Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cardiovascular Disease
Cardiovascular Disease
A recent meta-analysis indicated that and are similar to those for people with such as albuminuria. Although some vari-
SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of heart type 2 diabetes. ability in calibration exists in various sub-
failure hospitalization, cardiovascular mor- As depicted in Fig. 10.1, a comprehen- groups, including by sex, race, and diabetes,
tality, and all-cause mortality in people sive approach to the reduction in risk of the overall risk prediction does not differ
with (secondary prevention) and without diabetes-related complications is recom- in those with or without diabetes (13–16),
(primary prevention) cardiovascular dis- mended. Therapy that includes multiple, validating the use of risk calculators in
ease (12). concurrent evidence-based approaches to people with diabetes. The 10-year risk of
For prevention and management of care will provide complementary reduc- a first ASCVD event should be assessed to
both ASCVD and heart failure, cardio- tion in the risks of microvascular, kidney, better stratify ASCVD risk and help guide
vascular risk factors should be systemat- neurologic, and cardiovascular complica- therapy, as described below.
ically assessed at least annually in all tions. Management of glycemia, blood Recently, risk scores and other cardio-
people with diabetes. These risk factors pressure, and lipids and the incorpora- vascular biomarkers have been devel-
oped for risk stratification of secondary
Recommendations
10.1 Blood pressure should be
measured at every routine
clinical visit. When possible,
individuals found to have ele-
vated blood pressure (systolic
blood pressure 120–129 mmHg
and diastolic <80 mmHg)
should have blood pressure
confirmed using multiple read-
Figure 10.1—Multifactorial approach to reduction in risk of diabetes complications. *Risk re- ings, including measurements
duction interventions to be applied as individually appropriate.
S160 Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management Diabetes Care Volume 46, Supplement 1, January 2023
on a separate day, to diag- targets should be individual- of <130/80 mmHg derives primarily from
nose hypertension. A Hyper- ized through a shared decision- the collective evidence of the following
tension is defined as a systolic making process that addresses randomized controlled trials. The Systolic
blood pressure $130 mmHg cardiovascular risk, potential ad- Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)
or a diastolic blood pressure verse effects of antihypertensive demonstrated that treatment to a target
$80 mmHg based on an medications, and patient prefer- systolic blood pressure of <120 mmHg
average of $2 measurements ences. B decreases cardiovascular event rates
obtained on $2 occasions. A 10.4 People with diabetes and by 25% in high-risk patients, although
Individuals with blood pres- hypertension qualify for anti- people with diabetes were excluded from
sure $180/110 mmHg and hypertensive drug therapy when this trial (33). The recently completed
cardiovascular disease could the blood pressure is persistently Strategy of Blood Pressure Intervention in
be diagnosed with hyperten- elevated $130/80 mmHg. The the Elderly Hypertensive Patients (STEP)
$130 mmHg and increased cardiovascu- hypertension to a systolic blood pres- significantly reduced the risk of stroke by
lar risk and treated to a systolic blood sure target of 110 to <130 mmHg (in- 31% but did not reduce the risk of MI
pressure target of <120 mmHg (in- tensive treatment) or a target of 130 to (38). Another meta-analysis of 19 trials in-
tensive treatment) versus a target of <150 mmHg (34). In this trial, the pri- cluding 44,989 patients showed that a
<140 mmHg (standard treatment). The mary composite outcome of stroke, mean blood pressure of 133/76 mmHg is
primary composite outcome of myocar- acute coronary syndrome, acute decom- associated with a 14% risk reduction for
dial infarction (MI), coronary syndromes, pensated heart failure, coronary revas- major cardiovascular events compared with
stroke, heart failure, or death from cardio- cularization, atrial fibrillation, or death a mean blood pressure of 140/81 mmHg
vascular causes was reduced by 25% in from cardiovascular causes was reduced (32). This benefit was greatest in people
the intensive treatment group. The by 26% in the intensive treatment with diabetes. An analysis of trials includ-
achieved systolic blood pressures in the group. In this trial, 18.9% of patients in ing people with type 2 diabetes and im-
trial were 121 mmHg and 136 mmHg in the intensive treatment arm and 19.4% paired glucose tolerance with achieved
the intensive versus standard treatment systolic blood pressures of <135 mmHg
Table 10.1—Randomized controlled trials of intensive versus standard hypertension treatment strategies
Clinical trial Population Intensive Standard Outcomes
ACCORD BP (35) 4,733 participants with SBP target: SBP target: No benefit in primary end point:
T2D aged 40–79 <120 mmHg 130–140 mmHg composite of nonfatal MI, nonfatal
years with prior Achieved (mean) Achieved (mean) stroke, and CVD death
evidence of CVD or SBP/DBP: SBP/DBP: Stroke risk reduced 41% with
multiple 119.3/64.4 mmHg 135/70.5 mmHg intensive control, not sustained
cardiovascular risk through follow-up beyond the
factors period of active treatment
Adverse events more common in
intensive group, particularly
elevated serum creatinine and
electrolyte abnormalities
ACCORD BP, Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure trial; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; ADVANCE, Action in Diabe-
tes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation; AKI, acute kidney injury; CVD, cardiovascular disease; DBP, dia-
stolic blood pressure; HOT, Hypertension Optimal Treatment trial; MI, myocardial infarction; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SPRINT, Systolic
Blood Pressure Intervention Trial; STEP, Strategy of Blood Pressure Intervention in the Elderly Hypertensive Patients; T2D, type 2 diabetes.
