Is the Way to Someone's Heart Through Their Stomach? The Cardiorenal Paradox of Incretin-Based Hypoglycemic Drugs in Heart Failure

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists and Heart Failure

With worsening epidemiological trends for both the incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF) worldwide, it is critical to implement optimal prevention and treatment strategies for patients with these comorbidities, either alone or concomitantly. Several guidelines and consensus statements have recommended glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors as add-ons to lifestyle interventions with or without metformin in those at high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. However, these recommendations are either silent about HF or fail to differentiate between the prevention of HF in those at risk versus the treatment of individuals with manifest HF. Furthermore, these documents do not differentiate among those with different HF phenotypes. This distinction, even though important, may not be critical for sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors in view of the consistent data for benefit for both atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease– and HF-related outcomes that have emerged from the regulatory-mandated cardiovascular outcome trials for all sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors and the recent DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction)demonstrating the benefit of dapagliflozin on HF-related outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction with or without T2DM. However, the distinction may be crucial for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and other antihyperglycemic agents. Indeed, in several of the new statements, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are suggested treatment not only for patients with T2DM and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but also in those with manifest HF, despite a lack of evidence for the latter recommendation. Although glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists may be appropriate to use in patients at risk for HF, mechanistic insights and observations from randomized trials suggest no clear benefit on HF-related outcomes and even uncertainty regarding the safety in those with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Conversely, theoretical rationales suggest that these agents may benefit patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. Considering that millions of patients with T2DM have HF, these concerns have public health implications that necessitate the thoughtful use of these therapies. Achieving this aim will require dedicated trials with these drugs in both patients who have HF with reduced ejection fraction and HF with preserved ejection fraction with T2DM to assess their efficacy, safety, and risk-benefit profile.

GLP-1 mediated diuresis and natriuresis are blunted in heart failure and restored by selective afferent renal denervation

Background

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) induces diuresis and natriuresis. Previously we have shown that GLP-1 activates afferent renal nerve to increase efferent renal sympathetic nerve activity that negates the diuresis and natriuresis as a negative feedback mechanism in normal rats. However, renal effects of GLP-1 in heart failure (HF) has not been elucidated. The present study was designed to assess GLP-1-induced diuresis and natriuresis in rats with HF and its interactions with renal nerve activity.

Methods

HF was induced in rats by coronary artery ligation. The direct recording of afferent renal nerve activity (ARNA) with intrapelvic injection of GLP-1 and total renal sympathetic nerve activity (RSNA) with intravenous infusion of GLP-1 were performed. GLP-1 receptor expression in renal pelvis, densely innervated by afferent renal nerve, was assessed by real-time PCR and western blot analysis. In separate group of rats after coronary artery ligation selective afferent renal denervation (A-RDN) was performed by periaxonal application of capsaicin, then intravenous infusion of GLP-1-induced diuresis and natriuresis were evaluated.

Results

In HF, compared to sham-operated control; (1) response of increase in ARNA to intrapelvic injection of GLP-1 was enhanced (3.7 ± 0.4 vs. 2.0 ± 0.4 µV s), (2) GLP-1 receptor expression was increased in renal pelvis, (3) response of increase in RSNA to intravenous infusion of GLP-1 was enhanced (132 ± 30% vs. 70 ± 16% of the baseline level), and (4) diuretic and natriuretic responses to intravenous infusion of GLP-1 were blunted (urine flow 53.4 ± 4.3 vs. 78.6 ± 4.4 µl/min/gkw, sodium excretion 7.4 ± 0.8 vs. 10.9 ± 1.0 µEq/min/gkw). A-RDN induced significant increases in diuretic and natriuretic responses to GLP-1 in HF (urine flow 96.0 ± 1.9 vs. 53.4 ± 4.3 µl/min/gkw, sodium excretion 13.6 ± 1.4 vs. 7.4 ± 0.8 µEq/min/gkw).

Conclusions

The excessive activation of neural circuitry involving afferent and efferent renal nerves suppresses diuretic and natriuretic responses to GLP-1 in HF. These pathophysiological responses to GLP-1 might be involved in the interaction between incretin-based medicines and established HF condition. RDN restores diuretic and natriuretic effects of GLP-1 and thus has potential beneficial therapeutic implication for diabetic HF patients.

