRODUCTION

Cluster analysis has identified distinct groups of type 2 diabetes (T2D) subjects with distinct metabolic characteristics. Thus, personalizing pharmacologic therapy to individual phenotypic and pathophysiologic characteristics has potential to improve metabolic control and reduce risk of microvascular and macrovascular complications.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the classification of T2D, genetic markers, pathophysiology and natural history of T2D, the ABCDE approach to therapy, the ADA/EASD stepwise approach to therapy, available antidiabetic agents, and provide a more rational therapeutic approach based upon pathophysiology and cardiovascular and renal outcome trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Although insulin resistance is the earliest detectable abnormality, overt T2D does not occur in the absence of progressive beta cell failure. Because of the complex etiology of T2D (Ominous Octet), initiation of therapy with combined agents that (i) target both insulin resistance and beta cell dysfunction and (ii) prevent macrovascular, as well as microvascular, complications will be required. The ratio of C-peptide at 120 minutes (OGTT) to baseline C-peptide predicts with high sensitivity who will respond to metformin, the response to glucose-lowering agents and provides a useful tool to guide optimal glucose lowering therapy.

Metformin-Insulin versus Metformin-Sulfonylurea Combination Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes: A Comparative Study of Glycemic Control and Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare glycemic control and risk of cardiovascular outcomes of metformin-insulin versus metformin-sulfonylurea combination therapies in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative cross-sectional study in five tertiary level hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. We enrolled 321 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were on continuous treatment follow-up on either metformin-insulin or metformin-sulfonylurea combination therapy. We interviewed the participants and reviewed their medical records to investigate medication efficacy, safety, and adherence. The primary outcome measure was glycemic control and the secondary outcome measures were composite cardiovascular outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the total participants enrolled, 50.5% (n = 162) were those who received metformin-insulin and 49.5% (n = 159) metformin-sulfonylurea combination therapies for a median of 48 months follow-up. The reduction of Hb1Ac levels was comparable between the metformin-insulin (-1.04 ± 0.96%) and metformin-sulfonylurea (-1.02 ± 1.03%), p = 0.912. Patients who received metformin-sulfonylurea had 4.3 times more likely to have achieved target HbA1c level compared to those who received metformin-insulin, p < 0.001, adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% CI = 4.31[1.79-10.32]. Risk of composite cardiovascular outcomes was higher in metformin-insulin group (40.5% versus 34.0%), p = 0.021. Co-morbidities, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, and HbA1c had a significant association with composite cardiovascular outcomes. Reductions of bodyweight, HDL-C, LDL-C, triglycerides levels, and microvascular complications were different between the two groups, p < 0.05.

CONCLUSION

High proportion of patients who received metformin-sulfonylurea achieved target HbA1c level and had less composite cardiovascular outcomes compared to those who received metformin-insulin. However, these findings have to be confirmed with randomized control trials to determine risks associated with insulin use, while efficacy is maintained as second-line treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Antithrombotic therapy in diabetes: which, when, and for how long?

Cardiovascular disease remains the main cause of mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM) and also results in significant morbidity. Premature and more aggressive atherosclerotic disease, coupled with an enhanced thrombotic environment, contributes to the high vascular risk in individuals with DM. This prothrombotic milieu is due to increased platelet activity together with impaired fibrinolysis secondary to quantitative and qualitative changes in coagulation factors. However, management strategies to reduce thrombosis risk remain largely similar in individuals with and without DM. The current review covers the latest in the field of antithrombotic management in DM. The role of primary vascular prevention is discussed together with options for secondary prevention following an ischaemic event in different clinical scenarios including coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral artery diseases. Antiplatelet therapy combinations as well as combination of antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents are examined in both the acute phase and long term, including management of individuals with sinus rhythm and those with atrial fibrillation. The difficulties in tailoring therapy according to the variable atherothrombotic risk in different individuals are emphasized, in addition to the varying risk within an individual secondary to DM duration, presence of complications and predisposition to bleeding events. This review provides the reader with an up-to-date guide for antithrombotic management of individuals with DM and highlights gaps in knowledge that represent areas for future research, aiming to improve clinical outcome in this high-risk population.

[Gliflozins-in future cardioprotective drugs?]

Gliflozine (inhibitors of sodium-dependent glucose cotransporters, SGLT) are medications which were originally used in the treatment of diabetes mellitus and are assigned to the group of antidiabetics. Since November 2020 the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin has been approved for the treatment of heart failure (with reduced left ventricular function) for the first time, independent of the diabetes status. The substance empagliflozin has just received an approval for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Therefore, different gliflozins are now available not only for the treatment of diabetes mellitus but also for the treatment of cardiac insufficiency. This article mediates fundamental knowledge on the gliflozins and provides an overview of the importance in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus as well as cardioprotective and nephroprotective functions.

