UCSF School of Medicine, Fresno, Academic Suite #46, 2315 East Kashian Lane, Fresno, CA, 93701, USA.
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Sarver Heart Center, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, AZ, 85724-5037, USA.
Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2019 Jun;19(3):249-257. doi: 10.1007/s40256-019-00325-9.
Diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease. Conversely, CV disease is responsible for a majority of the deaths in patients with diabetes. Many drug trials have concentrated on blood glucose (hemoglobin A) reduction. This strategy, while reducing microvascular outcomes like nephropathy and neuropathy, has little or no effect on reducing macrovascular events like heart attack, stroke, and heart failure. It has been postulated that hypoglycemia may counterbalance some of the beneficial effects of anti-hyperglycemic agents, but this is not proven. Further, trial evidence for thiazolidinediones (rosiglitazone and pioglitazone) showed increased risk of heart failure and raised concerns about increased myocardial infarction. This heightened awareness of potentially harmful CV effects of otherwise effective hypoglycemic drugs resulted in regulatory mandates for CV outcome trials to ascertain the safety of newer anti-hypoglycemic agents appearing on the market. Three new classes of anti-hyperglycemic agents have been introduced in recent years. While dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors exhibited increased heart failure hospitalization in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 trial evaluating saxagliptin and in the secondary analysis of the EXAMINE trial for alogliptin, the effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogs and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors on CV outcomes in diabetes have largely been positive. The LEADER and SUSTAIN-6 trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of the GLP-1 analogs liraglutide and semaglutide, respectively, showed a statistically significant reduction in the primary outcome (major adverse cardiac events [MACE]: CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) and the secondary combined outcome when compared to placebo. Results of the TECOS trial for sitagliptin were, however, neutral (no net CV benefit or harm), questioning the class effect of GLP-1 analogs. Results of the SGLT2 inhibitor trials were more uniform. While EMPA-REG (evaluating empagliflozin) and CANVAS (evaluating canagliflozin) showed a reduction in the MACE end point, dapagliflozin had a net neutral effect on MACE in DECLARE-TIMI 58. All three SGLT2 inhibitors, however, showed a significant reduction in heart failure hospitalizations. Although initially designed to keep potentially harmful anti-hyperglycemic agents off the market, the CV outcome trials have provided clinicians with a new set of anti-hyperglycemic drugs with proven CV benefit in patients with diabetes and CV disease, thus expanding the field of CV secondary prevention. There is a need to inculcate GLP-1 analogs and SGLT2 inhibitors that reduce major CV events and heart failure hospitalizations (alongside lifestyle management and metformin) in the treatment of patients with diabetes and CV disease.
糖尿病是心血管疾病(CV)的一个主要危险因素。相反,CV 疾病是导致糖尿病患者死亡的主要原因。许多药物试验都集中在降低血糖(血红蛋白 A)上。虽然这种策略可以降低肾病和神经病变等微血管结局,但对减少心脏病发作、中风和心力衰竭等大血管事件几乎没有影响。有人假设低血糖可能会抵消一些抗高血糖药物的有益作用,但这尚未得到证实。此外,噻唑烷二酮类(罗格列酮和吡格列酮)的试验证据表明心力衰竭风险增加,并引起人们对心肌梗死风险增加的担忧。这种对原本有效的降糖药物可能产生有害 CV 影响的更高认识,导致监管部门要求进行 CV 结局试验,以确定新出现的市场上的抗低血糖药物的安全性。近年来,已经引入了三类新的抗高血糖药物。虽然二肽基肽酶-4(DPP-4)抑制剂在评估沙格列汀的 SAVOR-TIMI 53 试验和评估阿格列汀的 EXAMINE 试验的二次分析中显示心力衰竭住院增加,但胰高血糖素样肽-1(GLP-1)类似物和钠-葡萄糖共转运蛋白-2(SGLT2)抑制剂对糖尿病患者 CV 结局的影响在很大程度上是积极的。评估 GLP-1 类似物利拉鲁肽和司美格鲁肽安全性和疗效的 LEADER 和 SUSTAIN-6 试验显示,与安慰剂相比,主要不良心脏事件(MACE:心血管死亡、心肌梗死和中风)和次要联合结局的主要终点有统计学意义上的降低。然而,西格列汀的 TECOS 试验结果为中性(无净 CV 获益或危害),对 GLP-1 类似物的类效应提出质疑。SGLT2 抑制剂试验的结果更为一致。虽然 EMPA-REG(评估恩格列净)和 CANVAS(评估卡格列净)显示 MACE 终点降低,但达格列净在 DECLARE-TIMI 58 中对 MACE 无净效应。然而,所有三种 SGLT2 抑制剂均显著降低心力衰竭住院率。尽管最初旨在使潜在有害的抗高血糖药物退出市场,但 CV 结局试验为临床医生提供了一组新的抗高血糖药物,这些药物在患有糖尿病和 CV 疾病的患者中具有已证实的 CV 益处,从而扩大了 CV 二级预防领域。需要将降低主要 CV 事件和心力衰竭住院率的 GLP-1 类似物和 SGLT2 抑制剂(与生活方式管理和二甲双胍一起)纳入糖尿病和 CV 疾病患者的治疗中。