Search

Jemi Galani,1 Hillary Mulder,2 Frank W Rockhold,2 E Hope Weissler,2,3 Iris Baumgartner,4 Jeffrey S Berger,5 Juuso I Blomster,6 F Gerry R Fowkes,7 William R Hiatt,8,9 Brian G Katona,10 Lars Norgren,11 Kenneth W Mahaffey,12 Jennifer K Quint,13 Manesh R Patel,1,2 W Schuyler Jones1,2 1Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; 2Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA; 3Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular Surgery, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC, USA; 4Department of Medicine, Swiss Cardiovascular Center, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; 5Departments of Medicine and Surgery, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 6University of Turku, Turku, Finland; 7Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; 8Division of Cardiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA; 9CPC Clinical Research, Aurora, CO, USA; 10AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, USA; 11Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden; 12Stanford Center for Clinical Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA; 13Respiratory Epidemiology, Occupational Medicine and Public Health, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UKCorrespondence: W Schuyler JonesDuke University Medical Center, Box 3330, Durham, NC, 27710, USATel +1 919-668-8917Fax +1 919-668-7026Email schuyler.jones@duke.eduBackground: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are at increased risk of developing lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) and suffering PAD-related morbidity and mortality. However, the effect and burden of COPD on patients with PAD is less well defined. This post hoc analysis from EUCLID aimed to analyze the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major adverse limb events (MALE) in patients with PAD and concomitant COPD compared with those without COPD, and to describe the adverse events specific to patients with COPD.Methods: EUCLID randomized 13,885 patients with symptomatic PAD to monotherapy with either ticagrelor or clopidogrel for the prevention of MACE. In this analysis, MACE, MALE, mortality, and adverse events were compared between groups with and without COPD using unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards model.Results: Of the 13,883 patients with COPD status available at baseline, 11% (n=1538) had COPD. Patients with COPD had a higher risk of MACE (6.02 vs 4.29 events/100 patient-years; p< 0.001) due to a significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) (3.55 vs 1.85 events/100 patient-years; p< 0.001) when compared with patients without COPD. These risks persisted after adjustment (MACE: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11– 1.52; p< 0.001; MI: aHR 1.45, 95% CI 1.18– 1.77; p< 0.001). However, patients with COPD did not have an increased risk of MALE or major bleeding. Patients with COPD were more frequently hospitalized for dyspnea and pneumonia (2.66 vs 0.9 events/100 patient-years; aHR 2.77, 95% CI 2.12– 3.63; p< 0.001) and more frequently discontinued study drug prematurely (19.36 vs 12.54 events/100 patient-years; p< 0.001; aHR 1.34, 95% CI 1.22– 1.47; p< 0.001).Conclusion: In patients with comorbid PAD and COPD, the risks of MACE, respiratory-related adverse events, and premature study drug discontinuation were higher when compared with patients without COPD.Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01732822.Keywords: peripheral artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, major adverse cardiovascular events

Haroon Jakher,1 Tara I Chang,2 Marilyn Tan,3 Kenneth W Mahaffey4 1Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA; 2Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA; 3Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA; 4Stanford Center for Clinical Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA Abstract: Canagliflozin is a sodium glucose-cotransporter (SGLT) receptor inhibitor approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This article reviews the mechanism of action of SGLT-2 receptor inhibitors and the efficacy of canagliflozin as an antidiabetic agent, its cardiovascular and renal benefits, and safety profile. During the development of canagliflozin, Phase II trials showed an improvement in cardiac and renal biomarkers such as blood pressure, body weight, and albuminuria. The large CANVAS program showed that canagliflozin reduced the composite cardiovascular outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The CANVAS program also showed a possible benefit of canagliflozin on a renal composite of sustained 40% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate, the need for renal replacement therapy, or death from renal causes. The safety profile of canagliflozin has been well characterized, and known side effects such as mycotic genital infections were confirmed in CANVAS. However, an increased risk of amputations was observed in CANVAS that requires further study. Overall, canagliflozin is an effective antidiabetic medication with cardiovascular and likely renal benefits, and with a generally well-tolerated safety profile. Results from the CREDENCE trial will further evaluate the safety and potential renal benefits of canagliflozin in patients with established diabetic nephropathy. Keywords: canagliflozin, sodium glucose-cotransporter, diabetes, CANVAS, Invokana®, renal, cardiac

James S Kahn,1–3 Ronald M Witteles,3,4 Kenneth W Mahaffey,3–5 Sumbul A Desai,2,3 Errol Ozdalga,2,3 Paul A Heidenreich1,3 1Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, 2Division of Primary Care and Population Health, 3Department of Medicine, 4Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, 5Stanford Center for Clinical Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA Introduction: Satisfaction with training and with educational experiences represents important internal medicine (IM) programmatic goals. Graduates from IM residency programs are uniquely poised to provide insights into their educational and training experiences and to assess whether these experiences were satisfactory and relevant to their current employment. Methods: We surveyed former IM residents from the training program held during the years 2000–2015 at the Department of Medicine, Stanford University. The first part of the survey reviewed the IM residency program and the second part sought identifying data regarding gender, race, ethnicity, work, relationships, and financial matters. The primary outcome was satisfaction with the residency experience. Results: Of the 405 individuals who completed the Stanford IM residency program in the study period, we identified 384 (95%) former residents with a known email address. Two hundred and one (52%) former residents responded to the first part and 185 (48%) answered both the parts of the survey. The mean age of the respondents was 36.9 years; 44% were female and the mean time from IM residency was 6.1 (±4.3) years. Fifty-eight percent reported extreme satisfaction with their IM residency experience. Predictors associated with being less than extremely satisfied included insufficient outpatient experience, insufficient international experience, insufficient clinical research experience, and insufficient time spent with family and peers. Conclusion: The residents expressed an overall high satisfaction rate with their IM training. The survey results provided insights for improving satisfaction with IM residency training that includes diversifying and broadening IM training experiences. Keywords: internal medicine residency program, residents, training