A healthy lifestyle mitigates the risk of heart disease related to type 2 diabetes: a prospective nested case-control study in a nationwide Swedish twin cohort

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We aimed to examine the association between type 2 diabetes and major subtypes of heart disease, to assess the role of genetic and early-life familial environmental factors in this association and to explore whether and to what extent a healthy lifestyle mitigates the risk of heart disease related to type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In this prospective nested case-control study based on the Swedish Twin Registry, 41,463 twin individuals who were aged ≥40 and heart disease-free were followed up for 16 years (from 1998 to 2014) to detect incident heart disease. Type 2 diabetes was ascertained from self-report, the National Patient Registry and glucose-lowering medication use. Heart disease diagnosis (including coronary heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias and heart failure) and onset age were identified from the National Patient Registry. Healthy lifestyle-related factors consisted of being a non-smoker, no/mild alcohol consumption, regular physical activity and being non-overweight. Participants were divided into three groups according to the number of lifestyle-related factors: (1) unfavourable (participants who had no or only one healthy lifestyle factor); (2) intermediate (any two or three); and (3) favourable (four). Generalised estimating equation models for unmatched case-control design and conditional logistic regression for co-twin control design were used in data analyses.

RESULTS

Of all participants, 2304 (5.5%) had type 2 diabetes at baseline. During the observation period, 9262 (22.3%) had any incident heart disease. In unmatched case-control analyses and co-twin control analyses, the multi-adjusted OR and 95% CI of heart disease related to type 2 diabetes was 4.36 (3.95, 4.81) and 4.89 (3.88, 6.16), respectively. The difference in ORs from unmatched case-control analyses vs co-twin control analyses was statistically significant (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.42, 1.73; p < 0.001). In stratified analyses by type 2 diabetes, compared with an unfavourable lifestyle, an intermediate lifestyle or a favourable lifestyle was associated with a significant 32% (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.49, 0.93) or 56% (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.30, 0.63) decrease in heart disease risk among patients with type 2 diabetes, respectively. There were significant additive and multiplicative interactions between lifestyle and type 2 diabetes on heart disease.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Type 2 diabetes is associated with more than fourfold increased risk of heart disease. The association still remains statistically significant, even after fully controlling for genetic and early-life familial environmental factors. However, greater adherence to a healthy lifestyle may significantly mitigate the risk of heart disease related to type 2 diabetes. Graphical abstract.

Cardiovascular safety and efficacy of metformin-SGLT2i versus metformin-sulfonylureas in type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Diabetes is a serious threat to global health and among the top 10 causes of death, with nearly half a billion people living with it worldwide. Treating patients with diabetes tend to become more challenging due to the progressive nature of the disease. The role and benefits of combination therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes are well-documented, while the comparative safety and efficacy among the different combination options have not been elucidated. We aimed to systematically synthesize the evidence on the comparative cardiovascular safety and efficacy of combination therapy with metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors versus metformin-sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 15 August 2019 without restriction in the year of publication. We included randomized controlled trials of patients with type 2 diabetes who were on metformin-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors or metformin-sulphonylureas combination therapy at least for a year. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events, and the secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, hypoglycemia, and changes in glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. We used a random-effects meta-analysis model to estimate mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We followed PICOS description model for defining eligibility and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines for reporting results. Of 3,190 citations, we included nine trials involving 10,974 participants. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (risk ration [RR] = 0.93, 95% CI [0.52, 1.67]), serious adverse events (RR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.79, 1.17]) and adverse events (RR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.99, 1.02]) between the two, but in hypoglycemia (RR = 0.13, 95% CI [0.10, 0.17], P < 0.001). Participants taking metformin-sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors showed a significantly greater reduction in HbA1c (mean difference [MD] = − 0.10%, 95% CI [− 0.17, − 0.03], body weight (MD = − 4.57 kg, 95% CI [− 4.74, − 4.39], systolic blood pressure (MD = − 4.77 mmHg, 95% CI [− 5.39, − 4.16]), diastolic blood pressure (MD = − 2.07 mmHg, 95% CI [− 2.74, − 1.40], and fasting plasma glucose (MD = − 0.55 mmol/L, 95% CI [− 0.69, − 0.41]), p < 0.001. Combination therapy of metformin and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors is a safe and efficacious alternative to combination therapy of metformin and sulphonylureas for patients with type 2 diabetes who are at risk of cardiovascular comorbidity. However, there remains a need for additional long-term randomized controlled trials as available studies are very limited and heterogeneous.

Incidence and costs of cardiovascular events in Spanish patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a comparison with general population, 2015

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular (CV) disease affects a high percentage of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), especially in the hospital setting, impacting on mortality, complications, quality of life and use of health resources. The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence, mean length of hospital stay (LOHS) and costs attributable to hospital admissions due to CV events in patients with T2DM versus patients without diabetes mellitus (non-DM) in Spain.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Retrospective observational study based on the Spanish National Hospital Discharge Database for 2015. Hospital admissions for patients aged ≥35 years with a diagnosis of CV death, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction (AMI), non-fatal stroke, unstable angina, heart failure and revascularization were evaluated. The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (250.x0 or 250.x2) coding was used to classify records of patients with T2DM. For each CV complication, the hospital discharges of the two groups, T2DM and non-DM, were precisely matched and the number of hospital discharges, patients, LOHS and mean cost were quantified. Additional analyses assessed the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Of the 276 925 hospital discharges analyzed, 34.71% corresponded to patients with T2DM. A higher incidence was observed in all the CV complications studied in the T2DM population, with a relative risk exceeding 2 in all cases. The mean LOHS (days) was longer in the T2DM versus the non-DM group for: non-fatal AMI (7.63 vs 7.02, p<0.001), unstable angina (5.11 vs 4.78, p=0.009) and revascularization (7.96 vs 7.57, p<0.001). The mean cost per hospital discharge was higher in the T2DM versus the non-DM group for non-fatal AMI (€6891 vs €6876, p=0.029) and unstable angina (€3386 vs €3304, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with T2DM had a higher incidence and number of hospital admissions per patient due to CV events versus the non-DM population. This generates a significant clinical and economic burden given the longer admission stay and higher costs associated with some of these complications.