pressure control when they have high ab- Potential adverse effects of antihyper- pressure control (43). In addition, individ-
solute cardiovascular risk. This approach is tensive therapy (e.g., hypotension, syn- uals with orthostatic hypotension, sub-
consistent with guidelines from the Ameri- cope, falls, acute kidney injury, and stantial comorbidity, functional limitations,
can College of Cardiology and Ameri- electrolyte abnormalities) should also or polypharmacy may be at high risk of
can Heart Association, which also advocate be taken into account (33,35,42,43). adverse effects, and some patients may
a blood pressure target of <130/80 mmHg Individuals with older age, CKD, and frailty prefer higher blood pressure targets
for all people, with or without diabetes have been shown to be at higher risk to enhance quality of life. However, in
(20). of adverse effects of intensive blood ACCORD BP, it was found that intensive
diabetesjournals.org/care Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management S163
blood pressure lowering decreased the medically indicated preterm birth at increasing potassium intake,
risk of cardiovascular events irrespective <35 weeks of gestation, placental abrup- moderation of alcohol in-
of baseline diastolic blood pressure in tion, or fetal/neonatal death, occurred in take, and increased physi-
patients who also received standard gly- 30.2% of female participants in the ac- cal activity. A
cemic control (44). Therefore, the pres- tive treatment group vs. 37.0% in the
ence of low diastolic blood pressure is control group (P < 0.001). The mean
not necessarily a contraindication to systolic blood pressure between ran- Lifestyle management is an important
more intensive blood pressure man- domization and delivery was 129.5 mmHg component of hypertension treatment
agement in the context of otherwise in the active treatment group and because it lowers blood pressure, enhan-
standard care. 132.6 mmHg in the control group. ces the effectiveness of some antihyper-
Current evidence supports controlling tensive medications, promotes other
Pregnancy and Antihypertensive Medications blood pressure to 110–135/85 mmHg to aspects of metabolic and vascular health,
reduce the risk of accelerated maternal
No Yes No Yes
Figure 10.2—Recommendations for the treatment of confirmed hypertension in people with diabetes. *An ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor
blocker (ARB) is suggested to treat hypertension for people with coronary artery disease (CAD) or urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio 30–299 mg/g creati-
nine and strongly recommended for individuals with urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio $300 mg/g creatinine. **Thiazide-like diuretic; long-acting agents
shown to reduce cardiovascular events, such as chlorthalidone and indapamide, are preferred. ***Dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB). BP,
blood pressure. Adapted from de Boer et al. (20).
the recommended blood pres- or a single-pill combination with diabetes. A ACE inhibi-
sure goal of <130/80 mmHg. A of drugs demonstrated to re- tors or angiotensin receptor
10.8 Individuals with confirmed duce cardiovascular events in blockers are recommended
office-based blood pressure people with diabetes. A first-line therapy for hyperten-
$160/100 mmHg should, in 10.9 Treatment for hypertension sion in people with diabetes
addition to lifestyle therapy, should include drug classes and coronary artery disease. A
have prompt initiation and demonstrated to reduce car- 10.10 Multiple-drug therapy is gener-
timely titration of two drugs diovascular events in people ally required to achieve blood
diabetesjournals.org/care Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management S165
pressure targets. However, reduce the risk of progressive kidney dis- among patients with reduced glomerular
combinations of ACE inhibi- ease (20) (Fig. 10.2). In patients receiving filtration who are at increased risk of hy-
tors and angiotensin receptor ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy, continua- perkalemia and AKI (77,78,80).
blockers and combinations of tion of those medications as kidney func-
tion declines to estimated glomerular Resistant Hypertension
ACE inhibitors or angiotensin
receptor blockers with direct filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2
Recommendation
renin inhibitors should not be may provide cardiovascular benefit with-
10.13 Individuals with hypertension
used. A out significantly increasing the risk of
who are not meeting blood
10.11 An ACE inhibitor or angiotensin end-stage kidney disease (67). In the ab-
sence of albuminuria, risk of progressive pressure targets on three clas-
receptor blocker, at the ses of antihypertensive medi-
maximum tolerated dose in- kidney disease is low, and ACE inhibitors
and ARBs have not been found to afford cations (including a diuretic)
dicated for blood pressure should be considered for min-
application of a Mediterranean 40 years, or more frequently 10.20 For people with diabetes aged
or Dietary Approaches to Stop if indicated. E 40–75 at higher cardiovascular
Hypertension (DASH) eating 10.17 Obtain a lipid profile at initia- risk, including those with one or
pattern; reduction of saturated tion of statins or other lipid- more atherosclerotic cardiovas-
fat and trans fat; increase of di- lowering therapy, 4–12 weeks cular disease risk factors, it is
etary n-3 fatty acids, viscous fi- after initiation or a change in recommended to use high-
ber, and plant stanols/sterols dose, and annually thereafter intensity statin therapy to reduce
intake; and increased physical as it may help to monitor the LDL cholesterol by $50% of
activity should be recom- response to therapy and in- baseline and to target an LDL
mended to improve the lipid form medication taking. E cholesterol goal of <70 mg/dL. B
profile and reduce the risk of 10.21 For people with diabetes aged
developing atherosclerotic car- 40–75 years at higher cardio-
established ASCVD, intensive therapy is therapy versus simvastatin alone (105). preference) versus placebo. Evolocumab
indicated and has been shown to be of Individuals were $50 years of age, had reduced LDL cholesterol by 59% from a
benefit in multiple large meta-analyses experienced a recent acute coronary syn- median of 92 to 30 mg/dL in the treat-
and randomized cardiovascular out- drome (ACS) and were treated for an av- ment arm.
comes trials (91,99,105,107,108). High- erage of 6 years. Overall, the addition of During the median follow-up of 2.2 years,
intensity statin therapy is recommended ezetimibe led to a 6.4% relative benefit the composite outcome of cardiovascu-
for all people with diabetes and ASCVD and a 2% absolute reduction in major ad- lar death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for
to target an LDL cholesterol reduction of verse cardiovascular events (atheroscle- angina, or revascularization occurred in
$50% from baseline and an LDL choles- rotic cardiovascular events), with the 11.3% vs. 9.8% of the placebo and evo-
terol goal of <55 mg/dL. Based on the degree of benefit being directly propor- locumab groups, respectively, represent-
evidence discussed below, addition of tional to the change in LDL cholesterol, ing a 15% relative risk reduction (P <
ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor is recom- which was 70 mg/dL in the statin group 0.001). The combined end point of car-
mended if this goal is not achieved on on average and 54 mg/dL in the combi-
Participants With Atherosclerotic Cardio- Treatment of Other Lipoprotein factor (primary prevention cohort) (121).
vascular Disease and Elevated Low-density Fractions or Targets Patients were randomized to icosapent
Lipoprotein Cholesterol (ORION-10) and ethyl 4 g/day (2 g twice daily with food)
Recommendations
Inclisiran for Subjects With ASCVD or versus placebo. The trial met its primary
ASCVD-Risk Equivalents and Elevated 10.28 For individuals with fasting tri- end point, demonstrating a 25% relative
Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol glyceride levels $500 mg/dL, risk reduction (P < 0.001) for the primary
(ORION-11) trials (116), individuals with evaluate for secondary causes end point composite of cardiovascular
established cardiovascular disease or of hypertriglyceridemia and death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coro-
ASCVD risk equivalent were random- consider medical therapy to re- nary revascularization, or unstable angina.
