Search

Aims/hypothesis: Cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have demonstrated the benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). However, serious adverse drug reactions have been reported. The risk/benefit ratio of SGLT2i remains unquantified. We aimed to provide an estimation of their risk/benefit ratio in individuals with type 2 diabetes., Methods: We conducted a systematic review (MEDLINE, up to 14 September 2021) and meta-analysis. We included randomised CVOTs assessing SGLT2i in individuals with type 2 diabetes with or without other diseases. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. The primary outcomes were overall mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), amputation, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and reported genital infections. For each outcome, we estimated the incidence rate ratio (IRR) with a 95% CI; we then computed the number of events expected spontaneously and with SGLT2i., Results: A total of 46,969 participants from five double-blind, placebo-controlled international trials (weighted mean follow-up 3.5 years) were included. The prevalence of previous CVD ranged from 40.6% to 99.2%. The definition of reported genital infections ranged from 'genital mycotic infection' to 'genital infections that led to discontinuation of the trial regimen or were considered to be serious adverse events'. The number of included studies for each outcomes was five. The use of SGLT2i decreased the risk of all-cause death (IRR 0.86 [95% CI 0.78, 0.95]), MACE (IRR 0.91 [95% CI 0.86, 0.96]), HHF (IRR 0.69 [95% CI 0.62, 0.76]) and ESRD (IRR 0.67 [95% CI 0.53, 0.84]), and increased the risk of DKA (IRR 2.59 [95% CI 1.57, 4.27]) and genital infection (IRR 3.50 [95% CI 3.09, 3.95]) but not of amputation (IRR 1.23 [95% CI 1.00, 1.51]). For 1000 individuals treated over 3.5 years, SGLT2i are expected, on average, to decrease the number of deaths from 70 to 61, to prevent nine MACE, 11 HHF and two cases of ESRD, while inducing two DKA occurrences and 36 genital infections; 778 individuals are expected to avoid all the following outcomes: MACE, HHF, ESRD, amputation, DKA and genital infection., Conclusions/interpretation: Our study is limited to aggregate data. In a population of individuals with type 2 diabetes and a high CVD risk, the cardiovascular and renal benefits of SGLT2i remain substantial despite the risk of DKA and even the hypothetical risk of amputation., Trial Registration: OSF Registries: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/J3R7Y FUNDING: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Objectives: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a severe burden of modern medicine. Aldosterone antagonist is publicized as effective in reducing mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) or post myocardial infarction (MI). Our study aimed to assess the efficacy of AAs on mortality including SCD, hospitalization admission and several common adverse effects., Methods: We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library and clinicaltrial.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assigning AAs in patients with HF or post MI through May 2015. The comparator included standard medication or placebo, or both. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Event rates were compared using a random effects model. Prospective RCTs of AAs with durations of at least 8 weeks were selected if they included at least one of the following outcomes: SCD, all-cause/cardiovascular mortality, all-cause/cardiovascular hospitalization and common side effects (hyperkalemia, renal function degradation and gynecomastia)., Results: Data from 19,333 patients enrolled in 25 trials were included. In patients with HF, this treatment significantly reduced the risk of SCD by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98; p = 0.03); all-cause mortality by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88, p<0.00001) and cardiovascular death by 21% (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.89, p<0.00001). In patients with post-MI, the matching reduced risks were 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; p = 0.03), 15% (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95, p = 0.003) and 17% (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.94, p = 0.003), respectively. Concerning both subgroups, the relative risks respectively decreased by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92; p = 0.002) for SCD, 18% (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.88, p < 0.0001) for all-cause mortality and 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87, p < 0.0001) for cardiovascular mortality in patients treated with AAs. As well, hospitalizations were significantly reduced, while common adverse effects were significantly increased., Conclusion: Aldosterone antagonists appear to be effective in reducing SCD and other mortality events, compared with placebo or standard medication in patients with HF and/or after a MI.

Background: Despite the available evidence from randomized clinical trials, beta-blockers are often not used optimally in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). This meta-analysis aims at providing a precise and quantitative estimate of the benefit and risks of long-term bisoprolol on major clinical events in patients with CHF, both overall and in selected subgroups. This may help clinicians in their decisions as to whether to prescribe bisoprolol for their individual patients., Methods: Meta-analysis was performed of results from the 2 randomized, controlled clinical studies in which bisoprolol was compared with placebo (Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study [CIBIS and CIBIS II]), which included 3288 patients with proven CHF. The main outcomes were total death, cardiovascular death, sudden death, hospitalization for heart failure, and myocardial infarction., Results: A highly significant 29.3% relative reduction of death (17%, 40%; P =.00003) was observed, as well as significant risk reduction in cardiovascular death and sudden death in favor of bisoprolol. Also, a highly significant relative reduction of 18.4% (25%, 11%; P =.00001) in hospital admission or death was observed. A similar relative reduction of death was consistently observed in selected subgroups of patients., Conclusions: Bisoprolol prevents major cardiovascular events in patients with CHF with a high benefit-to-risk ratio and can be recommended for these patients.

