Impact of empagliflozin on insulin needs in patients with heart failure and diabetes: An EMPEROR-Pooled analysis.

AIM: To assess the effect of empagliflozin on patients with comorbid heart failure (HF) and diabetes with or without baseline insulin, and to study the impact of empagliflozin on insulin requirements over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of pooled patient-level data from two cardiovascular outcomes trials of empagliflozin in HF (EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials). We undertook a subgroup analysis stratified by baseline insulin use, including all patients with diabetes. The studied endpoints included the primary composite endpoint of first hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death, rate of decline of estimated glomerular filtration rate, composite renal outcome and rates of sustained insulin initiation. RESULTS: Among 4794 patients with diabetes, 1333 (658 in empagliflozin, 675 in placebo) were using insulin at baseline. The treatment effect of empagliflozin on the primary endpoint was consistent irrespective of insulin use [no insulin, hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.86; using insulin, hazard ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-1.00, pinteraction = .49], as was the effect on the rate of decline of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (pinteraction = .75). There was no effect of empagliflozin on the composite renal outcome in patients using or not using insulin (pinteraction = .30). Among patients not using insulin at baseline, those randomized to empagliflozin initiated insulin less frequently throughout the follow-up period compared with those receiving placebo (2.6% vs. 3.8%, odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin exerts a consistent benefit on cardiovascular outcomes and renal function decline, irrespective of baseline insulin use, and reduces the need for sustained insulin initiation in patients with HF and diabetes.

The influence of diagnostic subgroups, patient- and hospital characteristics for the validity of cardiovascular diagnoses-Data from a Norwegian hospital trust.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular discharge diagnoses may serve as endpoints in epidemiological studies if they have a high validity. Aim was to study if diagnoses-specific characteristics like type, sub-categories, and position of cardiovascular diagnoses affected diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: Patients (n = 7,164) with a discharge diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, heart failure or cerebrovascular disease were included. Data were presented as positive predictive values (PPV) and sensitivity. RESULTS: PPV was high (≥88%) for acute myocardial infarction (n = 2,189) (except for outpatients). For heart failure (n = 4,026) PPV was 67% overall, but higher (>99%) when etiology or echocardiography was included. For hemorrhagic (n = 257) and ischemic (n = 1,034) strokes PPVs were 87% and 80%, respectively, with sensitivity of 79% and 75%. Transient ischemic attacks (n = 926) had PPV 56%, but sensitivity 86%. Primary diagnoses showed higher validity than subsequent diagnoses and inpatient diagnoses were more valid than outpatient diagnoses (except for transient ischemic attack). The diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction and heart failure where most valid when placed at cardiology units, while ischemic stroke when discharged from an internal medicine unit. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction and stroke had excellent validity when placed during hospital stays. Similarly, heart failure diagnoses had excellent validity when echocardiography was performed before placing the diagnosis, while overall the diagnoses of heart failure and transient ischemic attack were less valid. In conclusion, the results indicate that cardiovascular diagnoses based on objective findings such as acute myocardial infarction and stroke have excellent validity and may be used as endpoints in clinical epidemiological studies with less rigid validation.

Kidney and heart failure events are bidirectionally associated in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the bidirectional relationship between kidney and cardiovascular (CV) events in trial participants with type 2 diabetes and CV disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: Post hoc analyses of EMPA-REG OUTCOME using Cox regression models were performed to assess the association of baseline factors with risk of a kidney event and bidirectional associations of incident kidney events and CV events. Among placebo-treated participants, baseline factors significantly associated with greater kidney event risk included lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, albuminuria, higher uric acid, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and prior heart failure (HF). Coronary artery disease was not associated with increased risk. In placebo-treated participants, occurrence of an incident non-fatal kidney event increased the subsequent risk of hospitalization for HF (HHF) but not 3-point major adverse CV events (non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and CV death). Vice versa, HHF (but not myocardial infarction/stroke) increased the risk of subsequent kidney events. These associations were generally also seen in empagliflozin-treated participants and in the overall population. Interestingly, the risk of kidney events following HHF was not significantly increased in the relatively small number of placebo-treated participants already diagnosed with HF at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate a bidirectional inter-relationship between HHF and kidney events. Further exploration of this relationship and strategies to optimize the use of therapies to reduce both kidney and HF outcomes is warranted.