Effects of antidiabetic drugs on left ventricular function/dysfunction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although a variety of antidiabetic drugs have significant protective action on the cardiovascular system, it is still unclear which antidiabetic drugs can improve ventricular remodeling and fundamentally delay the process of heart failure. The purpose of this network meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of sodium glucose cotransporter type 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, metformin (MET), sulfonylurea (SU) and thiazolidinediones (TZDs) in improving left ventricular (LV) remodeling in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

We searched articles published before October 18, 2019, regardless of language or data, in 4 electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. We included randomized controlled trials in this network meta-analysis, as well as a small number of cohort studies. The differences in the mean changes in left ventricular echocardiographic parameters between the treatment group and control group were evaluated.

RESULTS

The difference in the mean change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) between GLP-1 agonists and placebo in treatment effect was greater than zero (MD = 2.04% [0.64%, 3.43%]); similar results were observed for the difference in the mean change in LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) between SGLT-2 inhibitors and placebo (MD = - 3.3 mm [5.31, - 5.29]), the difference in the mean change in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) between GLP-1 agonists and placebo (MD = - 4.39 ml [- 8.09, - 0.7]); the difference in the mean change in E/e' between GLP-1 agonists and placebo (MD = - 1.05[- 1.78, - 0.32]); and the difference in the mean change in E/e' between SGLT-2 inhibitors and placebo (MD = - 1.91[- 3.39, - 0.43]).

CONCLUSIONS

GLP-1 agonists are more significantly associated with improved LVEF, LVESV and E/e', SGLT-2 inhibitors are more significantly associated with improved LVEDD and E/e', and DPP-4 inhibitors are more strongly associated with a negative impact on LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) than are placebos. SGLT-2 inhibitors are superior to other drugs in pairwise comparisons.

Managing Diabetes and Preventing Heart Disease: Have We Found a Safe and Effective Agent?

OBJECTIVE

While improving glycemic control with antihyperglycemics has been demonstrated to reduce microvascular complications, the benefits of reduction in cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) have not been demonstrated with older agents. This article reviews current evidence of the CV outcomes of newer antihyperglycemics approved since 2008.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed articles were identified from MEDLINE (1966 to October 31, 2018) using search terms exenatide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, alogliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), and stroke.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

A total of 12 pertinent double-blinded randomized controlled trials were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Liraglutide, empagliflozin, and canagliflozin have been shown in patients with CV diseases and high risk of developing CV disease to be superior to placebo in improving CV outcomes. Saxagliptin and alogliptin have both been demonstrated to increase HF hospitalization, whereas sitagliptin has not. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: In contrast to older-generation antihyperglycemics, selected new antihyperglycemic agents have been shown to be superior to placebo in improving CV outcomes. Clinicians may now be able to provide high-risk patients agents that not only help in providing glycemic control, but also prevent both macrovascular and microvascular complications.

CONCLUSION

Liraglutide, empagliflozin, and canagliflozin have been shown to be superior to placebo in improving CV outcomes. However, there are differences among agents in terms of HF and peripheral arterial disease outcomes. Future studies should focus on evaluating other clinical CV outcomes in patients without existing CVD and perhaps single drug regimens for diabetes.

Molecular and clinical roles of incretin-based drugs in patients with heart failure

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors produce some beneficial and deleterious effects in diabetic patients not mediated by their glycemic lowering effects, and there is a need for better understanding of the molecular basis of these effects. They possess antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects with some direct vasodilatory action (animal and human trial data) that may indirectly influence heart failure (HF). Unlike GLP-1R agonists, signaling for HF adverse effects was observed with two DPP-4 inhibitors, saxagliptin and alogliptin. Accordingly, these drugs should be used with caution in heart failure patients.

Have we really demonstrated the cardiovascular safety of anti-hyperglycaemic drugs? Rethinking the concepts of macrovascular and microvascular disease in type 2 diabetes

A primary goal of the treatment of type 2 mellitus is the prevention of morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease; however, anti-hyperglycaemic drugs have the capacity to cause deleterious effects on the circulation, a risk that is not adequately reflected by the endpoints selected for emphasis in large-scale clinical trials that are designed to evaluate cardiovascular safety. The primary endpoint of the large-scale studies mandated by regulatory authorities focuses only on 3 to 4 events that depict only a limited view of the circulatory system. One of the most serious adverse effects of many glucose-lowering drugs is new-onset or worsening heart failure. Most antidiabetic drugs can aggravate heart failure because they exert anti-natriuretic actions, and possibly, adverse effects on the myocardium. In addition, certain anti-hyperglycaemic agents may worsen peripheral vascular disease and trigger cardiac arrhythmias that may lead to sudden death. Initiation of treatment with antidiabetic medications may also cause deterioration of the function of the kidneys, retina and peripheral nerves, which are typically regarded as reflecting microvascular disease. The current confusion about the cardiovascular effects of glucose-lowering drugs may be exacerbated by conceptual uncertainties about the classification of large and small vessel disease in determining the clinical course of diabetes. Physicians should not be falsely reassured by claims that a new treatment appears to have passed a narrowly defined regulatory test. The management of people with diabetes often carries with it the risk of important cardiovascular consequences, even for drugs that do not overtly increase the risk of myocardial infarction or stroke.

Augmentation of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor signalling by neprilysin inhibition: potential implications for patients with heart failure

Augmentation of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor signalling is an established approach to the treatment of type 2 diabetes. However, endogenous GLP-1 and long-acting GLP-1 receptor analogues are degraded not only by dipeptidyl peptidase-4, but also by neprilysin. This observation raises the possibilities that endogenous GLP-1 contributes to the clinical effects of neprilysin inhibition and that patients concurrently treated with sacubitril/valsartan and incretin-based drugs may experience important drug-drug interactions. Specifically, potentiation of GLP-1 receptor signalling may underlie the antihyperglycaemic actions of sacubitril/valsartan. Neprilysin inhibitors may also be able to augment the effects of long-acting GLP-1 analogues to increase heart rate and myocardial cyclic AMP, and thus, potentiate these deleterious actions; if so, concomitant treatment with GLP-1 receptor agonists may limit the efficacy of neprilysin inhibitors in patients with both heart failure and diabetes. For patients not concurrently treated with GLP-1 analogues, the action of neprilysin to enhance the effects of GLP-1 may be particularly relevant in the brain, where augmentation of GLP-1 and other endogenous peptides may act to inhibit amyloid-induced neuroinflammation and cytotoxicity and improve memory formation and executive functioning. Experimentally, neprilysin inhibitors may also potentiate the effects of endogenous GLP-1 and GLP-1 receptor agonists on blood vessels and the kidney. The role of neprilysin in the metabolism of endogenous GLP-1 and long-acting GLP-1 analogues points to a range of potential pathophysiological effects that may be clinically relevant to patients with heart failure, with or without diabetes.

Glucose-Lowering Therapies and Heart Failure in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Mechanistic Links, Clinical Data, and Future Directions

Diabetes mellitus independently increases the risk of and mortality from heart failure in a manner that is well established but inadequately understood. Glycemic optimization does not eliminate this risk, and measures of glycemic control are insufficient markers of cardiovascular risk. In response to a regulatory guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration, glucose-lowering agents are now routinely evaluated in large cardiovascular outcome trials. These recent trial experiences of novel and established glucose-lowering therapies have shown variable risks and benefits with respect to heart failure. Cardiovascular outcome trials have increasingly included heart failure events as either a component of the primary end point or a secondary adjudicated end point. We comprehensively review each established and novel currently marketed glucose-lowering therapy, their biological targets, mechanisms of action, and relationships with heart failure. We then highlight gaps in available evidence and directions for future research regarding the ascertainment of heart failure-related data in the evaluation of emerging glucose-lowering therapies.

Do DPP-4 Inhibitors Cause Heart Failure Events by Promoting Adrenergically Mediated Cardiotoxicity? Clues From Laboratory Models and Clinical Trials

RATIONALE

DPP-4 (dipeptidyl peptidase-4) inhibitors have increased the risk of heart failure events in both randomized clinical trials and observational studies, but the mechanisms that underlie their deleterious effect remain to be elucidated. Previous work has implicated a role of these drugs to promote cardiac fibrosis.

OBJECTIVE

This article postulates that DPP-4 inhibitors increase the risk of heart failure events by activating the sympathetic nervous system to stimulate cardiomyocyte cell death, and it crystallizes the findings from both experimental studies and clinical trials that support the hypothesis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Inhibition of DPP-4 not only potentiates the actions of GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1; which can increase myocardial cAMP) but also potentiates the actions of SDF-1 (stromal cell-derived factor 1), NPY (neuropeptide Y), and substance P to activate the sympathetic nervous system and stimulate β-adrenergic receptors to cause cardiomyocyte apoptosis, presumably through a CaMKII (Ca++/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II) pathway. An action of SDF-1 to interfere with cAMP and protein kinase A signaling may account for the absence of a clinically overt positive chronotropic effect. This conceptual framework is supported by the apparent ability of β-blocking drugs to attenuate the increased risk of DPP-4 inhibitors in a large-scale clinical trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Sympathetic activation may explain the increased risk of heart failure produced by DPP-4 inhibitors. The proposed mechanism has major implications for clinical care because in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, DPP-4 inhibitors are widely prescribed, but β-blockers are underutilized because of fears that they might mask hypoglycemia.