ized to receive inclisiran or placebo. Incli- duce the risk of pancreatitis. C This reduction in risk was seen in people
siran allows less frequent administration 10.29 In adults with moderate hyper- with or without diabetes at baseline. The
compared with monoclonal antibodies triglyceridemia (fasting or non- composite of cardiovascular death, nonfa-
and was administered on day 1, on fasting triglycerides 175–499 tal MI, or nonfatal stroke was reduced by
to provide additional cardio- therapy (128). A total of 25,673 individ- several lines of evidence point against
vascular benefit above statin uals with prior vascular disease were this association, as detailed in a 2018
therapy alone, may increase randomized to receive 2 g of extended- European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus
the risk of stroke with addi- release niacin and 40 mg of laropiprant Panel statement (132). First, there are three
tional side effects, and is gen- (an antagonist of the prostaglandin D2 large randomized trials of statin versus pla-
erally not recommended. A receptor DP1 that has been shown to cebo where specific cognitive tests were
improve participation in niacin therapy) performed, and no differences were seen
versus a matching placebo daily and fol- between statin and placebo (133–136). In
Statin and Fibrate Combination Therapy lowed for a median follow-up period of addition, no change in cognitive function
Combination therapy (statin and fibrate) 3.9 years. There was no significant dif- has been reported in studies with the addi-
is associated with an increased risk for ference in the rate of coronary death, tion of ezetimibe (105) or PCSK9 inhibitors
abnormal transaminase levels, myositis, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization (108,137) to statin therapy, including
with the addition of niacin–laropiprant among patients treated to very low
should be considered for indi- bleeding, or other serious bleeding). factor (family history of premature
viduals with stable coronary During a mean follow-up of 7.4 years, ASCVD, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smok-
and/or peripheral artery dis- there was a significant 12% reduction ing, or CKD/albuminuria) who are not at
ease and low bleeding risk to in the primary efficacy end point (8.5% increased risk of bleeding (e.g., older age,
prevent major adverse limb vs. 9.6%; P = 0.01). In contrast, major anemia, renal disease) (148–151). Nonin-
and cardiovascular events. A bleeding was significantly increased from vasive imaging techniques such as coro-
10.38 Aspirin therapy (75–162 mg/day) 3.2 to 4.1% in the aspirin group (rate ra- nary calcium scoring may potentially help
may be considered as a primary tio 1.29; P = 0.003), with most of the ex- further tailor aspirin therapy, particularly
prevention strategy in those cess being gastrointestinal bleeding and in those at low risk (152,153). For people
with diabetes who are at in- other extracranial bleeding. There were >70 years of age (with or without diabe-
creased cardiovascular risk, af- no significant differences by sex, weight, tes), the balance appears to have greater
ter a comprehensive discussion or duration of diabetes or other baseline risk than benefit (144,146). Thus, for pri-
factors including ASCVD risk score. mary prevention, the use of aspirin needs
diabetes, there were no significant dif- including intracranial hemorrhage, was with rivaroxaban added to aspirin treatment
ferences in cardiovascular events or ma- noted with dual antiplatelet therapy. in both COMPASS and VOYAGER PAD.
jor bleeding between patients assigned The net clinical benefit (ischemic benefit The risks and benefits of dual antiplate-
to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg vs. bleeding risk) was improved with ti- let or antiplatelet plus anticoagulant treat-
of aspirin daily (156). In the U.S., the cagrelor therapy in the large prespeci- ment strategies should be thoroughly
most common low-dose tablet is 81 mg. fied subgroup of patients with history discussed with eligible patients, and
Although platelets from people with di- of percutaneous coronary intervention, shared decision-making should be used
abetes have altered function, it is un- while no net benefit was seen in pa- to determine an individually appropriate
clear what, if any, effect that finding has tients without prior percutaneous coro- treatment approach. This field of cardio-
on the required dose of aspirin for car- nary intervention (165). However, early vascular risk reduction is evolving rapidly,
dioprotective effects in people with dia- aspirin discontinuation compared with as are the definitions of optimal care for
betes. Many alternate pathways for continued dual antiplatelet therapy af- patients with differing types and circum-
platelet activation exist that are inde- stances of cardiovascular complications.
Table 10.3A—Cardiovascular and cardiorenal outcomes trials of available antihyperglycemic medications completed after
the issuance of the FDA 2008 guidelines: DPP-4 inhibitors
SAVOR-TIMI 53 (224) EXAMINE (235) TECOS (226) CARMELINA (193,236) CAROLINA (193,237)
(n = 16,492) (n = 5,380) (n = 14,671) (n = 6,979) (n = 6,042)
Intervention Saxagliptin/placebo Alogliptin/placebo Sitagliptin/placebo Linagliptin/placebo Linagliptin/
glimepiride
Main inclusion Type 2 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes and
criteria history of or ACS within 15–90 preexisting CVD high CV and renal high CV risk
multiple risk days before risk
factors for CVD randomization
A1C inclusion $6.5 6.5–11.0 6.5–8.0 6.5–10.0 6.5–8.5
criteria (%)
—, not assessed/reported; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; CHF, congestive heart failure; CV, cardiovascular; CVD, cardiovascular disease;
DPP-4, dipeptidyl peptidase 4; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; GLP-1, glucagon-like peptide 1; HF,
heart failure; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular event; MI, myocardial infarction; UL, upper limit. Data from this table was adapted from
Cefalu et al. (238) in the January 2018 issue of Diabetes Care. †Age was reported as means in all trials except EXAMINE, which reported me-
dians; diabetes duration was reported as means in all trials except SAVOR-TIMI 53 and EXAMINE, which reported medians. ‡Significant differ-
ence in A1C between groups (P < 0.05). §Outcomes reported as hazard ratio (95% CI). jjWorsening nephropathy is defined as a doubling of
creatinine level, initiation of dialysis, renal transplantation, or creatinine >6.0 mg/dL (530 mmol/L) in SAVOR-TIMI 53. Worsening nephropathy
was a prespecified exploratory adjudicated outcome in SAVOR-TIMI 53.