Shifts in KDIGO CKD risk groups with empagliflozin: Kidney-protection from SGLT2 inhibition across the spectrum of risk.

T2D is a well-established risk factor for development and progression of CKD. KDIGO recommends categorization of risk by likelihood of progression to ESKD. Compared to placebo, empagliflozin decreases likelihood of worsening (OR 0.70, 95 % CI 0.62-0.78) and increases likelihood of improvement (OR 1.56, 95 % CI 1.30-1.86) in KDIGO risk category.

Baseline Cardiovascular Risk Factor Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Coronary Disease Versus Stroke: Secondary Analysis of Cardiovascular Outcome Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease are at increased risk for recurrent ischemic events. Cardiovascular risk factor control is vital for secondary prevention, but how this compares among individuals with different T2D macrovascular complications is unknown. We aimed to determine if there might be differences in risk factor control in patients with T2D with previous stroke versus coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses were performed on 12 856 patients with T2D with prior history of stroke with or without CAD from 3 diabetes cardiovascular outcome trials: CARMELINA (The Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin), EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients), and CAROLINA (The Cardiovascular Outcome Study of Linagliptin vs Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes). Risk factors at baseline assessed included dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking, and current antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy. Control, respectively, was defined as LDL (low-density lipoprotein)-C <100 mg/dL or statin use, systolic blood pressure <140 and diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, not currently smoking, and use of an antiplatelet/anticoagulant medication. The odds ratio of 3 to 4 (or good) versus 0 to 2 (or suboptimal) risk factors controlled was analyzed by logistic regression models. RESULTS: The odds for good versus suboptimal risk factor control in patients with CAD alone was higher than in those with stroke alone across all 3 trials odds ratios (95% CI): CARMELINA, 2.05 (1.67-2.51), EMPA-REG OUTCOME, 2.50 (2.10-2.99), and CAROLINA, 1.63 (1.21-2.20). The respective odds ratios were lower (and rendered nonsignificant in CAROLINA) when cardiovascular risk factor control in patients with both CAD and stroke were compared with those with stroke alone: CARMELINA, 1.45 (1.13-1.87); EMPA-REG OUTCOME, 1.62 (1.25-2.08); and CAROLINA, 1.16 (0.74-1.83). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary populations of patients with T2D, there was significant discordance in control of cardiovascular risk factors between patients with stroke versus CAD, with the former having less optimal control. The intermediate results in patients with both CAD and stroke suggest that these differences could be related at least in part to clinician factors. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01243424, NCT01131676, NCT01897532.

Generalizability of REDUCE-IT eligibility criteria in a large diabetes cardiovascular outcomes trial: A post hoc subgroup analysis of EMPA-REG outcome: Analysis of EMPA-REG OUTCOME using REDUCE-IT criteria.

Objectives: REDUCE-IT showed that icosapent ethyl (IPE) improved cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in participants with established CV disease (CVD) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) and at least one additional risk factor plus mild-moderate hypertriglyceridemia and reasonably controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). As the generalizability of REDUCE-IT has not been investigated in a T2D population with established CVD, this post hoc analysis investigated how many participants from EMPA-REG OUTCOME, which tested the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo on CV outcomes in participants with T2D and CVD, would have been eligible for IPE treatment, and whether CV outcomes differed based on eligibility for IPE treatment. Methods: Participants from EMPA-REG OUTCOME were screened for inclusion using both REDUCE-IT-like criteria (baseline statin therapy, triglycerides 135-499 mg/dL and LDL-C 41-100 mg/dL) and slightly amended FDA indication criteria (triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL). Analyses were conducted to characterize the study population and CV outcomes in participants eligible for IPE versus those not eligible for IPE. Results: Of the 7020 participants from EMPA-REG OUTCOME, 1810 (25.8%) fulfilled REDUCE-IT criteria and 3182 (45.3%) fulfilled FDA criteria for IPE treatment. Treatment effects of empagliflozin versus placebo on CV and kidney outcomes and mortality were consistent in participants meeting REDUCE-IT and FDA criteria and those who did not. Conclusions: These results indicate that a sizable proportion of patients with diabetes and established CVD, such as those in EMPA-REG OUTCOME, may be eligible for IPE treatment to lower residual CV risk. Treatment benefit with empagliflozin was consistent, regardless of REDUCE-IT or FDA eligibility criteria.

