Premium
Primary versus secondary cardiorenal prevention in type 2 diabetes: Which newer anti‐hyperglycaemic drug matters?
Author(s) -
Giugliano Dario,
Ceriello Antonio,
De Nicola Luca,
PerroneFilardi Pasquale,
Cosentino Francesco,
Esposito Katherine
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
diabetes, obesity and metabolism
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.445
H-Index - 128
eISSN - 1463-1326
pISSN - 1462-8902
DOI - 10.1111/dom.13881
Subject(s) - medicine , mace , type 2 diabetes , clinical endpoint , diabetes mellitus , canagliflozin , heart failure , population , disease , intensive care medicine , endocrinology , clinical trial , myocardial infarction , environmental health , conventional pci
We are observing a resurgence of major diabetic vascular complications after a period of dramatic decrease during the period 1990 to 2010. The classical division of cardiovascular prevention into primary (with an event) and secondary (without an event) is largely used to describe cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes (T2D); however, there is evidence that the cardiovascular risk in diabetes may range from highest in patients who experienced a previous cardiovascular event to mild in patients with the main risk factors at target. Herein, we present details of the 14 cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) published to date, including the total population investigated, and their separation into primary (T2D + multiple risk factors) and secondary prevention (T2D + established cardiovascular disease [CVD]) populations as detailed within the trials. We also summarize evidence for the effects of dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitors (DPP‐4i), glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP1‐RA) and sodium glucose co‐transporter‐2 inhibitors (SGLT‐2i) versus placebo on the risk of major cardiovascular events (MACE), heart failure (HF) and diabetic kidney disease (DKD). In primary prevention, SGLT‐2i reduce both the risk of hospitalization for HF and progression of DKD; in secondary prevention, SGLT‐2i are effective on the three endpoints, DPP‐4i are neutral, while GLP1‐RA show mixed results.