Byron Cryer,1 Kenneth W Mahaffey2 1University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX, 2Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA Abstract: Peptic ulcer disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the US with more than six million diagnoses annually. Ulcers are reported as the most common cause of hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and are often a clinical concern due to the widespread use of aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, both of which have been shown to induce ulcer formation. The finding that Helicobacter pylori infection (independent of aspirin use) is associated with the development of ulcers led to a more thorough understanding of the causes and pathogenesis of ulcers and an improvement in therapeutic options. However, many patients infected with H. pylori are asymptomatic and remain undiagnosed. Complicating matters is a current lack of understanding of the association between aspirin use and asymptomatic ulcer formation. Low-dose aspirin prescriptions have increased, particularly for cardioprotection. Unfortunately, the GI side effects associated with aspirin therapy continue to be a major complication in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. These safety concerns should be important considerations in the decision to use aspirin and warrant further education. The medical community needs to continue to improve awareness of aspirin-induced GI bleeding to better equip physicians and improve care for patients requiring aspirin therapy. Keywords: low-dose aspirin, cardioprotection, ulcers, Helicobacter pylori, gastrointestinal bleeding, cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: In the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, a prespecified subgroup analysis showed a significant interaction between treatment and region (P=0.045), with less effect of ticagrelor in North America than in the rest of the world. METHODS AND RESULTS: Reasons for the interaction were explored independently by 2 statistical groups. Systematic errors in trial conduct were investigated. Statistical approaches evaluated the likelihood of play of chance. Cox regression analyses were performed to quantify how much of the regional interaction could be explained by patient characteristics and concomitant treatments, including aspirin maintenance therapy. Landmark Cox regressions at 8 time points evaluated the association of selected factors, including aspirin dose, with outcomes by treatment. Systematic errors in trial conduct were ruled out. Given the large number of subgroup analyses performed and that a result numerically favoring clopidogrel in at least 1 of the 4 prespecified regions could occur with 32% probability, chance alone cannot be ruled out. More patients in the United States (53.6%) than in the rest of the world (1.7%) took a median aspirin dose >=300 mg/d. Of 37 baseline and postrandomization factors explored, only aspirin dose explained a substantial fraction of the regional interaction. In adjusted analyses, both Cox regression with median maintenance dose and landmark techniques showed that, in patients taking low-dose maintenance aspirin, ticagrelor was associated with better outcomes compared with clopidogrel, with statistical superiority in the rest of the world and similar outcomes in the US cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The regional interaction could arise from chance alone. Results of 2 independently performed analyses identified an underlying statistical interaction with aspirin maintenance dose as a possible explanation for the regional difference. The lowest risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel is associated with a low maintenance dose of concomitant aspirin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00391872. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: A thin, cobalt-chromium stent eluting the antiproliferative agent everolimus from a nonadhesive, durable fluoropolymer has shown promise in preliminary studies in improving clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease.Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an everolimus-eluting stent compared with a widely used paclitaxel-eluting stent.Design, Setting, and Patients: The SPIRIT III trial, a prospective, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial enrolling patients at 65 academic and community-based US institutions between June 22, 2005, and March 15, 2006. Patients were 1002 men and women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in lesions 28 mm or less in length and with reference vessel diameter between 2.5 and 3.75 mm. Angiographic follow-up was prespecified at 8 months in 564 patients and completed in 436 patients. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1, 6, 9, and 12 months.Interventions: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive the everolimus-eluting stent (n = 669) or the paclitaxel-eluting stent (n = 333).Main Outcome Measures: The primary end point was noninferiority or superiority of angiographic in-segment late loss. The major secondary end point was noninferiority assessment of target vessel failure events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) at 9 months. An additional secondary end point was evaluation of major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) at 9 and 12 months.Results: Angiographic in-segment late loss was significantly less in the everolimus-eluting stent group compared with the paclitaxel group (mean, 0.14 [SD, 0.41] mm vs 0.28 [SD, 0.48] mm; difference, -0.14 [95% CI, -0.23 to -0.05]; P < or = .004). The everolimus stent was noninferior to the paclitaxel stent for target vessel failure at 9 months (7.2% vs 9.0%, respectively; difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -5.6% to 1.8%]; relative risk, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.51 to 1.23]; P < .001). The everolimus stent compared with the paclitaxel stent resulted in significant reductions in composite major adverse cardiac events both at 9 months (4.6% vs 8.1%; relative risk, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.94]; P = .03) and at 1 year (6.0% vs 10.3%; relative risk, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.90]; P = .02), due to fewer myocardial infarctions and target lesion revascularization procedures.Conclusions: In this large-scale, prospective randomized trial, an everolimus-eluting stent compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent resulted in reduced angiographic late loss, noninferior rates of target vessel failure, and fewer major adverse cardiac events during 1 year of follow-up.