Liver tests, cardiovascular outcomes and effects of empagliflozin in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: The EMPEROR-Preserved trial.

AIM: The prognostic implication of elevated liver tests in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain. This analysis investigates the association of liver markers with hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and cardiovascular death (CVD), and the treatment effect of empagliflozin across the range of liver marker levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: The double-blind, placebo-controlled EMPEROR-Preserved (EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) enrolled 5988 patients with HFpEF (ejection fraction >40%). Patients in New York Heart Association class II-IV and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide were randomized to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to usual therapy. Patients with significant liver disease were excluded. The primary endpoint was time to first adjudicated HHF or CVD. We explored the association of liver function abnormalities with heart failure outcomes in patients on placebo, the effects of empagliflozin on liver tests and the treatment effects of empagliflozin on heart failure outcomes across categories of liver laboratory values. High alkaline phosphatase (p trend < 0.0001), low albumin (p trend < 0.0001) and high bilirubin (p = 0.02) were associated with poorer outcomes for HHF or CVD, while high aspartate aminotransferase was not, and high alanine aminotransferase was associated with better outcomes. Empagliflozin had no significant effects on liver tests compared to placebo except for albumin which was significantly increased. The treatment effect of empagliflozin on outcomes was not modified by liver tests. CONCLUSION: Abnormalities of liver function tests are associated differently with heart failure outcomes. Salutary effects of empagliflozin on liver tests were not observed although albumin increased. The treatment benefits of empagliflozin were not affected by baseline values of liver parameters.

Development of a tool to predict the risk of incident heart failure in a general population: the HUNT for HF risk score.

AIMS: Currently, no incident heart failure (HF) risk score that is in regular use in a general population is available. We aimed to develop this and compare with existing HF risk scores. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants in the third wave (2006-08) of the population-based Trøndelag Health Study 3 (HUNT3) were included if they reported no previous HF. Any hospital diagnoses captured during follow-up (until the end of 2018) of HF, cardiomyopathy, or hypertensive heart disease were assessed by an experienced cardiologist. Valid HF events were defined as symptoms/signs of HF and objective evidence of structural/functional abnormality of the heart at rest. The model was compared with slightly modified HF risk scores (the Health Aging and Body Composition HF risk score, the Framingham HF risk score, the Pooled Cohort equations to Prevent HF risk score, and NORRISK 2). Among 36 511 participants (mean ± SD age of 57.9 ± 13.3 years, 55.4% female), with a mean follow-up of 10.2 ± 1.3 years, 1366 developed HF (incidence rate of 3.66 per 1000 participant years). Out of the 38 relevant clinical variables assessed, we identified 12 (atrial fibrillation being the strongest) that independently predicted an HF event. The final model demonstrated good discrimination (C statistics = 0.904) and calibration, was stable in internal validation, and performed well compared with existing risk scores. The model identified that, at enrolment, 31 391 (86%), 2386 (7%), 1246 (3%), and 1488 (4%) had low, low-intermediate, high-intermediate, and high 10-year HF risk, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve clinical variables independently predicted 10-year HF risk. The model may serve well as the foundation of a practical, online risk score for HF in general practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04648852.