Primary versus secondary cardiorenal prevention in type 2 diabetes: Which newer anti-hyperglycaemic drug matters?

We are observing a resurgence of major diabetic vascular complications after a period of dramatic decrease during the period 1990 to 2010. The classical division of cardiovascular prevention into primary (with an event) and secondary (without an event) is largely used to describe cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes (T2D); however, there is evidence that the cardiovascular risk in diabetes may range from highest in patients who experienced a previous cardiovascular event to mild in patients with the main risk factors at target. Herein, we present details of the 14 cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) published to date, including the total population investigated, and their separation into primary (T2D + multiple risk factors) and secondary prevention (T2D + established cardiovascular disease [CVD]) populations as detailed within the trials. We also summarize evidence for the effects of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) and sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) versus placebo on the risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE), heart failure (HF) and diabetic kidney disease (DKD). In primary prevention, SGLT-2i reduce both the risk of hospitalization for HF and progression of DKD; in secondary prevention, SGLT-2i are effective on the three endpoints, DPP-4i are neutral, while GLP1-RA show mixed results.

Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease

Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in people with types 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. Although beneficial roles for strict control of hyperglycemia have been suggested, such a strategy is not without liabilities. Specifically, the risk of hypoglycemia and its consequences remain an omnipresent threat with such approaches. The advent of the CVOT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials) for new antidiabetes mellitus treatments has uncovered unexpected benefits of cardiovascular protection in some of the new classes of agents, such as the GLP-1 RAs (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists) and the SGLT-2 (sodium-glucose cotransporter-2) inhibitors. Further, state-of-the-art approaches, such as antibodies to PCKSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9); RNA therapeutics; agents targeting distinct components of the immune/inflammatory response; and novel small molecules that block the actions of RAGE (receptor for advanced glycation end products) signaling, also hold potential as new therapies for diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. Finally, interventions such as weight loss, through bariatric surgery, may hold promise for benefit in diabetes and cardiovascular disease. In this Brief Review, some of the novel approaches and emerging targets for the treatment of diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease are discussed. Ultimately, identification of the optimal timing and combinations of such interventions, especially in the context of personalized approaches, together with emerging disease-modifying agents, holds great promise to reduce the burden that diabetes poses to the cardiovascular system.

Series: Implications of the recent CVOTs in type 2 diabetes: Impact on guidelines: The endocrinologist point of view

The management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) essentially consists in controlling hyperglycaemia, together with other vascular risk factors, in order to reduce the incidence and severity of diabetic complications. Whereas glucose control using classical glucose-lowering agents (except perhaps metformin) largely fails to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD), two new pharmacological classes, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is), have proven their ability to reduce major cardiovascular events in patients with established CVD. Furthermore, SGLT2is reduced the risk of hospitalisation for heart failure and the progression of renal disease. According to the 2018 ADA-EASD consensus report, the choice of a second agent to be added to metformin should now be driven by the presence or not of atherosclerotic CVD, heart failure or renal disease, all conditions that should promote the use of a SGLT2i or a GLP-1 RA with proven efficacy. Thus endocrinologists have to face a new paradigm in the management of T2DM, with a shift from a primary objective of glucose control without inducing hypoglycaemia and weight gain to a goal of cardiovascular and renal protection, largely independent of glucose control. Of note, however, the latter remains crucial to reduce the risk of microangiopathy.

Is type 2 diabetes mellitus a coronary heart disease equivalent or not? Do not just enjoy the debate and forget the patient!

In the last several years there has been a large debate whether patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) should be treated as those with high or very high cardiovascular risk, and whether T2DM should be considered as equivalent to coronary heart disease (CHD). It all started in the 2001 in National Cholesterol Education Program - Adult Treatment Panel III recommendations, and the knowledge has changed on this issue at least several times. But the main problem is that due to these inconsistencies and different approaches to the cardiovascular risk of T2DM patients, we have more and more patients with T2DM not effectively treated, and diabetologists mostly focus on glucose (glucocentric approach), often forgetting about the overall cardiovascular risk of those patients. In this review we discuss the above-mentioned topic, try to give some practical suggestions, and raise the issue of whether we should start a discussion on treating all patients with T2DM as those at very high cardiovascular risk, or to at least to try to unify the definition and find such variables/risk factors which are easy to measure to help physicians to treat those patients optimally. We have obviously discussed these issues in the context of new European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) Guidelines 2019.