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00180479. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Antithrombin therapy has become a guidelines-recommended standard of care in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but recent trials comparing use of enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin in ACS have yielded less robust efficacy and safety results than have earlier trials of these antithrombin therapies.Objective: To systematically evaluate the end points of all-cause death and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), transfusion, and major bleeding observed in the 6 randomized controlled trials comparing enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin in treatment of ACS.Data Sources: The primary data sets for ESSENCE, A to Z, and SYNERGY were available at the Duke Clinical Research Institute. Baseline characteristics and event frequencies for TIMI 11B, ACUTE II, and INTERACT were provided by the principal investigator of each study.Study Selection: All 6 randomized controlled trials comparing enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin in non-ST-segment elevation ACS were selected for analysis.Data Extraction: Efficacy and safety end points were extracted from the overall trial populations and the subpopulation receiving no antithrombin therapy prior to randomization.Data Synthesis: Systematic evaluation of the outcomes for 21 946 patients was performed using a random-effects empirical Bayes model. No significant difference was found in death at 30 days for enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin (3.0% vs 3.0%; odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.17). A statistically significant reduction in the combined end point of death or nonfatal MI at 30 days was observed for enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in the overall trial populations (10.1% vs 11.0%; OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99; number needed to treat, 107). A statistically significant reduction in the combined end point of death or MI at 30 days was also observed for enoxaparin in the populations receiving no prerandomization antithrombin therapy (8.0% vs 9.4%; OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.94; number needed to treat, 72). No significant difference was found in blood transfusion (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89-1.14) or major bleeding (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83-1.30) at 7 days after randomization in the overall safety population or in the population of patients receiving no prerandomization antithrombin therapy.Conclusion: In a systematic overview of approximately 22 000 patients across the spectrum of ACS, enoxaparin is more effective than unfractionated heparin in preventing the combined end point of death or MI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Our primary objective was to examine the prognostic relationship between baseline quantitative ST-segment depression (ST) and cardiac troponin T (cTnT) elevation. The secondary objectives were to: 1) examine whether ST provided additional insight into therapeutic efficacy of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa therapy similar to that demonstrated by cTnT; and 2) explore whether the time to evaluation impacted on each marker's relative prognostic utility.Background: The relationship between the baseline electrocardiogram (ECG) and cTnT measurements in risk-stratifying patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has not been evaluated comprehensively.Methods: The study population consisted of 959 patients enrolled in the cTnT substudy of the Platelet IIb/IIIa Antagonism for the Reduction of Acute coronary syndrome events in a Global Organization Network (PARAGON)-B trial. Patients were classified as having no ST (n = 387), 1 mm ST (n = 433), and ST > or =2 mm (n = 139). Forty-percent (n = 381) were classified as cTnT-positive based on a definition of > or =0.1 ng/ml.Results: Six-month death/(re)myocardial infarction rates were 8.4% among cTnT-negative patients with no ST and 26.8% among cTnT-positive patients with ST > or =2 mm. On ECGs done after 6 h of symptom onset, ST > or =2 mm was associated with higher risk compared to its presence on ECGs done earlier (odds ratio [OR] 7.3 vs. 2.1). In contrast, the presence of elevated cTnT within 6 h of symptom was associated with a higher risk of adverse events compared with elevations after 6 h (OR 2.4 vs. 1.5).Conclusions: Quantitative ST and cTnT status are complementary in assessing risk among ACS patients and both should be employed to determine prognosis and assist in medical decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk for heart failure (HF) and premature death from cardiovascular (CV) causes. The FLOW (Research Study To See How Semaglutide Works Compared to Placebo in People With Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease), which enrolled participants with T2D and CKD, demonstrated that semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, reduced the incidence of the primary composite outcome (persistent ≥50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate, persistent estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , kidney replacement therapy, and kidney or CV death) by 24%., Objectives: This prespecified analysis examined the effects of semaglutide on HF outcomes in this high-risk population., Methods: Participants were randomized (1:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg or placebo. The prespecified main outcome was a composite of HF events (new onset or worsening of HF leading to an unscheduled hospital admission or an urgent visit, with initiation of or intensified diuretic/vasoactive therapy) or CV death. HF data were collected by the investigator. CV death was adjudicated by an independent committee., Results: A total of 3,533 randomized participants were followed for a median of 3.4 years. HF was present at baseline in 342 participants (19.4%) in the semaglutide group and 336 (19.0%) in the placebo group. In the overall trial population, semaglutide increased time to first HF events or CV death (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.62-0.87; P = 0.0005), HF events alone (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.58-0.92; P = 0.0068), and CV death alone (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.56-0.89; P = 0.0036). The risk reduction for the composite HF outcome was similar in those with (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.54-0.98; P = 0.0338) and without (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58-0.89; P = 0.0028) HF at baseline. The risk of HF outcomes (HF events or CV death) was generally higher in participants categorized as NYHA functional class III and those with the HF reduced ejection fraction subtype, regardless of treatment., Conclusions: Semaglutide substantially reduced the risk of time to first composite outcome of HF events or CV death, as well as HF events and CV death alone, in a high-risk population with T2D and CKD. These effects were consistent regardless of history of HF. (A Research Study To See How Semaglutide Works Compared to Placebo in People With Type 2 Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease [FLOW]; NCT03819153)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The FLOW trial was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S. Dr Pratley has received speaker fees paid to his employer, AdventHealth (through December 31, 2023) from Eli Lilly, Lilly USA LLC, and Novo Nordisk; has received consulting fees directed to his institution from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Corcept Therapeutics, Dexcom, Endogenex, Gasherbrum Bio, Genprex, Getz Pharma, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Hengrui (USA) Ltd, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lilly USA LLC, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rivus Pharmaceuticals, Scholar Rock, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries; has received grants directed to his institution from Biomea Fusion, Carmot Therapeutics, Dompe, Endogenex, Fractyl, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; and has received personal fees (from January 1, 2024) from AdventHealth, a nonprofit entity. Dr Tuttle has received support from National Institutes of Health research grants R01MD014712, U2CDK114886, UL1TR002319, U54DK083912, U01DK100846, OT2HL161847, UM1AI109568, and OT2OD032581, and from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention project numbers 75D301-21-P-12254 and 75D301-23-C-18264; has received investigator-initiated grant support from Travere, Bayer, and the Doris Duke Foundation outside of the submitted work; has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk; and has received speaker fees from Novo Nordisk. Dr Rossing has received grants from Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk; has received honoraria paid to the Steno Diabetes Centre Copenhagen from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Mundipharma, Sanofi, and Bayer; and has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Mundipharma, Sanofi, and Bayer. Dr Perkovic has received honoraria for steering committee, data monitoring committee, or advisory board roles or for scientific presentations from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook, GSK, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Otsuka, Travere, Tricida, and UptoDate; and is Board Director for George Clinical, St Vincent’s Health Australia and several independent medical research institutes. Dr Mann has received grants from Novo Nordisk, the European Union, and McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has received honoraria from Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and has participated on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Sanofi, and Boehringer Ingelheim, as well as a leadership role in the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes group. Dr MacIsaac was a FLOW trial investigator and member of the FLOW global expert panel; has received research grants from Novo Nordisk, Servier, Medtronic, The Rebecca Cooper Medical Research Foundation, St Vincent’s Research Foundation, The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Grey Innovations, The Diabetes Australia Research Trust/Program, and The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; has received honoraria for lectures from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has been on the advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim-Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance, AstraZeneca, and MSD; has received travel support from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca; and has been a principal investigator for industry-sponsored clinical trials run by Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Bayer, Johnson-Cilag, and AbbVie. Dr Kosiborod has received research grant support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served as a consultant or on an advisory board for Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor Pharma; has received other research support from AstraZeneca; and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Kamenov has received speaker fees from Actavis, AstraZeneca, Bayer-Schering, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, KRKA, Merck, MLD, MSD (Merck), Mundipharma, Mylan, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Servier, TEVA Pharmaceuticals, Valentis, Vedra, and Viatris. Dr Hadjadj has received grants from Asdia, Asten, AstraZeneca, Homeperf, LVL, Nestle Home Care, Pierre Fabre, and VitalAire; has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and Valbiotis; has received speaker fees from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Dino Santé, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Servier, and Valbiotis; and has received meeting invitations from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Dino Santé, Eli Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Bakris has received consulting fees from Bayer, KBP Biosciences, Ionis, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Quantum Genomics, Novo Nordisk, and Dia Medica Therapeutics. Dr Mahaffey has received grants from the American Heart Association, Apple, Bayer, California Institute Regenerative Medicine, CSL Behring, Eidos, Ferring, Gilead, Google (Verify), Idorsia, Johnson and Johnson, Luitpold, Novartis, PAC-12, Precordior, and Sanifit; and has received consulting fees from Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, BridgeBio, CSL Behring, Elsevier, Fosun Pharma, Human, Johnson and Johnson, Moderna, Myokardia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, PhaseBio, Portola, Quidel, and Theravance; and holds equity in Human, Medeloop, Precordior and Regencor. Drs Rasmussen, Nielsen, Idorn, Hansen, and Baeres are employees of and shareholders in Novo Nordisk., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