Empagliflozin in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with and without atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: Atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) is common in heart failure (HF) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and associated with worse outcomes. Empagliflozin reduces cardiovascular death or HF hospitalizations and slows estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline in patients with HF and LVEF >40%. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in improving outcomes in patients with HF and LVEF >40% with and without AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this pre-defined secondary analysis of EMPEROR-Preserved, we compared the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo on the primary and secondary endpoints and safety outcomes, stratified by baseline AF, defined as AF reported in any electrocardiogram before empagliflozin initiation or in medical history. Among 5988 patients randomized, 3135 (52%) had baseline AF; these patients were older, with worse functional class, more previous HF hospitalizations and higher natriuretic peptides compared to those without AF (all p < 0.001). After a median of 26 months, empagliflozin reduced cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization compared to placebo to a similar extent in patients with and without AF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95% confidence interval 0.66-0.93] vs. 0.78 [0.64-0.95], interaction p = 0.96). Empagliflozin also reduced total HF hospitalizations (HR 0.73 [0.57-0.94] vs. 0.72 [0.54-0.95], interaction p = 0.94) and annual eGFR decline (difference = 1.368 vs. 1.372 ml/min/1.73 m2 /year, interaction p = 0.99) consistently in patients with and without AF. There was no increase in serious adverse events with empagliflozin versus placebo in patients with and without AF. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF and ejection fraction >40%, empagliflozin reduced the risk of serious HF events and slowed the eGFR decline regardless of baseline AF.

Cardiovascular outcomes trial data from EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CAROLINA and CARMELINA: Assessment of a novel staging system for type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To apply the diabetes staging system (DSS), a novel disease staging system similar to what is used in oncology but designed to improve diabetes management, to three large type 2 diabetes (T2D) cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials to assess whether increasing DSS stage was associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality (ACM) and/or CV death. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The DSS uses discrete CV events (none to ≥3: Stage 1 to 4), end-stage kidney disease (Stage 5) and microvascular complications (none to 3: A to D) to determine disease stage in individuals with T2D. The DSS stage for patients from the CAROLINA, EMPA-REG OUTCOME and CARMELINA trials was determined. Incidence rates for ACM/CV death were calculated across DSS stages and Cox regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: The risk of ACM or CV death increased with increasing DSS (Stage 1 to 5; P for trend <0.0001) in all trials. In CAROLINA, the risk of ACM and CV death increased with increasing number of microvascular complications (A to D; both P for trend <0.0001), similar in CARMELINA (P for trend = 0.0020 and 0.0005, respectively). In EMPA-REG OUTCOME, having all three microvascular complications (Stage D), versus none, increased the risk of ACM and CV death (P = 0.0015 and 0.0010, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Applying the DSS across T2D clinical trial populations with different CV risk revealed a significantly increased risk of ACM and CV death with higher DSS stage. The DSS may merit assessment in other T2D populations and evaluation of the impact of additional outcomes, such as heart failure, could also be worthwhile.

Weight change and clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insights from EMPEROR-Reduced.

AIMS: Baseline body mass index (BMI) and weight loss promoted by sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors may impact outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We assessed in the EMPEROR-Reduced population treated with empagliflozin versus placebo the relationship between baseline BMI, weight loss and effects on the primary (time to first hospitalization for heart failure [HHF] or cardiovascular death) and key secondary outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We categorized patients according to their baseline BMI: <20 kg/m2 (n = 180); 20 to <25 kg/m2 (n = 1038); 25 to <30 kg/m2 (n = 1345); 30 to <35 kg/m2 (n = 774) and ≥35 kg/m2 (n = 393). The treatment effect of empagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent across all BMI categories (hazard ratios in subgroups 0.66-0.88, interaction trend p = 0.32), as was the effect on total (first plus recurrent) HHF (interaction trend p = 0.31). Empagliflozin reduced the rate of estimated glomerular filtration rate decline consistently across the BMI categories (interaction trend p = 0.67). Overall, incidence rates of any or serious adverse events were comparable between the treatment groups across all BMI categories. A total of 313 (17.4%) patients treated with empagliflozin experienced a weight loss of more than 5% at week 52 versus 230 (12.8%) in placebo. When analysed separately within each treatment group, presence of weight loss was similarly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: The benefits of empagliflozin versus placebo were consistently present across all BMI categories in HFrEF patients. Weight loss was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality, regardless of treatment group.