S174
Table 10.3B—Cardiovascular and cardiorenal outcomes trials of available antihyperglycemic medications completed after the issuance of the FDA 2008 guidelines: GLP-1
receptor agonists
ELIXA (208) LEADER (203) SUSTAIN-6 (204)* EXSCEL (209) REWIND (207) PIONEER-6 (205)
(n = 6,068) (n = 9,340) (n = 3,297) (n = 14,752) (n = 9,901) (n = 3,183)
Intervention Lixisenatide/placebo Liraglutide/placebo Semaglutide s.c. Exenatide QW/ Dulaglutide/ Semaglutide oral/
injection/placebo placebo placebo placebo
Main inclusion criteria Type 2 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes Type 2 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes and high
history of ACS preexisting CVD, preexisting CVD, with or without prior ASCVD CV risk (age of $50
Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management
(<180 days) CKD, or HF at HF, or CKD at preexisting CVD event or risk years with established
$50 years of age $50 years of age factors for ASCVD CVD or CKD, or age of
or CV risk at $60 or CV risk at $60 $60 years with CV
years of age years of age risk factors only)
A1C inclusion criteria (%) 5.5–11.0 $7.0 $7.0 6.5–10.0 #9.5 None
Age (years)† 60.3 64.3 64.6 62 66.2 66
Race (% White) 75.2 77.5 83.0 75.8 75.7 72.3
Sex (% male) 69.3 64.3 60.7 62 53.7 68.4
Diabetes duration (years)† 9.3 12.8 13.9 12 10.5 14.9
Median follow-up (years) 2.1 3.8 2.1 3.2 5.4 1.3
Statin use (%) 93 72 73 74 66 85.2 (all lipid-lowering)
Metformin use (%) 66 76 73 77 81 77.4
Prior CVD/CHF (%) 100/22 81/18 60/24 73.1/16.2 32/9 84.7/12.2
Mean baseline A1C (%) 7.7 8.7 8.7 8.0 7.4 8.2
Mean difference in A1C 0.3‡^ 0.4‡ 0.7 or 1.0^ 0.53‡^ 0.61‡ 0.7
between groups at end of
treatment (%)
Year started/reported 2010/2015 2010/2016 2013/2016 2010/2017 2011/2019 2017/2019
Primary outcome§ 4-point MACE 1.02 3-point MACE 0.87 3-point MACE 0.74 3-point MACE 0.91 3-point MACE 0.88 3-point MACE 0.79
(0.89–1.17) (0.78–0.97) (0.58–0.95) (0.83–1.00) (0.79–0.99) (0.57–1.11)
Continued on p. S175
Diabetes Care Volume 46, Supplement 1, January 2023
0.87 (0.79–0.95)
Cardiovascular death§ 0.98 (0.78–1.22) 0.78 (0.66–0.93) 0.98 (0.65–1.48) 0.88 (0.76–1.02) 0.91 (0.78–1.06) 0.49 (0.27–0.92)
Ml§ 1.03 (0.87–1.22) 0.86 (0.73–1.00) 0.74 (0.51–1.08) 0.97 (0.85–1.10) 0.96 (0.79–1.15) 1.18 (0.73–1.90)
Stroke§ 1.12 (0.79–1.58) 0.86 (0.71–1.06) 0.61 (0.38–0.99) 0.85 (0.70–1.03) 0.76 (0.61–0.95) 0.74 (0.35–1.57)
HF hospitalization§ 0.96 (0.75–1.23) 0.87 (0.73–1.05) 1.11 (0.77–1.61) 0.94 (0.78–1.13) 0.93 (0.77–1.12) 0.86 (0.48–1.55)
Unstable angina hospitalization§ 1.11 (0.47–2.62) 0.98 (0.76–1.26) 0.82 (0.47–1.44) 1.05 (0.94–1.18) 1.14 (0.84–1.54) 1.56 (0.60–4.01)
All-cause mortality§ 0.94 (0.78–1.13) 0.85 (0.74–0.97) 1.05 (0.74–1.50) 0.86 (0.77–0.97) 0.90 (0.80–1.01) 0.51 (0.31–0.84)
Worsening nephropathy§jj — 0.78 (0.67–0.92) 0.64 (0.46–0.88) — 0.85 (0.77–0.93) —
—, not assessed/reported; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; ASCVD, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CHF, congestive heart failure; CKD, chronic kidney disease; CV, cardiovascular; CVD, cardiovas-
cular disease; GLP-1, glucagon-like peptide 1; HF, heart failure; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular event; Ml, myocardial infarction. Data from this table was adapted from Cefalu et al. (238) in the
January 2018 issue of Diabetes Care. *Powered to rule out a hazard ratio of 1.8; superiority hypothesis not prespecified. †Age was reported as means in all trials; diabetes duration was reported as
means in all trials except EXSCEL, which reported medians. ‡Significant difference in A1C between groups (P < 0.05). ^AIC change of 0.66% with 0.5 mg and 1.05% with 1 mg dose of semaglutide.
§Outcomes reported as hazard ratio (95% Cl). jjWorsening nephropathy is defined as the new onset of urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio >300 mg/g creatinine or a doubling of the serum creatinine
level and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <45 mL/min/1.73 m2, the need for continuous renal replacement therapy, or death from renal disease in LEADER and SUSTAIN-6 and as new macro-
albuminuria, a sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30% or more from baseline, or chronic renal replacement therapy in REWIND. Worsening nephropathy was a prespecified ex-
ploratory adjudicated outcome in LEADER, SUSTAIN-6, and REWIND.
lar events. A
cular death. A
hospitalization. A
kidney events. A
Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management
is recommended to improve
reduced ejection fraction, a
symptoms, physical limita- testing and are unable to exercise should cardiovascular risk assessment in people
tions, and quality of life. A undergo pharmacologic stress echocardi- with type 2 diabetes (183), their routine
10.43 For people with type 2 diabe- ography or nuclear imaging. use leads to radiation exposure and may
tes and chronic kidney disease result in unnecessary invasive testing such
with albuminuria treated with Screening Asymptomatic Patients as coronary angiography and revasculariza-
maximum tolerated doses of The screening of asymptomatic patients tion procedures. The ultimate balance of
ACE inhibitor or angiotensin with high ASCVD risk is not recom- benefit, cost, and risks of such an ap-
receptor blocker, addition of mended (171), in part because these proach in asymptomatic patients re-
finerenone is recommended high-risk patients should already be re- mains controversial, particularly in the
to improve cardiovascular out- ceiving intensive medical therapy—an modern setting of aggressive ASCVD
comes and reduce the risk of approach that provides benefit similar risk factor control.
chronic kidney disease pro- to invasive revascularization (172,173).
in people with CKD is included in trials, 10,142 participants with type 2 dia- in the canagliflozin and placebo groups, re-
Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease betes were randomized to canagliflozin or spectively (HR 10.80 [95% CI 1.39–83.65])
and Risk Management.” placebo and were followed for an average (194).