People with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease have a high risk for kidney failure and cardiovascular (CV) complications. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) independently reduce CV and kidney events. The effect of combining both is unclear. FLOW trial participants with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease were stratified by baseline SGLT2i use (N = 550) or no use (N = 2,983) and randomized to semaglutide/placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of kidney failure, ≥50% estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction, kidney death or CV death. The risk of the primary outcome was 24% lower in all participants treated with semaglutide versus placebo (95% confidence interval: 34%, 12%). The primary outcome occurred in 41/277 (semaglutide) versus 38/273 (placebo) participants on SGLT2i at baseline (hazard ratio 1.07; 95% confidence interval: 0.69, 1.67; P = 0.755) and in 290/1,490 versus 372/1,493 participants not taking SGLT2i at baseline (hazard ratio 0.73; 0.63, 0.85; P < 0.001; P interaction 0.109). Three confirmatory secondary outcomes were predefined. Treatment differences favoring semaglutide for total estimated glomerular filtration rate slope (ml min -1 /1.73 m 2 /year) were 0.75 (-0.01, 1.5) in the SGLT2i subgroup and 1.25 (0.91, 1.58) in the non-SGLT2i subgroup, P interaction 0.237. Semaglutide benefits on major CV events and all-cause death were similar regardless of SGLT2i use (P interaction 0.741 and 0.901, respectively). The benefits of semaglutide in reducing kidney outcomes were consistent in participants with/without baseline SGLT2i use; power was limited to detect smaller but clinically relevant effects. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03819153 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background and Hypothesis: Studies in patients with heart failure have indicated that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors increase iron use and enhance erythropoiesis. In this post-hoc analysis of the CREDENCE trial, we evaluated the effects of canagliflozin on iron metabolism in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and whether the effects of canagliflozin on hemoglobin and cardiorenal outcomes were modified by iron deficiency., Methods: We measured serum iron, total iron binding capacity (TIBC), transferrin saturation (TSAT) and ferritin at baseline and 12 months. The effects of canagliflozin, relative to placebo, on iron markers were assessed with analysis of covariance. Interactions between baseline iron deficiency, defined as TSAT < 20%, and the effects of canagliflozin on hemoglobin and cardiorenal outcomes were evaluated with mixed effect models and Cox regression models, respectively., Results: Of 4401 participants randomized in CREDENCE, 2416 (54.9%) had iron markers measured at baseline, of whom 924 (38.2%) were iron deficient. Canagliflozin, compared to placebo, increased TIBC by 2.1% (95%CI 0.4-3.8; p = 0.014) and decreased ferritin by 11.5% (95%CI 7.1-15.7; p < 0.001) with no clear effect on serum iron or TSAT. Canagliflozin increased hemoglobin over the trial duration by 7.3 g/L (95% CI 6.2-8.5; p < 0.001) and 6.7 g/L (95% CI 5.2- 8.2; p < 0.001) in patients with and without iron deficiency, respectively (p-interaction = 0.38). The relative effect of canagliflozin on the primary outcome of doubling of serum creatinine, kidney failure or death due to cardiovascular disease or kidney failure (HR 0.70, 95%CI 0.56-0.87) was consistent regardless of iron deficiency (p-interaction 0.83), as were effects on other cardiovascular and mortality outcomes (all p-interactions ≥ 0.10)., Conclusions: Iron deficiency is highly prevalent in patients with type 2 diabetes and CKD. Canagliflozin increased TIBC and decreased ferritin in patients with T2D and CKD, suggesting increased iron utilization, and improved hemoglobin levels and clinical outcomes regardless of iron deficiency., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the ERA.)

Background: Heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (hereafter referred to as HFpEF) is the most common type of heart failure and is associated with a high risk of hospitalisation and death, especially in patients with overweight, obesity, or type 2 diabetes. In the STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpEF DM trials, semaglutide improved heart failure-related symptoms and physical limitations in participants with HFpEF. Whether semaglutide also reduces clinical heart failure events in this group remains to be established., Methods: We conducted a post-hoc pooled, participant-level analysis of four randomised, placebo-controlled trials (SELECT, FLOW, STEP-HFpEF, and STEP-HFpEF DM) to examine the effects of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (2·4 mg in SELECT, STEP-HFpEF, and STEP-HFpEF DM; 1·0 mg in FLOW) on heart failure events. The STEP-HFpEF and STEP-HFpF DM trials enrolled participants with obesity-related HFpEF, the SELECT trial enrolled participants with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity, and the FLOW trial enrolled participants with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Hence, for this analysis, we include all participants from the STEP-HFpEF trials and those with an investigator-reported history of HFpEF from SELECT and FLOW. The main outcomes for this analysis were the composite endpoint of time to cardiovascular death or first worsening heart failure event (defined as hospitalisation or urgent visit due to heart failure), time to first worsening heart failure event, and time to cardiovascular death. Efficacy and safety endpoints were analysed with the full analysis set (ie, all participants randomly assigned to treatment, according to the intention-to-treat principle). The SELECT, FLOW, STEP-HFpEF, and STEP-HFpEF DM trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03574597, NCT03819153, NCT04788511, and NCT04916470, respectively, and all are complete., Findings: Across the four trials, 3743 (16·8%) of 22 282 participants had a history of HFpEF (1914 assigned to semaglutide and 1829 assigned to placebo). In this group of participants with HFpEF, semaglutide reduced the risk of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or heart failure events (103 [5·4%] of 1914 in the semaglutide group had events vs 138 [7·5%] of 1829 in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·69 [95% CI 0·53-0·89]; p=0·0045). Semaglutide also reduced the risk of worsening heart failure events (54 [2·8%] vs 86 [4·7%]; HR 0·59 [0·41-0·82]; p=0·0019). No significant effect on cardiovascular death alone was seen (59 [3·1%] vs 67 [3·7%]; HR 0·82 [0·57-1·16]; p=0·25). A lower proportion of patients treated with semaglutide had serious adverse events than did those who were treated with placebo (572 [29·9%] vs 708 [38·7%])., Interpretation: In patients with HFpEF, semaglutide reduced the risk of the combined endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure events, and worsening heart failure events alone, whereas its effect on cardiovascular death alone was not significant. These data support the use of semaglutide as an efficacious therapy to reduce the risk of clinical heart failure events in patients with HFpEF, for whom few treatment options are currently available., Funding: Novo Nordisk., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MNK has served as a consultant for 35Pharma, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Corcept Therapeutics, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Imbria Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Pfizer, Regeneron, scPharmaceuticals, Structure Therapeutics, Vifor Pharma, and Youngene Therapeutics; has served on a data monitoring board for Applied Therapeutics; has served on an advisory board for Alnylam, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, Merck (Diabetes and Cardiovascular), Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer; holds stocks in Artera Health and Saghmos