Key result
SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or urgent heart failure visit compared to control (HR 0.80).
Why the study?
The benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes are less clear in HFmrEF or HFpEF than in HFrEF, and reported findings regarding quality of life improvement remain inconsistent.
Do SGLT2 inhibitors reduce cardiovascular events and improve quality of life in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF?
Meta-Analysis (n=16,710)
Do SGLT2 inhibitors reduce cardiovascular events and improve quality of life in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF?
SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduce the composite of cardiovascular death and heart failure events, and improve quality of life in patients with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports SGLT2 inhibitor initiation in HFmrEF/HFpEF to reduce events; confirms benefit across the EF spectrum.
Background: In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors were demonstrated to lower cardiovascular mortality (CV death) and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF); however, the advantages of SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure with mildly reduced (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are less clear. SGLT2 inhibitors were reported to enhance quality of life (QoL) in HFmrEF or HFpEF patients; however, the findings among studies are inconsistent. Objective: To conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of recent data to assess the effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes and QoL in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF. Method: Three databases were searched for studies that evaluated SGLT2 inhibitors and their effect on cardiovascular outcomes, including CV death, HHF, all-cause death, and the composite outcome of CV death, HHF, and urgent visit for heart failure (HF), and patient QoL (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire [KCCQ] score compared to baseline, and increase in KCCQ score ≥ 5 points) that were published during January 2000-August 2022. The meta-analysis was performed using the inverse variance method and random-effects model. INPLASY registration: INPLASY202290023. Results: Sixteen studies (9 recent RCTs) were included, and a total of 16,710 HFmrEF or HFpEF patients were enrolled. SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced composite cardiovascular outcome (CV death/HHF/urgent visit for HF; pooled hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80, 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 0.74-0.86) and HHF alone (HR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.67-0.82), but there was no significant reduction in CV death alone (HR: 0.93, 95%CI: 0.82-1.05). Benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors for decreasing CV death/HHF was observed across all subgroups, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) range, diabetes status, New York Heart Association functional class, and baseline renal function. For total HHF, SGLT2 inhibitors conferred benefit in both LVEF 50-60% (HR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.54-0.76), and LVEF >60% (HR: 0.84, 95%CI: 0.71-0.98). Significant change was observed in the KCCQ-clinical summary score compared to baseline (mean difference: 1.33, 95%CI: 1.31-1.35), and meaningful improvement in QoL was shown across all 3 types of increase in KCCQ score ≥ 5 points. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors for improving cardiovascular outcomes and QoL in HFmrEF or HFpEF patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Treewaree et al. (2023) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFmrEF or HFpEF) (n=16,710). SGLT2 inhibitors vs. Placebo or standard diabetic therapy was evaluated on Composite cardiovascular outcome (CV death, hospitalization for heart failure, and urgent visit for heart failure) (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.86). SGLT2 inhibitors significantly reduced the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, or urgent heart failure visit compared to control (HR 0.80).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: