Effects of Liraglutide on Worsening Renal Function Among Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From the FIGHT Trial

Effects of finerenone and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of finerenone and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and the relative cardiovascular benefits in patients with or without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease for different outcomes with these classes of drugs.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase from January 1, 2000, to December 30, 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials. The primary outcomes were the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death (MACE); hospitalization for heart failure (HHF); and a composite of renal outcomes. The results were reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

In total, we identified 11 trials and 73,927 participants, 13,847 (18.7%) in finerenone trials and 60,080 (81.3%) in GLP1-RA trials. Finerenone reduced the risk of MACE by 13% (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.95; P = 0.003), while GLP1-RA reduced the risk in a similar magnitude by 13% (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83-0.92; P < 0.001). For both drug classes, the effect on lowering the risk of MACE was restricted to approximately 14% in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.90; P < 0.001), whereas no effect was observed in patients without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.02; P = 0.12). GLP1-RA reduced myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death more than finerenone (which appeared to have no effect). Only finerenone was beneficial for reducing the risk of HHF (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.92; P = 0.003). Both finerenone (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.92; P < 0.001) and GLP1-RA (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.86; P < 0.001) reduced the risk of kidney disease progression, including macroalbuminuria, and finerenone was superior to GLP1-RA in delaying deterioration of kidney function.

CONCLUSIONS

Finerenone and GLP1-RA lead to a risk reduction in MACE to a similar degree in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. For both drug classes, the effect on lowering the risk of progression of kidney disease was also in a similar magnitude in patients with T2DM, whereas only finerenone had a significant protective effect against HHF. Treatment decisions for patients with T2DM should consider the clinical benefit profiles of each drug.

Drug Therapies for Diabetes

The treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) necessitates a multifaceted approach that combines behavioral and pharmacological interventions to mitigate complications and sustain a high quality of life. Treatment encompasses the management of glucose levels, weight, cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidities, and associated complications through medication and lifestyle adjustments. Metformin, a standard in diabetes management, continues to serve as the primary, first-line oral treatment across all age groups due to its efficacy, versatility in combination therapy, and cost-effectiveness. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) offer notable benefits for HbA1c and weight reduction, with significant cardiovascular benefits. Sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors (SGLT-2i) lower glucose levels independently of insulin while conferring notable benefits for cardiovascular, renal, and heart-failure outcomes. Combined therapies emphasizing early and sustained glycemic control are promising options for diabetes management. As insulin therapy remains pivotal, metformin and non-insulin agents such as GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i offer compelling options. Notably, exciting novel treatments like the dual GLP-1/ glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonist show promise for substantially reducing glycated hemoglobin and body weight. This comprehensive review highlights the evolving landscape of pharmacotherapy in diabetes, the drugs currently available for treating diabetes, their effectiveness and efficacy, the impact on target organs, and side effects. This work also provides insights that can support the customization of treatment strategies.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.

Patient Phenotypes and SGLT-2 Inhibition in Type 2 Diabetes: Insights From the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial

OBJECTIVES

Using latent class analysis (LCA) of EMPA-REG OUTCOME (BI 10773 [Empagliflozin] Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients), this study identified distinct phenotypes in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular (CV) disease and explored treatment effects across phenotypes.

BACKGROUND

In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, empagliflozin reduced risk of CV death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 34% in subjects with T2D and CV disease. Among such subjects, there has been limited evaluation of clinical phenotypes.

METHODS

Overall, 7,020 participants were treated with empagliflozin 25 mg, 10 mg, or placebo. For this post hoc analysis, participants were randomly separated into training (two-thirds of patients) and validation (remaining one-third) sets. LCA identified 3 phenotype groups (n = 6,639 with complete data). The phenotype association with CV death or HHF and empagliflozin treatment effect across groups was explored by Cox regression (in training and validation sets).

RESULTS

In the training set, phenotype group 1 (n = 1,463; 33.1%) included younger patients with shorter T2D duration and the highest estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Phenotype group 2 (n = 1,172; 26.5%) included more women with non-coronary artery disease. Phenotype group 3 (n = 1,785; 40.4%) included older patients with advanced coronary disease and the lowest eGFR. The risk of CV death varied across phenotypes (group 2 vs. 1: hazard ratio [HR]; 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23 to 2.71; group 3 vs. 1: HR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.30 to 2.67) with similar patterns for CV death or HHF. Consistent treatment effects of empagliflozin were seen across phenotypes in the training and validation sets (interaction p > 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Among participants with T2D, this study identified 3 phenotypes with varying CV risk. The treatment effect across phenotypes reaffirms the robustness of CV death or HHF reduction with empagliflozin. (BI 10773 [Empagliflozin] Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients [EMPA-REG OUTCOME]; NCT01131676).

Growth differentiation factor-15, treatment with liraglutide, and clinical outcomes among patients with heart failure

Aims

Associations between growth differentiation factor‐15 (GDF‐15), cardiovascular outcomes, and exercise capacity among patients with a recent hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are unknown. We utilized data from the ‘Functional Impact of GLP‐1 for Heart Failure Treatment’ (FIGHT) study to address these knowledge gaps.