Empagliflozin for Heart Failure With Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction With and Without Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves outcomes in patients with heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction, but whether the effects are consistent in patients with and without diabetes remains to be elucidated. METHODS: Patients with class II through IV heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction >40% were randomized to receive empagliflozin 10 mg or placebo in addition to usual therapy. We undertook a prespecified analysis comparing the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo in patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS: Of the 5988 patients enrolled, 2938 (49%) had diabetes. The risk of the primary outcome (first hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death), total hospitalizations for heart failure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate decline was higher in patients with diabetes. Empagliflozin reduced the rate of the primary outcome irrespective of diabetes status (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.67, 0.94] for patients with diabetes versus hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.64, 0.95] in patients without diabetes; Pinteraction=0.92). The effect of empagliflozin to reduce total hospitalizations for heart failure was also consistent in patients with and without diabetes. The effect of empagliflozin to attenuate estimated glomerular filtration rate decline during double-blind treatment was also present in patients with and without diabetes, although more pronounced in patients with diabetes (1.77 in diabetes versus 0.98 mL/min/1.73m2 in patients without diabetes; Pinteraction=0.01). Across these 3 end points, the effect of empagliflozin did not differ in patients with prediabetes or normoglycemia (33% and 18% of the patient population, respectively). When investigated as a continuous variable, baseline hemoglobin A1c did not modify the effects on the primary outcome (Pinteraction=0.26). There was no increased risk of hypoglycemic events in either subgroup as compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the EMPEROR-Preserved (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of heart failure outcomes irrespective of diabetes status at baseline. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057951.

Empagliflozin and Decreased Risk of Nephrolithiasis: A Potential New Role for SGLT2 Inhibition?

CONTEXT: Diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for nephrolithiasis. A recent observational study found that in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), SGLT2 inhibitor use was associated with a 49% lower risk of nephrolithiasis compared with GLP-1 receptor agonists. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between nephrolithiasis and the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, using existing data from randomized clinical trials. METHODS: We pooled data from 15 081 T2D patients randomized to empagliflozin (n = 10 177) or placebo (n = 4904) from 20 phase I-IV trials, including the large cardiovascular outcome trial, EMPA-REG OUTCOME. Incident urinary tract stone events were captured using a predefined collection of MedRA terms. A sensitivity analysis using a narrower definition was also performed. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% CIs were calculated using the relative risk estimate, stratified by study. RESULTS: The median exposures to study drug were 543 days (placebo) and 549 days (empagliflozin); 183 patients experienced an incident urolithiasis during follow-up (placebo, 79; empagliflozin, 104), yielding annual incidence rates of 1.01 vs 0.63 events/100 patient-years in the 2 respective groups. The IRR was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.48-0.86), in favor of empagliflozin. In the sensitivity analysis, the results were similar (IRR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45-0.85]). CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, empagliflozin therapy was associated with an approximate 40% reduced risk of urinary tract stone events in T2D patients. The underlying mechanisms are unknown but may involve altered lithogenic profile of the urine. Dedicated randomized prospective clinical trials are warranted to confirm these initial observations in patients with and without T2D.

Effects of empagliflozin on markers of liver steatosis and fibrosis and their relationship to cardiorenal outcomes.

AIMS: Empagliflozin treatment reduced liver fat in small type 2 diabetes cohorts. This post-hoc study evaluated effects of empagliflozin on risk for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-related steatosis and fibrosis, as well as the relationship between risk categories and cardiorenal outcomes in the randomized, placebo-controlled EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: EMPA-REG OUTCOME treated 7020 people with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease with 10/25 mg/day empagliflozin or placebo. For this analysis, the Dallas steatosis index, hepatic steatosis index, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score were calculated to assess steatosis and fibrosis risk. Changes from baseline in scores were examined by mixed model repeated measures and their associations with cardiorenal outcomes and mortality by Cox regression. RESULTS: At baseline, 73% and 84% of participants had high steatosis risk by Dallas steatosis index and hepatic steatosis index, whereas 23% and 4% had a high risk of advanced fibrosis by non-alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score and Fibrosis-4 score. Percentages of people at high steatosis risk slightly decreased with empagliflozin only, whereas empagliflozin did not improve percentages of individuals at high fibrosis risk over time compared with placebo. The high risk of advanced fibrosis at baseline related to higher risk for cardiovascular events. Effects of empagliflozin on cardiorenal and all-cause mortality outcomes were consistent across all risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin may reduce steatosis but not fibrosis risk in individuals with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The improvements in cardiorenal outcomes and mortality associated with empagliflozin therapy appear to be independent of steatosis and fibrosis risk.

