Report from the CVOT Summit 2020: new cardiovascular and renal outcomes

The potential of precision diabetology for type 2 diabetes treatment-evidence from a meta-regression for all-cause mortality from large cardiovascular outcome trials

AIMS

Two prerequisites must be met for the precision treatment approach to be beneficial for treated individuals. First, there must be treatment heterogeneity; second, in case of treatment heterogeneity, clinical predictors to identify people who would benefit from one treatment more than from others must be available. There is an established meta-regression approach to assess these two prerequisites that relies on measuring the variability of a clinical outcome after treatment in placebo-controlled randomised trials. We recently applied this approach to the treatment of type 2 diabetes for the clinical outcomes of glycaemic control and body weight and repeat it for the clinical outcome of all-cause mortality.

METHODS

We performed a meta-regression analysis using digitalized individual participant information on time to death from 10 large cardiovascular outcome trials (7563 deaths from 99,746 participants) on DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT-2 inhibitors with respect to the variability of all-cause mortality and its potential predictors after treatment.

RESULTS

The adjusted difference in log(SD) values of time to death between the verum and placebo arms was -0.036 (95%-CI: -0.059; -0.013), showing larger variability of time to death in the placebo arms. No clinical predictors were found to explain treatment heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests that the potential of the precision treatment approach in type 2 diabetes is low, at least with regard to improvement of all-cause mortality in population with high cardiovascular risk. This extends our previous findings for the clinical outcomes of glycaemic control and body weight.

CVOT Summit Report 2023: new cardiovascular, kidney, and metabolic outcomes

The 9th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial (CVOT) Summit: Congress on Cardiovascular, Kidney, and Metabolic Outcomes was held virtually on November 30-December 1, 2023. This reference congress served as a platform for in-depth discussions and exchange on recently completed outcomes trials including dapagliflozin (DAPA-MI), semaglutide (SELECT and STEP-HFpEF) and bempedoic acid (CLEAR Outcomes), and the advances they represent in reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), improving metabolic outcomes, and treating obesity-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). A broad audience of endocrinologists, diabetologists, cardiologists, nephrologists and primary care physicians participated in online discussions on guideline updates for the management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in diabetes, heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD); advances in the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and its comorbidities; advances in the management of CKD with SGLT2 inhibitors and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (nsMRAs); and advances in the treatment of obesity with GLP-1 and dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists. The association of diabetes and obesity with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH; metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis, MASH) and cancer and possible treatments for these complications were also explored. It is generally assumed that treatment of chronic diseases is equally effective for all patients. However, as discussed at the Summit, this assumption may not be true. Therefore, it is important to enroll patients from diverse racial and ethnic groups in clinical trials and to analyze patient-reported outcomes to assess treatment efficacy, and to develop innovative approaches to tailor medications to those who benefit most with minimal side effects. Other keys to a successful management of diabetes and comorbidities, including dementia, entail the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology and the implementation of appropriate patient-physician communication strategies. The 10th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial Summit will be held virtually on December 5-6, 2024 ( http://www.cvot.org ).

Absolute treatment effects of novel antidiabetic drugs on a composite renal outcome: meta-analysis of digitalized individual patient data

BACKGROUND

Absolute treatment benefits-expressed as numbers needed to treat-of the glucose lowering and cardiovascular drugs, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on renal outcomes remain uncertain. With the present meta-analysis of digitalized individual patient data, we aimed to display and compare numbers needed to treat of both drugs on a composite renal outcome.

METHODS

From Kaplan-Meier plots of major cardiovascular outcome trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors vs. placebo, we digitalized individual patient time-to-event information on composite renal outcomes with WebPlotDigitizer 4.2; numbers needed to treat from individual cardiovascular outcome trials were estimated using parametric Weibull regression models and compared to original data. Random-effects meta-analysis generated meta-numbers needed to treat with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Twelve cardiovascular outcome trials (three for GLP-1 receptor agonists, nine for SGLT2 inhibitors) comprising 90,865 participants were included. Eight trials were conducted in primary type 2 diabetes populations, two in a primary heart failure and two in a primary chronic kidney disease population. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline ranged between 37.3 and 85.3 ml/min/1.73 m2. Meta-analyses estimated meta-numbers needed to treat of 85 (95% CI 60; 145) for GLP-1 receptor agonists and 104 (95% CI 81; 147) for SGLT2 inhibitors for the composite renal outcome at the overall median follow-up time of 36 months.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis of digitalized individual patient data revealed moderate and similar absolute treatment benefits of GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors compared to placebo for a composite renal outcome.

CVOT Summit 2022 Report: new cardiovascular, kidney, and glycemic outcomes

The 8th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial (CVOT) Summit on Cardiovascular, Kidney, and Glycemic Outcomes was held virtually on November 10-12, 2022. Following the tradition of previous summits, this reference congress served as a platform for in-depth discussion and exchange on recently completed outcomes trials as well as key trials important to the cardiovascular (CV) field. This year's focus was on the results of the DELIVER, EMPA-KIDNEY and SURMOUNT-1 trials and their implications for the treatment of heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and obesity with glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. A broad audience of primary care physicians, diabetologists, endocrinologists, cardiologists, and nephrologists participated online in discussions on new consensus recommendations and guideline updates on type 2 diabetes (T2D) and CKD management, overcoming clinical inertia, glycemic markers, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), novel insulin preparations, combination therapy, and reclassification of T2D. The impact of cardiovascular outcomes on the design of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) trials, as well as the impact of real-world evidence (RWE) studies on the confirmation of CVOT outcomes and clinical trial design, were also intensively discussed. The 9th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial Summit will be held virtually on November 23-24, 2023 ( http://www.cvot.org ).

Comparison of gliclazide vs linagliptin on hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated cardiovascular safety of glimepiride (a sulfonylureas) against dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin. Gliclazide (another newer sulfonylureas) has shown similar glycemic efficacy and 50% decreased risk of hypoglycemia compared to glimepiride.

AIM

Considering the absence of cardiovascular outcome trials for gliclazide, we decided to conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess the car-diovascular (CV) safety by assessing the risk for major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide vs linagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

This systematic review followed the current Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to analyze all the clinical studies published from 2008 that compared the two drugs in patients with T2D with no risk of CV disease (CVD). We included only evidence designated high quality by the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence.

RESULTS

Eight clinical studies were included in the narrative descriptive analysis (gliclazide: 5 and linagliptin: 3). The CV safety of gliclazide in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation trial and of linagliptin in the Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin (CARMELINA) and CARdiovascular Outcome study of LINAgliptin vs glimepiride in patients with T2D (CAROLINA) trials were excluded from the comparative analysis as these trials demonstrated CV and hypoglycemia benefits in patients at high risk of CVD. However, since these are landmark trials, they were discussed in brief to show the CV benefits and low hypoglycemia risk of gliclazide and linagliptin. We did not find any study comparing gliclazide with linagliptin. Hence, direct comparison of their major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk could not be carried out. However, the literature meeting the inclusion criteria showed that both drugs were effective in achieving the desired glycemic control and had low major adverse CV events and hypoglycemia risk in adult patients with no history of CVD.

CONCLUSION

Gliclazide can be considered an effective and safe glucose-lowering drug in T2D patients with no established CVD but at high risk of CVD due to their T2D status. Future randomized controlled trials comparing gliclazide with linagliptin or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors can confirm these findings.

Drug-drug interactions involving combinations of antipsychotic agents with antidiabetic, lipid-lowering, and weight loss drugs

INTRODUCTION

Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) have a high risk for diabetes, dyslipidemia, and other components of metabolic syndrome. Patients with these metabolic comorbidities and cardiac risk factors should receive not only antipsychotics but also medications aiming to reduce cardiovascular risk. Therefore, many patients may be exposed to clinically relevant drug-drug interactions.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review summarizes data regarding the known or potential drug-drug interactions between antipsychotics and medications treating metabolic syndrome components, except for hypertension, which has been summarized elsewhere. A literature search in PubMed and Scopus up to 7/31/2021 was performed regarding interactions between antipsychotics and drugs used to treat metabolic syndrome components, aiming to inform clinicians' choice of medication for patients with SMI and cardiometabolic risk factors in need of pharmacologic interventions.

EXPERT OPINION

The cytochrome P450 system and, to a lesser extent, the P-glycoprotein transporter is involved in the pharmacokinetic interactions between antipsychotics and some statins or saxagliptin. Regarding pharmacodynamic interactions, the available information is based mostly on small studies, and for newer classes, like PCSK9 inhibitors or SGLT2 inhibitors, data are still lacking. However, there is sufficient information to guide clinicians in the process of selecting safer antipsychotic-cardiometabolic risk reduction drug combinations.

Report from the CVOT Summit 2021: new cardiovascular, renal, and glycemic outcomes

The 7th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial (CVOT) Summit on Cardiovascular, Renal, and Glycemic Outcomes, was held virtually on November 18-19, 2021. Pursuing the tradition of the previous summits, this reference congress served as a platform for in-depth discussion and exchange on recently completed CVOTs. This year's focus was placed on the outcomes of EMPEROR-Preserved, FIGARO-DKD, AMPLITUDE-O, SURPASS 1-5, and STEP 1-5. Trial implications for diabetes and obesity management and the impact on new treatment algorithms were highlighted for endocrinologists, diabetologists, cardiologists, nephrologists, and general practitioners. Discussions evolved from outcome trials using SGLT2 inhibitors as therapy for heart failure, to CVOTs with nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and GLP-1 receptor agonists. Furthermore, trials for glycemic and overweight/obesity management, challenges in diabetes management in COVID-19, and novel guidelines and treatment strategies were discussed.Trial registration The 8th Cardiovascular Outcome Trial Summit will be held virtually on November 10-11, 2022 ( http://www.cvot.org ).

Promoting a Syndemic Approach for Cardiometabolic Disease Management During COVID-19: The CAPISCO International Expert Panel

Efforts in the fight against COVID-19 are achieving success in many parts of the world, although progress remains slow in other regions. We believe that a syndemic approach needs to be adopted to address this pandemic given the strong apparent interplay between COVID-19, its related complications, and the socio-structural environment. We have assembled an international, multidisciplinary group of researchers and clinical practitioners to promote a novel syndemic approach to COVID-19: the CArdiometabolic Panel of International experts on Syndemic COvid-19 (CAPISCO). This geographically diverse group aims to facilitate collaborative-networking and scientific exchanges between researchers and clinicians facing a multitude of challenges on different continents during the pandemic. In the present article we present our “manifesto”, with the intent to provide evidence-based guidance to the global medical and scientific community for better management of patients both during and after the current pandemic.

Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Management from a Glucocentric Approach to Cardio-Renal Risk Reduction: The New Paradigm of Care

For many years, clinical studies could not show that lowering glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes leads to better macrovascular outcomes. In the past few years, new data have shown that treatment with two classes of dugs developed as "glucose-lowering agents," SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, can reduce macrovascular and renal complications. These studies have prompted debate about the main aim of type 2 diabetes management. In this review, three eras of diabetes management are described according to the treatment recommendations, such as the ADA/EASD consensus, moving from a pure glucocentric view into the present cardio-renal outcome-oriented approach, this has been endorsed by major diabetes and cardiology societies. While in the first era normalizing HbA_1c was the only focus (e.g., UK Prospective Diabetes Study), failing to show a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, further studies analyzing the pros and cons of intensified control such as ACCORD, VADT, ADVANCE recognized that treatment intensification was associated with weight gain and hypoglycemia, thereby potentially reducing the benefits of glycemic control. Therefore, the focus in the second area was on controlling HbA_1c without these unwanted effects. The consistent beneficial results of several cardiovascular outcome trials with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists showing significantly improved cardio-renal outcomes, induced a paradigm shift: a change from (only) control of HbA_1c to an organ-protective approach with the main focus now on cardio-renal risk; this is now considered as the third era. Recent data indicating beneficial effects of glucose-lowering agents in particular SGLT2 inhibitors even in subjects without diabetes, improving hospitalization for heart failure and renal outcomes might reveal another new era, which could then be considered a fourth era. While current international guidelines call for this paradigm shift, registry data show that we are still far from translating this objective into real-world practice.