Cardiovascular outcomes trials of di- 3.6 years. The mean age of patients was The Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovas-
peptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors 63 years, and 66% had a history of cardio- cular Events-Thrombosis in Myocardial In-
have all, so far, not shown cardiovascular vascular disease. The combined analysis of farction 58 (DECLARE-TIMI 58) trial was
benefits relative to placebo. In addition, the two trials found that canagliflozin sig- another randomized, double-blind trial
the CAROLINA (Cardiovascular Outcome nificantly reduced the composite outcome that assessed the effects of dapagliflozin
Study of Linagliptin Versus Glimepiride in of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke ver- versus placebo on cardiovascular and
Type 2 Diabetes) study demonstrated sus placebo (occurring in 26.9 vs. 31.5 par- renal outcomes in 17,160 people with
noninferiority between a DPP-4 inhibitor, ticipants per 1,000 patient-years; HR 0.86 type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD
linagliptin, and a sulfonylurea, glimepir- [95% CI 0.75–0.97]). The specific estimates or multiple risk factors for ASCVD (196).
ide, on cardiovascular outcomes despite for canagliflozin versus placebo on the pri- Study participants had a mean age of
Table 10.3C—Cardiovascular and cardiorenal outcomes trials of available antihyperglycemic medications completed after the issuance of the FDA 2008 guidelines: SGLT2
inhibitors
DAPA-CKD EMPEROR-Reduced EMPEROR-Preserved
EMPA-REG CANVAS DECLARE-TIMI 58 (197,239) DAPA-HF (11) (200) (189,241) DELIVER (199)
OUTCOME (8) Program (9) (196) CREDENCE (194) (n = 4,304; 2,906 VERTIS CV (201,240) (n = 4,744; 1,983 (n = 3,730; 1,856 (n = 5,988; 2,938 with (n = 6,263; 2,807
(n = 7,020) (n = 10,142) (n = 17,160) (n = 4,401) with diabetes) (n = 8,246) with diabetes) with diabetes) diabetes) with diabetes)
Intervention Empagliflozin/placebo Canagliflozin/placebo Dapagliflozin/placebo Canagliflozin/placebo Dapagliflozin/placebo Ertugliflozin/placebo Dapagliflozin/placebo Empagliflozin/placebo* Empagliflozin/placebo Dapagliflozin/placebo
Main inclusion Type 2 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes Albuminuric kidney Type 2 diabetes and NYHA class II, III, or NYHA class II, III, or NYHA class II, III, or IV NYHA class II, III, or IV
criteria preexisting CVD preexisting CVD at established ASCVD and albuminuric disease, with or ASCVD IV heart failure IV heart failure heart failure and an heart failure and an
$30 years of age or multiple risk kidney disease without diabetes and an ejection and an ejection ejection fraction ejection fraction
or $2 CV risk factors for ASCVD fraction #40%, fraction #40%, >40% >40% with or
Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management
Age (years)† 63.1 63.3 64.0 63 61.8 64.4 66 67.2, 66.5 71.8, 71.9 71.7
Race (% White) 72.4 78.3 79.6 66.6 53.2 87.8 70.3 71.1, 69.8 76.3, 75.4 71.2
Sex (% male) 71.5 64.2 62.6 66.1 66.9 70 76.6 76.5, 75.6 55.4, 55.3 56.1
Median follow-up 3.1 3.6 4.2 2.6 2.4 3.5 1.5 1.3 2.2 2.3
(years)
Prior CVD/CHF (%) 99/10 65.6/14.4 40/10 50.4/14.8 37.4/10.9 99.9/23.1 100% with CHF 100% with CHF 100% with CHF 100% with CHF
Mean baseline 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 7.1% (7.8% in those 8.2 — — — 6.6
A1C (%) with diabetes)
Year started/reported 2010/2015 2009/2017 2013/2018 2017/2019 2017/2020 2013/2020 2017/2019 2017/2020 2017/2020 2018/2022
Continued on p. S179
Diabetes Care Volume 46, Supplement 1, January 2023
CV death or HF death from renal death from renal from CV causes 0.75 (0.65–0.86) (0.69–0.90) (0.73–0.92)
hospitalization or CV cause 0.70 or CV cause 0.61 0.74 (0.65–0.85)
0.83 (0.73–0.95) (0.59–0.82) (0.51–0.72) Results did not differ
by diabetes status
Key secondary 4-point MACE 0.89 All-cause and CV Death from any cause CV death or HF $50% decline in CV death or HF CV death or HF Total HF All HF hospitalizations Total number
outcome§ (0.78–1.01) mortality (see 0.93 (0.82–1.04) hospitalization eGFR, ESKD, or hospitalization hospitalization hospitalizations (first and recurrent) worsening HF and
below) Renal composite 0.69 (0.57–0.83) death from renal 0.88 (0.75–1.03) 0.75 (0.65–0.85) 0.70 (0.58–0.85) 0.73 (0.61–0.88) CV deaths 0.77
($40% decrease in 3-point MACE 0.80 cause 0.56 CV death 0.92 Mean slope of Rate of decline in eGFR (0.67–0.89)
eGFR rate to <60 (0.67–0.95) (0.45–0.68) (0.77–1.11) change in eGFR (1.25 vs. 2.62 Change in KCCQ TSS
mL/min/1.73 m2, CV death or HF Renal death, renal 1.73 (1.10–2.37) mL/min/1.73 m2; at month 8 1.11
new ESRD, or hospitalization replacement P < 0.001) (1.03–1.21)
death from renal 0.71 (0.55–0.92) therapy, or Mean change in
or CV causes 0.76 Death from any doubling of KCCQ TSS 2.4
(0.67–0.87) cause 0.69 creatinine 0.81 (1.5–3.4)
(0.53–0.88) (0.63–1.04) All-cause mortality
0.94 (0.83–1.07)
Cardiovascular death§ 0.62 (0.49–0.77) 0.87 (0.72–1.06) 0.98 (0.82–1.17) 0.78 (0.61–1.00) 0.81 (0.58–1.12) 0.92 (0.77–1.11) 0.82 (0.69–0.98) 0.92 (0.75–1.12) 0.91 (0.76–1.09) 0.88 (0.74–1.05)
HF hospitalization§ 0.65 (0.50–0.85) 67 (0.52–0.87) 0.73 (0.61–0.88) 0.61 (0.47–0.80) — 0.70 (0.54–0.90) 0.70 (0.59–0.83) 0.69 (0.59–0.81) 0.73 (0.61–0.88) 0.77 (0.67–0.89)
All-cause mortality§ 0.68 (0.57–0.82) 87 (0.74–1.01) 0.93 (0.82–1.04) 0.83 (0.68–1.02) 0.69 (0.53–0.88) 0.93 (0.80–1.08) 0.83 (0.71–0.97) 0.92 (0.77–1.10) 1.00 (0.87–1.15) 0.94 (0.83–1.07)
Worsening 0.61 (0.53–0.70) 0.60 (0.47–0.77) 0.53 (0.43–0.66) (See primary (See primary (See secondary 0.71 (0.44–1.16) Composite renal Composite renal —
nephropathy§jj outcome) outcome) outcomes) outcome 0.50 outcome** 0.95
(0.32–0.77) (0.73–1.24)
—, not assessed/reported; CHF, congestive heart failure; CV, cardiovascular; CVD, cardiovascular disease; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ESRD, end-stage renal disease; HF, heart failure;
KCCQ TSS, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular event; Ml, myocardial infarction; SGLT2, sodium–glucose cotransporter 2; NYFIA, New
York Fleart Association. Data from this table was adapted from Cefalu et al. (238) in the January 2018 issue of Diabetes Care. *Baseline characteristics for EMPEROR-Reduced displayed as empagliflozin,
placebo. †Age was reported as means in all trials; diabetes duration was reported as means in all trials except EMPA-REG OUTCOME, which reported as percentage of population with diabetes duration
>10 years, and DECLARE-TIMI 58, which reported median. ‡Significant difference in A1C between groups (P < 0.05). ^AIC change of 0.30 in EMPA-REG OUTCOME is based on pooled results for both
doses (i.e., 0.24% for 10 mg and 0.36% for 25 mg of empagliflozin). §Outcomes reported as hazard ratio (95% Cl). jjDefinitions of worsening nephropathy differed between trials. **Composite outcome
in EMPEROR-Preserved: time to first occurrence of chronic dialysis, renal transplantation; sustained reduction of $40% in eGFR, sustained eGFR <15 mL/min/1.73 m2 for individuals with baseline eGFR
$30 mL/min/1.73 m2.
Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management
S179
or hospitalization for heart failure (HR Sotagliflozin, an SGLT1 and SGLT2 in- people with type 2 diabetes at high risk
0.71 [95% CI 0.55–0.92]). The effects of hibitor not currently approved by the for cardiovascular disease or with cardio-
dapagliflozin therapy were similar in FDA in the U.S., lowers glucose via de- vascular disease (203). Study participants
individuals with and without type 2 layed glucose absorption in the gut in had a mean age of 64 years and a mean
diabetes. addition to increasing urinary glucose duration of diabetes of nearly 13 years.
Results of the Dapagliflozin and Pre- excretion and has been evaluated in the Over 80% of study participants had estab-
vention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular lished cardiovascular disease. After a
Failure (DAPA-HF) trial, the Empagliflozin and Renal Events in Patients With median follow-up of 3.8 years, LEADER
Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate Renal Im- showed that the primary composite out-
Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection pairment Who Are at Cardiovascular Risk come (MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death)
Fraction (EMPEROR-Reduced), Empagli- (SCORED) trial (202). A total of 10,584 occurred in fewer participants in the
flozin Outcome Trial in Patients With people with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and ad- treatment group (13.0%) when com-
Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved ditional cardiovascular risk were enrolled
for noninferiority) (205). The cardiovascu- outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, diabetes and established ASCVD (210,211).
lar effects of this formulation of sema- stroke, or hospitalization for unstable SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce risk of heart
glutide will be further tested in a large, angina occurred in 406 patients (13.4%) failure hospitalization and progression of
longer-term outcomes trial. in the lixisenatide group vs. 399 (13.2%) kidney disease in people with established
The Harmony Outcomes trial random- in the placebo group (HR 1.2 [95% CI ASCVD, multiple risk factors for ASCVD, or
ized 9,463 people with type 2 diabetes 0.89–1.17]), which demonstrated the albuminuric kidney disease (212,213). In
and cardiovascular disease to once-weekly noninferiority of lixisenatide to placebo people with type 2 diabetes and estab-
subcutaneous albiglutide or matching pla- (P < 0.001) but did not show superior- lished ASCVD, multiple ASCVD risk factors,
cebo, in addition to their standard care ity (P = 0.81). or diabetic kidney disease, an SGLT2 inhibi-
(206). Over a median duration of 1.6 The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular tor with demonstrated cardiovascular ben-
years, the GLP-1 receptor agonist reduced Event Lowering (EXSCEL) trial also reported efit is recommended to reduce the risk of
the risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or results with the once-weekly GLP-1 recep- major adverse cardiovascular events and/
stroke to an incidence rate of 4.6 events tor agonist extended-release exenatide or heart failure hospitalization. In people
associated with increased morbidity and agonists lixisenatide, liraglutide, sema- placebo on a primary composite outcome
mortality, commonly coincide, and inde- glutide, exenatide once-weekly, albi- of cardiovascular death or hospitalization
pendently contribute to adverse out- glutide, or dulaglutide compared with for worsening heart failure in a population
comes (217). Strategies to mitigate these placebo (Table 10.3B) (203,204,207–209). of 3,730 patients with NYHA class II, III, or
risks are needed, and the heart failure- Reduced incidence of heart failure IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of
related risks and benefits of glucose- has been observed with the use of 40% or less (200). At baseline, 49.8% of
lowering medications should be considered SGLT2 inhibitors (8,194,196). In EMPA- participants had a history of diabetes.
carefully when determining a regimen of REG OUTCOME, the addition of empagli- Over a median follow-up of 16 months,
care for people with diabetes and either flozin to standard care led to a signifi- those in the empagliflozin-treated group
established heart failure or high risk for cant 35% reduction in hospitalization for had a reduced risk of the primary outcome
the development of heart failure. heart failure compared with placebo (8). (HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.65–0.86]; P < 0.001)
Data on the effects of glucose-lowering Although the majority of patients in the and fewer total hospitalizations for heart
agents on heart failure outcomes have study did not have heart failure at base- failure (HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.58–0.85]; P <
Post Worsening Heart Failure (SOLOIST- vs. 3.4%) and severe hypoglycemia of worsening heart failure and cardiovas-
WHF) included 21,947 patients and dem- (1.5% vs. 0.3%) were more common cular death. In addition, an SGLT2 inhibitor
onstrated reduced risk for the composite with sotagliflozin than with placebo. The is recommended in this patient population
of cardiovascular death or hospitalization trial was originally also intended to to improve symptoms, physical limitations,
for heart failure, cardiovascular death, first evaluate the effects of SGLT inhibition and quality of life. The benefits seen in
hospitalization for heart failure, and all- in people with HFpEF, and ultimately no this patient population likely represent a
cause mortality. The findings on the stud- evidence of heterogeneity of treatment class effect, and they appear unrelated to
ied end points were consistent in both tri- effect by ejection fraction was noted. glucose lowering given comparable out-
als of heart failure with mildly reduced or However, the relatively small percent- comes in people with heart failure with
preserved ejection fraction and in all five age of such patients enrolled (only 21% and without diabetes.