Mediators of the improvement in heart failure outcomes with empagliflozin in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial.

AIMS: In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, empagliflozin reduced risk of death from heart failure (HF) or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established cardiovascular (CV) disease. We evaluated post hoc the degree to which covariates mediated the effects of empagliflozin on HHF or HF death. METHODS AND RESULTS: A mediator had to fulfil the following criteria: (i) affected by active treatment, (ii) associated with the outcome, and finally (iii) adjustment for it results in a reduced treatment effect compared with unadjusted analysis. Potential mediators were calculated as change from baseline or updated mean and evaluated in univariable analyses as time-dependent covariates in Cox regression of time to HHF or HF death; those with the largest mediating effects were then included in a multivariable analysis. Increases in heart rate, log urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), waist circumference, and uric acid were associated with increased risk of HHF or HF death; increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, estimated glomerular filtration rate, haematocrit, haemoglobin, and albumin were associated with reduced risk of HHF or HF death. In univariable analyses, change from baseline in haematocrit, haemoglobin, albumin, uric acid, and logUACR mediated 51%, 54%, 23%, 24%, and 27% of the risk reduction with empagliflozin versus placebo, respectively. Multivariable analysis including haemoglobin, logUACR, and uric acid mediated 85% of risk reduction with similar results when updated means were evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in haematocrit and haemoglobin were the most important mediators of the reduction in HHF and death from HF in patients with T2DM and established CV disease treated with empagliflozin. Albumin, uric acid, and logUACR had smaller mediating effects in this population.

Empagliflozin Improves Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Heart Failure Irrespective of Systolic Blood Pressure.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with reduced ejection fraction. Its interplay with systolic blood pressure (SBP) is not known. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the interplay of SBP and the effects of empagliflozin in EMPEROR-Reduced (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction). METHODS: Study patients (N = 3,730) were randomly assigned to groups according to SBP at baseline (<110 mm Hg, n = 928; 110-130 mm Hg, n = 1,755; >130 mm Hg, n = 1,047). This study explored the influence of SBP on the effects of empagliflozin on cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome), as well as on total HF hospitalizations, rate of decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, renal outcomes, and empagliflozin's effects and significance on SBP. RESULTS: Over a median of 16 months considering only patients receiving placebo, baseline SBP and the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF (P trend = 0.0015) were inversely related. Corrected for placebo, a slight early increase was observed in SBP at <110 mm Hg, no change at 110-130 mm Hg, and a slight reduction at >130 mm Hg. These between-group differences were of borderline significance (P for interaction trend = 0.05-0.10) after 4 and 12 weeks but were not significant later. SBP at baseline did not influence the effect of empagliflozin to reduce the risk of HF events or renal endpoints. When treated with empagliflozin, patients with SBP <110 mm Hg did not have an increased rate of symptomatic hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin was effective and safe, with no meaningful interaction between SBP and the effects of empagliflozin in the EMPEROR-Reduced trial. (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction [EMPEROR-Reduced]; NCT03057977).

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With Predicted Preserved Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction: Data From the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, ejection fraction (EF) data were not collected. In the subpopulation with heart failure (HF), we applied a new predictive model for EF to determine the effects of empagliflozin in HF with predicted reduced (HFrEF) vs preserved (HFpEF) EF vs no HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We applied a validated EF predictive model based on patient baseline characteristics and treatments to categorize patients with HF as being likely to have HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF)/HFrEF (EF <50%) or HFpEF (EF ≥50%). Cox regression was used to assess the effect of empagliflozin vs placebo on cardiovascular death/HF hospitalization (HHF), cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and HHF in patients with predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no HF. Of 7001 EMPA-REG OUTCOME patients with data available for this analysis, 6314 (90%) had no history of HF. Of the 687 with history of HF, 479 (69.7%) were predicted to have HFmrEF/HFrEF and 208 (30.3%) to have HFpEF. Empagliflozin's treatment effect was consistent in predicted HFpEF, HFmrEF/HFrEF and no-HF for each outcome (HR [95% CI] for the primary outcome 0.60 [0.31-1.17], 0.79 [0.51-1.23], and 0.63 [0.50-0.78], respectively; P interaction = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: In EMPA-REG OUTCOME, one-third of the patients with HF had predicted HFpEF. The benefits of empagliflozin on HF and mortality outcomes were consistent in nonHF, predicted HFpEF and HFmrEF/HFrEF.

Effects of empagliflozin on insulin initiation or intensification in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease: Findings from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial.

AIM: To evaluate the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo on subsequent insulin initiation or dosing changes in a large cardiovascular outcomes trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In EMPA-REG OUTCOME, 7020 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease received empagliflozin 10 mg, 25 mg, or placebo. Median follow-up was 3.1 years. After 12 weeks of treatment, changes in background antihyperglycaemic therapy were permitted. Among insulin-naïve patients, we assessed the effects of pooled empagliflozin arms versus placebo on time to initiation of insulin. Among insulin-treated patients, we assessed effects on time to an increase or decrease in insulin dose of more than 20%. RESULTS: In 3633 (52%) participants not treated with insulin at baseline, empagliflozin reduced new use of insulin versus placebo by 60% (7.1% vs. 16.4%; adjusted HR 0.40 [95% CI 0.32-0.49]; P < .0001). In 3387 (48%) patients using insulin at baseline, empagliflozin reduced the need for a greater than 20% insulin dose increase by 58% (14.4% vs. 29.3%; adjusted HR 0.42 [95% CI 0.36-0.49]; P < .0001) and increased the proportion achieving sustained greater than 20% insulin dose reductions without subsequent increases in HbA1c compared with placebo (9.2% vs. 4.9%; adjusted HR 1.87 [95% CI: 1.39-2.51]; P < .0001). Sensitivity analyses confirmed consistent findings when insulin dose changes of more than 10% or more than 30% were considered. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, empagliflozin markedly and durably delays insulin initiation and substantial increases in insulin dose, while facilitating sustained reductions in insulin requirements over time.

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).

Time to cardiovascular benefits of empagliflozin: a post hoc observation from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial.

AIMS: In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, in patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease, empagliflozin vs. placebo reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 35%, CV death/HHF by 34%, and CV death by 38%, with an early separation of the cumulative incidence curves. We explored at what time point after randomization these benefits became apparent. METHODS AND RESULTS: We expressed time trajectories for the effect of pooled empagliflozin doses vs. placebo on HHF, CV death/HHF, and CV death based on hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) and calculated the hazard ratio on the day the effect reached significance using Cox proportional hazards models. Overall, 7020 patients aged ≥18 years were treated with empagliflozin 10 mg (N = 2345), empagliflozin 25 mg (N = 2342), or placebo (N = 2333) once daily in addition to standard of care. Mean age (years ± SD) was 63.1 ± 8.6, and 72% were male. The benefit of empagliflozin on CV death first reached statistical significance on Day 59 (HR [95% confidence interval]) (0.28 [0.08, 0.96], P = 0.0424) and was generally sustained throughout the trial (overall 0.62 [0.49, 0.77], P < 0.0001). Risk reduction with empagliflozin on HHF reached statistical significance on Day 17 (0.10 [0.01, 0.87], P = 0.0372) and was sustained throughout the study (overall 0.65 [0.50, 0.85], P = 0.0017). For the composite outcome of CV death or HHF, risk reduction with empagliflozin reached statistical significance on Day 27 (0.28 [0.08, 0.97], P = 0.0445) and was sustained throughout follow-up (overall 0.66 [0.55, 0.79], P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In EMPA-REG OUTCOME, the benefit of empagliflozin in reducing the risk of HHF, CV death/HHF, and CV death emerged within weeks after treatment initiation. The earliest benefit appears to be on HHF.