Methods and results

FIGHT was a randomized clinical trial testing the effect of liraglutide (vs. placebo) among 300 participants with HFrEF and a recent HHF. Multivariable regression models evaluated associations between baseline GDF‐15 and change in GDF‐15 (per 1000 pg/mL increase from baseline to 30 days) with clinical outcomes (at 180 days) and declines in exercise capacity (6 min walk distance ≥ 45 m). At baseline (n = 249), median GDF‐15 value was 3221 pg/mL (interquartile range 1938–5511 pg/mL). Participants in the highest tertile of baseline GDF‐15 were more likely to be male and have more co‐morbidities. After adjustment, an increase in GDF‐15 over 30 days was associated with higher risk of death or HHF [hazard ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11–1.64]. In addition, higher baseline GDF‐15 (per 1000 pg/mL until 6000 pg/mL) and an increase in GDF‐15 over 30 days were associated with declining 6 min walk distance (odds ratio 1.26, 95% CI 1.02–1.55 and odds ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.12–1.69, respectively). GDF‐15 levels remained stable among participants randomized to liraglutide.

Conclusions

An increase in GDF‐15 over 30 days among patients in HFrEF was independently associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and declining exercise capacity. These results support the value of longitudinal GDF‐15 trajectory in informing risk of heart failure disease progression.

Prediction of heart failure outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: Validation of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Risk Score for Heart Failure in Diabetes (TRS-HFDM ) in patients in the ACCORD trial

AIM

To investigate the ability of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Risk Score for Heart Failure in Diabetes (TRS-HF_DM ) to stratify patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and high cardiovascular risk for heart failure (HF) hospitalization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used data from the control group of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group (ACCORD) trial (n = 5123; mean follow-up 4.8 years). The TRS-HF_DM includes: prior HF (2 points), atrial fibrillation (1 point), coronary artery disease (1 point), estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m² (1 point), and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (>300 mg/g: 2 points; 30-300 mg/g: 1 point). We evaluated the discrimination (Harrell's C-index) and calibration (Nam-D'Agostino calibration statistic) of the TRS-HF_DM with regard to time to HF hospitalization or death due to HF.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 62.8 ± 6.6 years, and 38% were women. The prevalences of TRS-HF_DM 0, 1, 2, 3 and ≥4 were 42.1%, 34.9%, 14.6%, 6.0% and 2.5%, respectively. Increasing TRS-HF_DM corresponded to an increasing HF risk: 1.3 per 1000 person-years for a TRS-HF_DM of 0 to 64.7 per 1000 person-years for TRS-HF_DM of ≥4. The TRS-HF_DM demonstrated robust discrimination of HF outcomes (C-index 0.78). Furthermore, the score was well calibrated for HF outcomes (calibration statistic P = 0.13). Similar results were seen in participants without baseline HF (C-index 0.75).

CONCLUSION

The TRS-HF_DM discriminates HF-specific risk among people with T2DM. The use of TRS-HF_DM to identify those who would maximally benefit from therapies that reduce HF risk warrants evaluation.

Systematic Review of Glucagon-Like Peptide One Receptor Agonist Liraglutide of Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

The major cardiovascular outcome trials on glucagon-like peptide one-receptor agonists have examined its effect on hospitalization of subjects with heart failure; however, very limited trials have been conducted on subjects with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (r- LVEF) as a primary outcome.

OBJECTIVE

We have conducted a systematic review of two major (FIGHT and LIVE) placebo-controlled trials of liraglutide and its clinical effect on the ejection fraction of subjects with heart failure.

METHODS

Medline data was retrieved for trials involving liraglutide from 2012 to 2020. The inclusion criteria for trials were: subjects with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), subjects with heart failure with rLVEF, major trials (phase II or III) on liraglutide, trials included liraglutide with defined efficacy primary outcome of patients with heart failure with rLVEF. The search was limited to the English language, whereby two trials [FIGHT and LIVE] had been included and two trials were excluded due to different primary outcomes. Participants (541) had been randomized for either liraglutide or placebo for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

In the FIGHT trial the primary intention-to-treat, sensitivity, and diabetes subgroup analyses have shown no significant between-group difference in the global rank scores (mean rank of 146 in the liraglutide group versus 156 in the placebo group; Wilcoxon rank-sum P=.31), number of deaths, re-hospitalizations for heart failure, or the composite of death or change in NT-pro BNP level (P= .94). In the LIVE trial, the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to week 24 was not significantly different between treatment groups. The overall discontinuation rate of liraglutide was high in the FIGHT trial (29%, 86) as compared to that in the LIVE trial (11.6%, 28).

CONCLUSION

FIGHT and LIVE trials have demonstrated that liraglutide use in subjects with heart failure and rLVEF was implicated with an increased adverse risk of heart failure-related outcomes.

Liraglutide in the treatment of heart failure: insight from FIGHT and LIVE

There are many glucose-lowering agents used in patients with heart failure, showing mixed results, this study was conducted to determine the effect of liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, on the treatment of patients with heart failure. Patients from the FIGHT and LIVE trials were included, all overlapped data were summarized and described. No significant changes from baseline in left ventricular ejection fraction, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, hemoglobin A1c, heart rate, left ventricular end-systolic volume index, left ventricular end-diastolic volume index, and 6 min walk test were observed in FIGHT. In LIVE, liraglutide significantly decreased hemoglobin A1c and inceased 6 min walk test and increased heart rate and serious cardiac adverse events, and there were no statistical differences in left ventricular ejection fraction, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, left ventricular end-systolic volume index, and left ventricular end-diastolic volume index. In this study, we found that there is not enough reason to support the use of liraglutide in patients with heart failure, and importantly, the safety of liraglutide in this particular population remains uncertain. Enhanced recognition the risks and benefits of liraglutide would help guide therapeutic decisions in patients with heart failure.