trials combined. Collectively, these studies of participants had ejection fraction
indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the >50%) and the early termination of the Finerenone in People With Type 2 Diabetes
risk for heart failure hospitalization and trial limited the ability to determine the
inhibitor or ARB, addition of finernone College of Cardiology “2020 Expert Con- individuals with more long-standing dia-
should be considered to improve car- sensus Decision Pathway on Novel betes may be more challenging, particu-
diovascular outcomes and reduce the Therapies for Cardiovascular Risk Re- larly if patients are using an already
risk of CKD progression. duction in Patients With Type 2 Dia- complex glucose-lowering regimen. In
betes” (234). Figure 10.3, reproduced such patients, SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1
Clinical Approach from that decision pathway, outlines receptor agonist therapy may need to
As has been carefully outlined in Fig. 9.3 the approach to risk reduction with replace some or all of their existing med-
in the preceding Section 9, “Pharmacologic SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 receptor ago- ications to minimize risks of hypoglyce-
Approaches to Glycemic Treatment,” peo- nist therapy in conjunction with other mia and adverse side effects, and
ple with type 2 diabetes with or at high traditional, guideline-based preventive potentially to minimize medication
risk for ASCVD, heart failure, or CKD medical therapies for blood pressure, costs. Close collaboration between pri-
should be treated with a cardioprotective lipids, and glycemia and antiplatelet mary and specialty care professionals
SGLT2 inhibitor and/or GLP-1 receptor ago- therapy. can help to facilitate these transitions in
nist as part of the comprehensive ap- Adoption of these agents should be clinical care and, in turn, improve out-
proach to cardiovascular and kidney risk reasonably straightforward in people with comes for highrisk people with type 2
reduction. Importantly, these agents established cardiovascular or kidney dis- diabetes.
should be included in the regimen of care ease who are later diagnosed with dia-
irrespective of the need for additional betes, as the cardioprotective agents can References
glucose lowering, and irrespective of be used from the outset of diabetes 1. American Diabetes Association. Economic costs
of diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care
metformin use. Such an approach has management. On the other hand, incor- 2018;41:917–928
also been described in the American Di- poration of SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-1 re- 2. Ali MK, Bullard KM, Saaddine JB, Cowie CC,
abetes Association–endorsed American ceptor agonist therapy in the care of Imperatore G, Gregg EW. Achievement of goals in
diabetesjournals.org/care Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management S185
U.S. diabetes care, 1999-2010. N Engl J Med Heart Association-American College of Cardiology- 31. Thomopoulos C, Parati G, Zanchetti A.
2013;368:1613–1624 Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk score Effects of blood-pressure-lowering treatment on
3. Buse JB, Ginsberg HN, Bakris GL, et al.; American in a modern multi-ethnic cohort. Eur Heart J outcome incidence in hypertension: 10 - Should
Heart Association; American Diabetes Association. 2017;38:598–608 blood pressure management differ in hypertensive
Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in 17. Bohula EA, Morrow DA, Giugliano RP, et al. patients with and without diabetes mellitus?
people with diabetes mellitus: a scientific statement Atherothrombotic risk stratification and ezetimibe Overview and meta-analyses of randomized trials.
from the American Heart Association and the for secondary prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol J Hypertens 2017;35:922–944
American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2017;69:911–921 32. Xie X, Atkins E, Lv J, et al. Effects of intensive
2007;30:162–172 18. Bohula EA, Bonaca MP, Braunwald E, et al. blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and
4. Gaede P, Lund-Andersen H, Parving HH, Atherothrombotic risk stratification and the efficacy renal outcomes: updated systematic review and
Pedersen O. Effect of a multifactorial intervention and safety of vorapaxar in patients with stable meta-analysis. Lancet 2016;387:435–443
on mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med ischemic heart disease and previous myocardial 33. Wright JT Jr, Williamson JD, Whelton PK,
2008;358:580–591 infarction. Circulation 2016;134:304–313 et al.; SPRINT Research Group. A randomized trial
5. Cavender MA, Steg PG, Smith SC Jr, et al.; 19. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. of intensive versus standard blood-pressure
REACH Registry Investigators. Impact of diabetes 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ control. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2103–2116
cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality in medication compliance: a meta-analysis. Am J of the renin-angiotensin system: meta-analysis of
type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2020;43:1878–1884 Med 2007;120:713–719 randomised trials. BMJ 2013;346:f360
45. Abalos E, Duley L, Steyn DW. Antihypertensive 60. Catala-Lopez F, Macıas Saint-Gerons D, 74. Zhao P, Xu P, Wan C, Wang Z. Evening
drug therapy for mild to moderate hypertension Gonzalez-Bermejo D, et al. Cardiovascular and versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy
during pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev renal outcomes of renin-angiotensin system for hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2014;2:CD002252 blockade in adult patients with diabetes mellitus: 2011 (10):CD004184
46. Magee LA, von Dadelszen P, Rey E, et al. a systematic review with network meta-analyses. 75. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Moj on A, Fernandez
Less-tight versus tight control of hypertension in PLoS Med 2016;13:e1001971 JR. Influence of time of day of blood pressure-
pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2015;372:407–417 61. Palmer SC, Mavridis D, Navarese E, et al. lowering treatment on cardiovascular risk in
47. Brown MA, Magee LA, Kenny LC, et al.; Comparative efficacy and safety of blood hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes.
International Society for the Study of Hyper- pressure-lowering agents in adults with diabetes Diabetes Care 2011;34:1270–1276
tension in Pregnancy (ISSHP). Hypertensive disorders and kidney disease: a network meta-analysis. 76. Rahman M, Greene T, Phillips RA, et al. A
of pregnancy: ISSHP classification, diagnosis, and Lancet 2015;385:2047–2056 trial of 2 strategies to reduce nocturnal blood
management recommendations for international 62. Barzilay JI, Davis BR, Bettencourt J, pressure in Blacks with chronic kidney disease.
practice. Hypertension 2018;72:24–43 et al.; ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Hypertension 2013;61:82–88
87. Arnett DK, Blumenthal RS, Albert MA, et al. people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of on glycaemia and risk of new-onset diabetes: a
2019 ACC/AHA guideline on the primary statins: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2008;371:117–125 prespecified analysis of the FOURIER randomised
prevention of cardiovascular disease: a report of 100. Taylor F, Huffman MD, Macedo AF, et al. controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017;
the American College of Cardiology/American Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular 5:941–950
Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;1: 113. Moriarty PM, Jacobson TA, Bruckert E,
Guidelines. Circulation 2019;140:e596–e646 CD004816 et al. Efficacy and safety of alirocumab, a
88. Chasman DI, Posada D, Subrahmanyan L, Cook 101. Carter AA, Gomes T, Camacho X, Juurlink DN, monoclonal antibody to PCSK9, in statin-intolerant
NR, Stanton VP Jr, Ridker PM. Pharmacogenetic Shah BR, Mamdani MM. Risk of incident diabetes patients: design and rationale of ODYSSEY
study of statin therapy and cholesterol reduction. among patients treated with statins: population ALTERNATIVE, a randomized phase 3 trial. J Clin
JAMA 2004;291:2821–2827 based study. BMJ 2013;346:f2610–f2610 Lipidol 2014;8:554–561
89. Meek C, Wierzbicki AS, Jewkes C, et al. Daily 102. Jellinger PS, Handelsman Y, Rosenblit 114. Zhang XL, Zhu QQ, Zhu L, et al. Safety and
and intermittent rosuvastatin 5 mg therapy in PD, et al. American Association of Clinical efficacy of anti-PCSK9 antibodies: a meta-analysis
statin intolerant patients: an observational study. Endocrinologists and American College of of 25 randomized, controlled trials. BMC Med
Curr Med Res Opin 2012;28:371–378 Endocrinology guidelines for management of 2015;13:123
90. Mihaylova B, Emberson J, Blackwell L, et al.; dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular 115. Giugliano RP, Pedersen TR, Saver JL, et al.;
lipid therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J 141. Belch J, MacCuish A, Campbell I, et al.; disease: shared decision making in clinical practice.
Med 2010;362:1563–1574 Prevention of Progression of Arterial Disease and JAMA 2016;316:709–710
127. Boden WE, Probstfield JL, Anderson T, et al.; Diabetes Study Group; Diabetes Registry Group; 155. Campbell CL, Smyth S, Montalescot G,
AIM-HIGH Investigators. Niacin in patients with Royal College of Physicians Edinburgh. The pre- Steinhubl SR. Aspirin dose for the prevention
low HDL cholesterol levels receiving intensive vention of progression of arterial disease and of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.
statin therapy. N Engl J Med 2011;365:2255–2267 diabetes (POPADAD) trial: factorial randomised JAMA 2007;297:2018–2024
128. Landray MJ, Haynes R, Hopewell JC, et al.; placebo controlled trial of aspirin and antioxidants 156. Jones WS, Mulder H, Wruck LM, et al.;
HPS2-THRIVE Collaborative Group. Effects of in patients with diabetes and asymptomatic ADAPTABLE Team. Comparative effectiveness of
extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high- peripheral arterial disease. BMJ 2008;337:a1840– aspirin dosing in cardiovascular disease. N Engl J
risk patients. N Engl J Med 2014;371:203–212 a1840 Med 2021;384:1981–1990
129. Rajpathak SN, Kumbhani DJ, Crandall J, 142. Zhang C, Sun A, Zhang P, et al. Aspirin for 157. Davı G, Patrono C. Platelet activation and
Barzilai N, Alderman M, Ridker PM. Statin therapy primary prevention of cardiovascular events in atherothrombosis. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2482–
and risk of developing type 2 diabetes: a meta- patients with diabetes: A meta-analysis. Diabetes 2494
analysis. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1924–1929 Res Clin Pract 2010;87:211–218 158. Larsen SB, Grove EL, Neergaard-Petersen S,
130. Sattar N, Preiss D, Murray HM, et al. Statins 143. De Berardis G, Sacco M, Strippoli GFM, et al. W€ urtz M, Hvas AM, Kristensen SD. Determinants
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 184. Wing RR, Bolin P, Brancati FL, et al.; Look 195. Neal B, Perkovic V, Matthews DR, et al.;
2018;391:205–218 AHEAD Research Group. Cardiovascular effects of CANVAS-R Trial Collaborative Group. Rationale,
170. Bonaca MP, Bauersachs RM, Anand SS, et al. intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes. design and baseline characteristics of the
Rivaroxaban in peripheral artery disease after N Engl J Med 2013;369:145–154 CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study-
revascularization. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1994– 185. Braunwald E, Domanski MJ, Fowler SE, et al.; Renal (CANVAS-R): A randomized, placebo-
2004 PEACE Trial Investigators. Angiotensin-converting- controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 2017;19:
171. Bax JJ, Young LH, Frye RL, Bonow RO, enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery 387–393
Steinberg HO; ADA. Screening for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2058–2068 196. Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP, et al.;
disease in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 186. Pitt B, Filippatos G, Agarwal R, et al.; DECLARE–TIMI 58 Investigators. Dapagliflozin
2007;30:2729–2736 FIGARO-DKD Investigators. Cardiovascular events and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.
172. Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al.; with finerenone in kidney disease and type 2 N Engl J Med 2019;380:347–357
COURAGE Trial Research Group. Optimal medical diabetes. N Engl J Med 2021;385:2252–2263 197. Heerspink HJL, Stefansson BV, Correa-
therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary 187. Filippatos G, Anker SD, Agarwal R, et al.; Rotter R, et al.; DAPA-CKD Trial Committees and
disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1503–1516 FIGARO-DKD Investigators. Finerenone reduces Investigators. Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic
173 Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, et al.; BARI risk of incident heart failure in patients with kidney disease. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1436–1446
2 inhibitors for prevention of major adverse 221. Inzucchi SE, Masoudi FA, McGuire DK. risk: epidemiology, mechanisms, and prevention.
cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 Metformin in heart failure. Diabetes Care 2007; Lancet 2013;382:339–352
diabetes mellitus. Circulation 2019;139:2022–2031 30:e129–e129 233. Bakris GL, Agarwal R, Anker SD, et al.;
211. Palmer SC, Tendal B, Mustafa RA, et al. 222. Eurich DT, Majumdar SR, McAlister FA, FIDELIO-DKD Investigators. Effect of finerenone
Sodium-glucose cotransporter protein-2 (SGLT-2) Tsuyuki RT, Johnson JA. Improved clinical on chronic kidney disease outcomes in type 2
inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) outcomes associated with metformin in patients diabetes. N Engl J Med 2020;383:2219–2229
receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: systematic with diabetes and heart failure. Diabetes Care 234. Das SR, Everett BM, Birtcher KK, et al. 2020
review and network meta-analysis of randomised 2005;28:2345–2351 expert consensus decision pathway on novel
controlled trials. BMJ 2021;372:m4573 223. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA therapies for cardiovascular risk reduction in
212. Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, et al. SGLT2 drug safety communication: FDA revises warnings patients with type 2 diabetes: a report of the
inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention regarding use of the diabetes medicine metformin American College of Cardiology Solution Set
of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 in certain patients with reduced kidney function, Oversight Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:
diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis 2016. Accessed 21 October 2022. Available from 1117–1145
of cardiovascular outcome trials. Lancet 2019; https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and- 235. White WB, Cannon CP, Heller SR, et al.;
393:31–39 availability/fda-drug-safety-communication- EXAMINE Investigators. Alogliptin after acute