Therapeutics; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk; and has received support for data analyses from AstraZeneca and Vifor. JD has received consulting honoraria from Aegerion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Takeda and research grants from Aegerion, British Heart Foundation, Colgate, UK Medical Research Council, MSD, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Pfizer, Public Health England, and Roche. RP reports speaker fees from Eli Lilly, Lilly USA, and Novo Nordisk; consulting fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Corcept Therapeutics, Dexcom, Endogenex, Gasherbrum Bio, Genprex, Getz Pharma, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, Hengrui (USA), Intas Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Lilly USA, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rivus Pharmaceuticals, Scholar Rock, and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries; and grants from Biomea Fusion, Carmot Therapeutics, Dompe, Endogenex, Fractyl, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. All grants are directed to RP's institution. Up to Dec 31, 2023, payment for RP's consultant and speaker services was made directly to his employer, AdventHealth, a nonprofit entity; as of Jan 1, 2024, payment was directed to RP personally. BAB receives research support from the US National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Defense, as well as research grant funding from AstraZeneca, Axon Therapies, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Mesoblast, Novo Nordisk, Rivus, and Tenax Therapeutics; he has served as a consultant for Actelion, Amgen, Aria, Axon Therapies, BD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, Imbria, Janssen, Merck, NGM, Novo Nordisk, NXT, and VADovations; and is named inventor (US patent number 10,307,179) for the tools and approach for a minimally invasive pericardial modification procedure to treat heart failure. JB is a consultant to Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AskBio, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiac Dimension, CardioCell, Cardior, CSL Behring, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Daxor, Edwards Lifesciences, Element Science, Faraday, Foundry, G3P, Imbria, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Inventiva, Ionis, Levator, Lexicon, Lilly, LivaNova, Janssen, Medtronics, Merck, Occlutech, Owkin, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, PharmaIN, Prolaio, Pulnovo, Regeneron, Renibus, Roche, Salamandra, Salubris, Sanofi, scPharmaceuticals, Secretome, Sequana, SQ Innovation, Tenex, Tricog, Ultromics, Vifor, and Zoll. MJD has acted as a consultant, advisory board member, and speaker for Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; an advisory board member for AstraZeneca, Carmot/Roche, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Zealand Pharma; and a speaker for Amgen and AstraZeneca; and has received grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi-Aventis. SSE has received consulting fees from Amylyx, AstraZeneca, Avillion, Ayala, Bayer, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, 89 Bio, BioAge, BioAtla, Bristol Meyer Squibb, BridgeBio, Daiichi Sankyo, Denovo, Fore Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Inovio, Insmed, Ipsen, Karuna, Lilly, Lundbeck, Mirati, Moderna, Novartis, Novavax, Novo Nordisk, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, Pfizer, Principia, Reata, Rebiotx, Roche, Sanofi, solvd, Sutro Biopharma, and TG Therapeutics. SEK received consulting fees from Casma Therapeutics, Oramed, and Third Rock Ventures; and served on an advisory board for AltPep, Anji Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Intarcia, Merck, and Novo Nordisk. He has received stock options from AltPep. DK was supported in part by the Kermit Glenn Phillips II Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine and US National Institutes of Health grants U01AG076928, R01AG078153, R01AG045551, R01AG18915, P30AG021332, U24AG059624, and U01HL160272; and received honoraria as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corvia Medical, Ketyo, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Rivus; grant funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Rivus; and has stock ownership in Gilead Sciences. IL has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi; served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Biomea, Boehringer Ingelheim, Carmot, Eli Lilly, Intarcia, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Global Services, Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices & Diagnostics Group—Latin America, MannKind, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Shionogi, Structure Therapeutics, Target Pharma, Valeritas, and Zealand Pharma; and received travel expenses from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices & Diagnostics Group—Latin America, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Zealand Pharma. KWM has received grants from AHA, Apple, Bayer, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, CSL Behring, Eidos, Ferring, Gilead, Google, Idorsia, Johnson & Johnson, Luitpold, Novartis, PAC-12, Precordior, and Sanifit; and consulting fees from Applied Therapeutics, Bayer, BMS, BridgeBio, CSL Behring, Elsevier, Fosun Pharma, Human, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Myokardia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Phasebio, Portola, Quidel, and Theravance; and holds stock options for Human, Medeloop, Precordior, and Regencor. MCP was supported by the British Heart Foundation Centre of Research Excellence Grant RE/18/6/34217; has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Roche, and SQ Innovations; and served on committees or consulted for AbbVie, Akero, AnaCardio, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiorentis, Corvia, Eli Lilly, Horizon Therapeutics, LIB Therapeutics, Moderna, New Amsterdam, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Siemens, SQ Innovations, Takeda, Teikoku, and Vifor. JP has received consulting fees from Altimmune, Amgen, Esperion Therapeutics, Merck, MJH Life Sciences, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk and received a grant, paid to his institution, from Boehringer Ingelheim. CR, SR, and PEW are employees and SR and PEW are shareholders of Novo Nordisk. SJS has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Corvia, and Pfizer; and consulting fees from Abbott, Alleviant, Amgen, Aria CV, AstraZeneca, Axon Therapies, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cyclerion, Cytokinetics, Edwards Lifesciences, Eidos, Imara, Impulse Dynamics, Intellia, Ionis, Lilly, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Prothena, ReCor, Regeneron, Rivus, Sardocor, Shifamed, Tenax, Tenaya, and Ultromics. SV reports speaking honoraria or consulting fees from Abbott, Amarin, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group, Eli Lilly, HLS Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, and TIMI. AML has received research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly, Esperion Therapeutics, and Novartis, paid to his institution; and consulting fees from Akebia Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Ardelyx, Eli Lilly, FibroGen, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia, Medtronic Vascular, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Provention Bio, Amgen, and ReCor Medical. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background and Aims: In the AEGIS-II trial (NCT03473223), CSL112, a human apolipoprotein A1 derived from plasma that increases cholesterol efflux capacity, did not significantly reduce the risk of the primary endpoint through 90 days versus placebo after acute myocardial infarction (MI). Nevertheless, given the well-established relationship between higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and plaque burden, as well as greater risk reductions seen with PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL on statin therapy, the efficacy of CSL112 may be influenced by baseline LDL-C., Methods: Overall, 18,219 patients with acute MI, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional risk factors were randomized to either four weekly infusions of 6 g CSL112 or placebo. This exploratory post-hoc analysis evaluated cardiovascular outcomes by baseline LDL-C in patients prescribed guideline-directed statin therapy at the time of randomization (n=15,731)., Results: As baseline LDL-C increased, risk of the primary endpoint at 90 days lowered in those treated with CSL112 compared with placebo. In patients with LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL at randomization, there was a significant risk reduction of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke in the CSL112 vs. placebo group at 90, 180, and 365 days (hazard ratio 0.69 [0.53-0.90], 0.71 [0.57-0.88], and 0.78 [0.65-0.93]). In contrast, there was no difference between treatment groups among those with LDL-C <100 mg/dL at baseline., Conclusions: In this population, treatment with CSL112 compared to placebo was associated with a significantly lower risk of recurrent cardiovascular events among patients with a baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL. Further studies need to confirm that CSL112 efficacy is influenced by baseline LDL-C., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aim: To explore the effect of canagliflozin on kidney and cardiovascular events and safety outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease across geographic regions and racial groups., Materials and Methods: A stratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess efficacy and safety outcomes by geographic region and racial group. The primary composite outcome was a composite of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), doubling of the serum creatinine (SCr) level, or death from kidney or cardiovascular causes. Secondary outcomes included: (i) cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization; (ii) cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke; (iii) HF hospitalization; (iv) doubling of the SCr level, ESKD or kidney death; (v) cardiovascular death; (vi) all-cause death; and (vii) cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for HF or for unstable angina., Results: The 4401 patients were divided into six geographic region subgroups: North America (n = 1182, 27%), Central and South America (n = 941, 21%), Eastern Europe (n = 947, 21%), Western Europe (n = 421, 10%), Asia (n = 749, 17%) and Other (n = 161, 4%). The analyses included four racial groups: White (n = 2931, 67%), Black or African American (n = 224, 5%), Asian (n = 877, 20%) and Other (n = 369, 8%). Canagliflozin reduced the relative risk of the primary composite outcome in the overall trial by 30% (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.82; P = 0.00001). Across geographic regions and racial groups, canagliflozin consistently reduced the primary composite endpoint without evidence of heterogeneity (interaction P values of 0.39 and 0.91, respectively) or significant safety outcome differences., Conclusions: Canagliflozin reduces the risk of kidney and cardiovascular events similarly across geographic regions and racial groups., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: There is a dearth of research on immunophenotyping in peripheral artery disease (PAD). This study aimed to describe the baseline characteristics, immunophenotypic profile, and quality of life (QoL) of participants with PAD in the Project Baseline Health Study (PBHS)., Methods: The PBHS study is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study that collected clinical, molecular, and biometric data from participants recruited between 2017 and 2018. In this analysis, baseline demographic, clinical, mobility, QoL, and flow cytometry data were stratified by the presence of PAD (ankle brachial index [ABI] ≤0.90)., Results: Of 2,209 participants, 58 (2.6%) had lower-extremity PAD, and only 2 (3.4%) had pre-existing PAD diagnosed prior to enrollment. Comorbid smoking (29.3% vs 14%, P < .001), hypertension (54% vs 30%, P < .001), diabetes (25% vs 14%, P = .031), and at least moderate coronary calcifications (Agatston score >100: 32% vs 17%, P = .01) were significantly higher in participants with PAD than in those with normal ABIs, as were high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels (5.86 vs 2.83, P < .001). After adjusting for demographic and risk factors, participants with PAD had significantly fewer circulating CD56-high natural killer cells, IgM+ memory B cells, and CD10/CD27 double-positive B cells (P < .05 for all)., Conclusions: This study reinforces existing evidence that a large proportion of PAD without claudication may be underdiagnosed, particularly in female and Black or African American participants. We describe a novel immunophenotypic profile of participants with PAD that could represent a potential future screening or diagnostic tool to facilitate earlier diagnosis of PAD., Gov Identifier: NCT03154346, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03154346., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest JAG reports research funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs. NL reports grants from the NIH and AHA. He is a director of Bitterroot Bio and receives consulting fees unrelated to this study. FR reports consulting relationships with Healthpals, Amgen, NovoNordisk (CEC), and Novartis outside the submitted work. AH reports grants from Verily; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Merck, and Novartis; and personal fees from Boston Scientific outside the submitted work. KM reports grants from Verily, Afferent, the American Heart Association (AHA), Cardiva Medical Inc, Gilead, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Eidos, Ferring, Apple Inc, Sanifit, and St. Jude; grants and personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CSL Behring, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, and Sanofi; and personal fees from Anthos, Applied Therapeutics, Elsevier, Inova, Intermountain Health, Medscape, Mount Sinai, Mundi Pharma, Myokardia, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Portola, SmartMedics, and Theravance outside the submitted work. RVS reports advisory board fees from Philips; research support from ACIST Medical. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Aims: In the FLOW trial, semaglutide reduced the risks of kidney and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes and death in participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). These prespecified analyses assessed the effects of semaglutide on CV outcomes and death by CKD severity., Methods: Participants were randomised to subcutaneous semaglutide 1 mg or placebo weekly. The main outcome was a composite of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) ornon-fatal stroke (CV death/MI/stroke) as well as death due to any cause by baseline CKD severity. CKD was categorised by eGFR < or ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2, UACR < or ≥300 mg/g or KDIGO risk classification., Results: 3533 participants were randomised with a median follow-up of 3.4 years. Low/moderate KDIGO risk was present in 242 (6.9%), while 878 (24.9%) had high and 2412 (68.3%) had very high KDIGO risk. Semaglutide reduced CV death/MI/stroke by 18% (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.68-0.98]; P = .03), with consistency across eGFR categories, UACR levels and KDIGO risk classification (all P-interaction >.13). Death due to any cause was reduced by 20% (HR 0.80 [0.67-0.95]; P = .01), with consistency across eGFR categories and KDIGO risk class (P-interaction .21 and .23, respectively). The P-interaction treatment effect for death due to any cause by UACR was .01 (<300 mg/g HR 1.17 [0.83-1.65]; ≥300 mg/g HR 0.70 [0.57-0.85])., Conclusions: Semaglutide significantly reduced the risk of CV death/MI/stroke regardless of baseline CKD severity in participants with T2D., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Neuen has received fees for travel support, advisory boards, and scientific presentations from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Cornerstone Medical Education, the Limbic, Janssen, Medscape, Novo Nordisk, and Travere Therapeutics; and has served on clinical trial committees for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Bayer, and CSL Behring, with all honoraria paid to The George Institute for Global Health. Dr Ostrominski has received research funding from the National Institutes of Health (grant 5T32HL007604-39). Dr Claggett as received consulting fees from Alnylam, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Intellia, and Rocket. Dr McCausland has received research funding from National Institutes of Health, Satellite Healthcare, Fifth Eye, Novartis, and Lexicon paid directly to his institution; and has received consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline and Zydus Therapeutics. Dr Badve has received consulting fees from Bayer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Vifor Pharma; has received speaker fees from Bayer, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Vifor Pharma (all honoraria paid to his institution); and has received nonfinancial research support from Bayer. Dr Arnott has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Amgen. Dr Heerspink has received grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Novo Nordisk; has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Dimerix, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Travere Therapeutics; and has received payment or honoraria for speaking from AstraZeneca and Novo Nordisk. Dr Jun has been responsible for research projects that have received unrestricted research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance. Dr Pollock serves as an Advisory Board member for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, and Vifor Pharma; and has received speaker fees for AstraZeneca, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Otsuka, and Vifor Pharma. Dr Jardine is supported by an National Health and Medical Research Council investigator grant; has been responsible for research projects that have received funding from Amgen, Baxter, CSL, Dimerix, Eli Lilly, Gambro, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and has received fees for advisory, steering committee, scientific presentations, or a combination of these from Akebia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cesas Linx, Chinook, CSL, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Occuryx, Roche, and Vifor with any consultancy, honoraria, or travel support paid to her institution. Dr Mahaffey has received research support from Afferent, Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Cardiva Medical, Daiichi, Ferring, Google (Verily), Johnson & Johnson, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Sanofi, St Jude, and Tenax; and has served as a consultant (speaker fees for CME events only) for Abbott, Ablynx, AstraZeneca, Baim Institute, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Elsevier, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, MedErgy, Medscape, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Myokardia, the National Institutes for Health, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Portola, Radiometer, Regeneron, Springer Publishing, and the University of California-San Francisco. Dr Perkovic serves as a board director for St Vincent’s Health Australia, Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, and Mindgardens; and has received honoraria for steering committee roles, scientific presentations, advisory board attendance, or a combination of these from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chinook, Durect, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Pharmalink, Pfizer, Reata, Travere, Relypsa, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, and Tricida. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Actelion, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lilly, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, National Institutes of Health/NHLBI, Neurotronik, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, Theracos, and US2.AI; and has consulted for Abbott, Action, Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Merck, Myokardia, Novartis, Roche, Theracos, Quantum Genomics, Cardurion, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi-Pasteur, Dinaqor, Tremeau, CellPro-Thera, Moderna, American Regent, and Sarepta. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support, served on advisory boards, or had speaker engagements with American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cytokinetics, Fresenius Medical Care, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Milestone Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pharmacosmos, Relypsa, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, and Tricog Health; and participates on clinical trial committees for studies sponsored by AstraZeneca, Galmed, Novartis, Bayer AG, Occlutech, and Impulse Dynamics. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.