Effect of Empagliflozin and Dapagliflozin on Ambulatory Arterial Stiffness in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Co-Morbidities: A Prospective, Observational Study.

Background and Objectives: Individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Arterial stiffness is an independent prognostic marker for cardiovascular disease development. We aimed at determining the effect of two different sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors on ambulatory arterial stiffness in individuals with T2DM. Materials and Methods: In this single-center, single-arm, prospective study performed from January 2020 to August 2021, we planned to enroll adult subjects with T2DM and stable antidiabetic and antihypertensive treatment, assigned either to empagliflozin or dapagliflozin for 6 months. All eligible subjects underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. We set as the primary efficacy outcome the change in ambulatory pulse wave velocity (PWV) from baseline to week 24. Results: We finally enrolled 46 diabetic subjects, with a mean age of 62.89 (8.53) years and mean T2DM duration of 9.72 (6.37) years. Thirty patients received dapagliflozin, while sixteen patients received empagliflozin. Due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictive measures during the study, the mean follow-up period extended from 6 months to 9.98 (3.27) months. Regarding the prespecified primary efficacy outcome, we found that the SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment did not have a significant effect on PWV (p = 0.65). Prior history of cardiovascular disease did not significantly affect the observed effects. Other indices of arterial stiffness, such as augmentation index and central pulse pressure, were not significantly affected, neither by empagliflozin nor by dapagliflozin. Conclusions: SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment with empagliflozin or dapagliflozin in subjects with T2DM failed to improve ambulatory PWV over a mean follow-up of 10 months. Registration number: ISRCTN88851713.

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Evidence for Significant Geographical Disparities.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: While the COVID-19 pandemic is constantly evolving, it remains unclear whether the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) affects the clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this meta-analysis, PubMed, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from their inception to 19 May 2020 for randomized, controlled trials or observational studies that evaluate the association between the use of either ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the risk for major clinical endpoints (infection, hospitalization, admission to ICU, death) in adult patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, a subgroup geographical analysis of outcomes was performed. Studies including less than 100 subjects were excluded from our analysis. RECENT FINDINGS: In total, 25 observational studies were included. ACE inhibitors and ARBs were not associated with increased odds for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital, severe or critical illness, admission to ICU, and SARS-CoV-2-related death. In Asian countries, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs decreased the odds for severe or critical illness and death (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.89, I2 = 83%, and OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, I2 = 0%, respectively), whereas they increased the odds for ICU admission in North America and death in Europe (OR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.37-2.23, I2 = 0%, and OR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.05-2.70, I2 = 82%, respectively). ACE inhibitors might be marginally protective regarding SARS-CoV-2-related death compared with ARBs (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-1.00, I2 = 0%). Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the aforementioned associations between ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and SARS-CoV-2.