Key result
Canagliflozin fails to reduce NT-proBNP compared to glimepiride in patients with T2D and heart failure.
Why the study?
It is not known if the presence or absence of obesity influences the effects of the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin on NT-proBNP in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic heart failure.
Does canagliflozin reduce NT-proBNP compared to glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic heart failure across different BMI subgroups?
RCT (n=232)
Open-label
Web-based minimization method
Yes
Does canagliflozin reduce NT-proBNP compared to glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic heart failure across different BMI subgroups?
Effect estimate: Group ratio 0.85 (95% CI 0.71-1.02)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.95% vs 1.07%
p-value: p=0.075
Canagliflozin did not significantly reduce NT-proBNP compared to glimepiride at 24 weeks in patients with T2DM and heart failure, regardless of baseline obesity status, though a trend toward reduction was seen in non-obese patients.
Canagliflozin effects on NT-proBNP remain consistent across BMI strata in T2D-HF; extends evidence of uniform biomarker response irrespective of obesity.
Background: It is not known if presence or absence of obesity influence the effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor canagliflozin on N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). We present results of a 24-week comparative study of the effects of the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin vs the sulfonylurea glimepiride, by baseline body mass index (BMI), in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic heart failure.Methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis of the CANDLE trial (UMIN000017669), an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. This sub-analysis evaluated changes at 24 weeks in NT-proBNP, BMI, and other laboratory parameters, according to the subgroups stratified by baseline BMI ≥25 kg/m2 defined as obesity vs BMI <25 kg/m2 defined as normal.Results: A group ratio (canagliflozin versus glimepiride) of proportional changes in the geometric means of NT-proBNP was 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84 to 1.18, P=0.940) for the subgroup with baseline BMI ≥25 kg/m2 and 0.85 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.02, P=0.075) for the subgroup with baseline BMI <25 kg/m2, respectively. Although the group ratio for the subgroup with baseline BMI <25 kg/m2 was smaller than that for the subgroup with baseline BMI ≥25 kg/m2, there was no statistical difference by baseline BMI subgroups (P for interaction=0.222). When baseline BMI was modeled as a continuous variable, results for patients with BMI <30 kg/m2 showed a slightly smaller increase in NT-proBNP in the canagliflozin group vs the glimepiride group; that difference was not seen among patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2. Irrespective of obesity, the canagliflozin group was associated with significant reduction of BMI compared to the glimepiride group.Conclusion: Although there was no significant difference in the effects of 24-week of canagliflozin treatment, relative to glimepiride, on NT-proBNP concentrations irrespective of baseline obesity, the canagliflozin treatment showed a trend toward lower NT-proBNP levels in patients across BMI <30 kg/m2. This suggests that baseline BMI levels affect the effect of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment on NT-proBNP concentrations. Further studies are needed to assess the association between clinical effects of SGLT2 inhibitor and obesity.UMIN clinical trial registration number (http://www.umin.ac.jp/): UMIN000017669
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sezai et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in Type 2 diabetes and chronic heart failure (n=232). Canagliflozin vs. Glimepiride was evaluated on Group ratio of proportional changes in the geometric means of NT-proBNP at 24 weeks (BMI < 25 kg/m2 subgroup) (Group ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.71-1.02, p=0.075). Canagliflozin did not significantly change NT-proBNP concentrations compared to glimepiride over 24 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic heart failure, irrespective of baseline obesity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: