Evaluation and Management of Patients with Diabetes and Heart Failure: A Korean Diabetes Association and Korean Society of Heart Failure Consensus Statement

Adiposity modifies the association between heart failure risk and glucose metabolic disorder in older individuals: a community-based prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Glucose metabolic disorder is associated with the risk of heart failure (HF). Adiposity is a comorbidity that is inextricably linked with abnormal glucose metabolism in older individuals. However, the effect of adiposity on the association between glucose metabolic disorder and HF risk, and the underlying mechanism remain unclear.

METHODS

A total of 13,251 participants aged ≥ 60 years from a cohort study were categorized into euglycemia, prediabetes, uncontrolled diabetes, and well-controlled diabetes. Adiposity was assessed using body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and visceral fat area (VFA). Adiposity-associated metabolic activities were evaluated using adiponectin-to-leptin ratio (ALR), homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and triglyceride-glucose index (TyG). The first occurrence of HF served as the outcome during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

A total of 1,138 participants developed HF over the course of an average follow-up period of 10.9 years. The rate of incident HF occurrence was higher in prediabetes, uncontrolled diabetes, and well-controlled diabetes participants compared to that in euglycemia participants. However, the high rates were significantly attenuated by BMI, VFA, and WHR. For WHR in particular, the hazard ratio for incident HF was 1.18 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03, 1.35, Padj.=0.017) in prediabetes, 1.59 (95% CI: 1.34, 1.90, Padj.<0.001) in uncontrolled diabetes, and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.43, Padj.=0.466) in well-controlled diabetes. The population attributable risk percentage for central obesity classified by WHR for incident HF was 30.3% in euglycemia, 50.0% in prediabetes, 48.5% in uncontrolled diabetes, and 54.4% in well-controlled diabetes. Adiposity measures, especially WHR, showed a significant interaction with glucose metabolic disorder in incident HF (all Padj.<0.001). ALR was negatively associated and HOMA-IR and TyG were positively associated with BMI, WHR, VFA, and incident HF (all Padj.<0.05). ALR, HOMA-IR, and TyG mediated the associations for BMI, WHR and VFA with incident HF (all Padj.<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Adiposity attenuated the association of glucose metabolic disorder with incident HF. The results also showed that WHR may be an appropriate indicator for evaluating adiposity in older individuals. Adiposity-associated metabolic activities may have a bridging role in the process of adiposity attenuating the association between glucose metabolic disorder and incident HF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

retrospectively registered number: ChiCTR-EOC-17,013,598.

Epicardial Adipose Tissue and Heart Failure, Friend or Foe?

Heart failure (HF) management guidelines recommend individualized assessments based on HF phenotypes. Adiposity is a known risk factor for HF. Recently, there has been an increased interest in organ-specific adiposity, specifically the role of the epicardial adipose tissue (EAT), in HF risk. EAT is easily assessable through various imaging modalities and is anatomically and functionally connected to the myocardium. In pathological conditions, EAT secretes inflammatory cytokines, releases excessive fatty acids, and increases mechanical load on the myocardium, resulting in myocardial remodeling. EAT plays a pathophysiological role in characterizing both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In HFrEF, EAT volume is reduced, reflecting an impaired metabolic reservoir, whereas in HFpEF, the amount of EAT is associated with worse biomarker and hemodynamic profiles, indicating increased EAT activity. Studies have examined the possibility of therapeutically targeting EAT, and recent studies using sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have shown potential in reducing EAT volume. However, further research is required to determine the clinical implications of reducing EAT activity in patients with HF.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study to Compare the Effects of Gemigliptin Add-on or Escalation of Metformin Dose on Glycemic Control and Safety in Patients with Inadequately Controlled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Treated with Metformin and SGLT-2 Inhibitors (SO GOOD Study)

Background

We aimed to compare efficacy and safety between gemigliptin add-on and escalation of the metformin dose in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) despite treatment with metformin and SGLT2 inhibitors.

Methods

This study was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group comparative study. Patients with T2DM uncontrolled on metformin and SGLT2 inhibitors were randomized to receive gemigliptin 50 mg as an add-on (GEM group, n = 37) or escalation of the metformin dose (500 mg, MET group, n = 38) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 24.

Results

At weeks 12 and 24, the reduction in HbA1c levels was significantly greater in the GEM group than in the MET group (GEM vs. MET = -0.64% ± 0.34% vs. -0.36% ± 0.50%, p = 0.009 at week 12; -0.61% ± 0.35% vs. -0.33% ± 0.70%, p = 0.045 at week 24). The proportions of patients who achieved target HbA1c levels of <7.0% at weeks 12 and 24 and <6.5% at week 12 were greater in the GEM group than in the MET group. An index of β-cell function was also significantly improved in the GEM group. The safety profiles were similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

Gemigliptin add-on therapy may be more effective than metformin dose escalation in patients with T2DM insufficiently controlled using metformin and SGLT2 inhibitors, without safety concerns. This trial is registered with CRIS_number: KCT0003520.

Optimization of guideline-directed medical treatment for heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

With the increasing number of medications demonstrating mortality benefits in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the pharmacological treatment of HFrEF is entering a new phase. To enhance outcomes in heart failure patients through medical treatment, the choice of appropriate medications and simultaneous and rapid uptitration are critical. However, there are several challenges encountered during this medication uptitration, including issues like hypotension, fatigue, worsening renal function, and hyperkalemia. This paper addresses strategies for effectively managing these challenges to successfully reach the maximum tolerated dose in patients. Additionally, it will discuss the management of comorbidities often associated with heart failure, the importance of exercise and rehabilitation, and the significance of proper nutrition intake, in addition to guideline-directed medical therapy.

Comparison of the effects of gemigliptin versus glimepiride on cardiac function in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with metformin: The gemi-heart study

AIM

To investigate the effects of gemigliptin on cardiac function and compare the effects of gemigliptin and glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty T2D patients being treated with metformin were assigned to a gemigliptin group (50 mg daily) or a glimepiride group (2 mg daily) for 24 weeks. The preadjudicated extension period was up to 52 weeks. Glucose metabolism variables and cardiac biomarkers were measured. Echocardiography was used to evaluate cardiac functions.

RESULTS

The HbA1c levels decreased significantly from 8.1% ± 0.6% to 6.8% ± 0.6% in the gemigliptin group and from 8.1% ± 0.6% to 7.0% ± 0.7% in the glimepiride group, without a between-group difference. Gemigliptin reduced insulin resistance, high sensitivity C-reactive protein and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and blood pressure, and increased adiponectin level compared with glimepiride therapy. Gemigliptin induced favourable changes in body composition. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume decreased in the gemigliptin group but increased in the glimepiride group, with a borderline between-group difference. Cardiac biomarkers did not change significantly in either group. At 52 weeks, the HbA1c levels in both groups increased slightly; 7.3% ± 0.8% in the gemigliptin group versus 7.7% ± 1.3% in the glimepiride group, without a between-group difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Gemigliptin had a comparable glucose-lowering efficacy without deleterious effects on cardiac functions or on biomarkers reflective of myocardial injury or heart failure during the 24-week observation period. However, larger, longer-term studies are needed to confirm these findings.