Heart failure treatment has markedly changed during the last few decades, with demonstration of benefit of afterload reduction by vasodilator therapy and introduction of the concept of the deleterious consequences of the neuro-hormonal compensatory stimulation. Blockade of beta-adrenergic receptors, initially contra-indicated in heart failure, provide a marked reduction of mortality and morbidity in combination with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, as demonstrated in many clinical trials. We performed a review of all clinical trials that compare beta-blockers vs. placebo in chronic heart failure. Beta-blockers with different pharmacological profiles have been tested, mainly metoprolol, bisoprolol, bucindolol and carvedilol. With progressive dose increment, tolerance of such treatment was generally good, left ventricular function improved, hospitalisations for heart failure were less frequent and mortality was reduced. The meta-analysis of the 16 randomised trials, with at least one death in each treatment group, provides a 24% relative risk reduction for such hospitalisations (95% CI=19%-29%) and 22% reduction for mortality (95% CI=16%-28%). Heterogeneity of beta-blocker effect for mortality was found and related to the non-significant benefit obtained in the BEST trial with bucindolol. When such a trial is excluded, the effect model analysis shows that relative risk reduction (beta-blocker induced benefit) is constant whatever the severity of the disease. The mechanism of beta-blocker induced benefit remains unclear, but is at least partly related to left ventricular function improvement and prevention of severe ventricular arrhythmias. In conclusion, beta-blocker treatment has become an established therapy for heart failure, in combination with diuretics and ACE inhibitors. Complementary informations will be needed to clarify the mechanism of benefit and to define the best therapeutic strategy according to the individual characteristics of patients with heart failure.

Background: beta-Blockers have improved symptoms and reduced the risk of cardiovascular events in studies of patients with heart failure, but it is unclear which end points are most sensitive to the therapeutic effects of these drugs., Methods and Results: We combined the results of all 18 published double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials of beta-blockers in heart failure. From this combined database of 3023 patients, we evaluated the strength of evidence supporting an effect of treatment on left ventricular ejection fraction, NYHA functional class, hospitalizations for heart failure, and death. beta-Blockers exerted their most persuasive effects on ejection fraction and on the combined risk of death and hospitalization for heart failure. beta-Blockade increased the ejection fraction by 29% (P<10(-9)) and reduced the combined risk of death or hospitalization for heart failure by 37% (P<0.001). Both effects remained significant even if >90% of the trials were eliminated from the analysis or if a large number of trials with a neutral result were added to the analysis. In contrast, the effect of beta-blockade on NYHA functional class was of borderline significance (P=0.04) and disappeared with the addition or removal of only 1 moderate-size study. Although beta -blockade reduced all-cause mortality by 32% (P=0.003), this effect was only moderately robust and varied according to the type of ss-blocker tested, ie, the reduction of mortality risk was greater for nonselective beta-blockers than for beta1-selective agents (49% versus 18%, P=0.049). However, selective and nonselective beta-blockers did not differ in their effects on other measures of clinical efficacy., Conclusions: These analyses indicate that there is persuasive evidence supporting a favorable effect of beta-blockade on ejection fraction and the combined risk of death and hospitalization for heart failure. In contrast, the effect of these drugs on other end points requires additional study.

The objective of classical treatments of cardiac failure (diuretics, digitalis) was to relieve patients' symptoms. Vasodilators and ACE inhibitors also improve morbidity and mortality. The introduction of the latter class of drugs for cardiac failure will, however, lead to a significant increase in the cost of medication at national level. These costs may increase even further in theory due to a predictable increase in the number of patients with cardiac failure (ageing of the general population, improved survival of cardiac patients) and due to the extension of prescription of these drugs to populations of subjects with cardiac failure hitherto relatively undertreated. On the other hand, economies may be realised in the management of cardiac failure related to fewer and shorter hospital admissions and reduced indirect costs or to the suppression of previous, less useful drugs (calcium antagonists, digitalis). Cost-effective analyses with ACE inhibitors carried out in different countries (Canada, netherlands) tend to show that the costs induced by prescription of these drugs are more than compensated by the economies realised by the reduction in hospital admissions. This is even more marked in the treatment of patients with severe cardiac failure. In subjects at low risk, the prescription of ACE inhibitors would not seem to be justified from both the clinical and economic points of view. It is up to each physician to decide the threshold of basic risk below which this treatment becomes "economically" acceptable.