Diabetes: New Opportunities to Combat
the Unwelcome but Frequent Partner
in Convalescent ACS
Lawrence A. Leiter, MD, FRCPC, FACP, FACE, FAHADivision of Endocrinology & Metabolism, St Michael’s Hospital
Professor of Medicine & Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto
Disclosures
Relationships with commercial interests:
Grants/Research Support; Speakers Bureau; and/or Honoraria: AstraZeneca,
Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck,
NovoNordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier and Takeda
Mortality Following STEMI and NSTEACS in
Patients With and Without Diabetes11 TIMI Studies 1997-2006; N = 62,036; 17.1% with DM
Donahoe SM, et al. JAMA 2007; 298:765-75.
0
14
0
12
10
8
6
4
2
30 90 180 270 360
Days after ACS
Mo
rtality
(%
)
DM STEMI
DM NSTEACS
Non-DM STEMI
Non-DM NSTEACS
Prevalence of Dysglycemia in CAD
ESC Euro Heart Survey 2003 (N=4,961)
Rydén et al. ESC Release, November 14, 2003
Bartnik et al. Eur Heart J 2004;25:1880–90
Pre
vale
nce (
%)
General population 6–8%
100
80
60
40
20
0
ACS Elective
Known diabetes
New diabetes
New IGT
Impaired fasting glucose
Normal glucose tolerance
2935
2222
1510
31 30
ACS=acute hospital admissions
Ominous Octet: Core Defects in Type 2 Diabetes
Adapted from DeFronzo RA. Diabetes. 2009;58:773-795.
IncreasedHGP
Hyperglycemia
ETIOLOGY OF T2DM
DEFN75-3/99 Decreased GlucoseUptake
Impaired InsulinSecretion Increased Lipolysis
Hyperglycemia
Islet– cell
DecreasedInsulinSecretion
DecreasedIncretinEffect
IncreasedLipolysis
IncreasedGlucoseReabsorption
DecreasedGlucose Uptake
NeurotransmitterDysfunctionIncreased
Hepatic GlucoseProduction
Increased GlucagonSecretion
Ominous Octet: Targeting the Core Defects in
Type 2 Diabetes
Adapted from DeFronzo RA. Diabetes. 2009;58:773-795.
IncreasedHGP
Hyperglycemia
ETIOLOGY OF T2DM
DEFN75-3/99 Decreased GlucoseUptake
Impaired InsulinSecretion Increased Lipolysis
Hyperglycemia
Islet– cell
DecreasedInsulinSecretion
DecreasedIncretinEffect Increased
Lipolysis
IncreasedGlucoseReabsorption
DecreasedGlucose Uptake
NeurotransmitterDysfunctionIncreased
Hepatic GlucoseProduction
Increased GlucagonSecretion
SU
DPP-4i
GLP-1RA
DPP-4i
GLP-1RA
MET
DPP-4i
GLP-1RA
TZD GLP-1RA
DPP-4i
GLP-1RATZD
SGLT2i
TZD
What do we know about glucose control and the effects of
specific antihyperglycemic agents post ACS?
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1
DIGAMI: Benefit of Tight Glycemic Control in AMI:Major Benefit in “No Insulin - Low Risk” Cohort
Malmberg, K et al BMJ 1997; 314: 1512-1515
Insulin-glucose
Infusion
Control
Mortality
Years in Study
n = 314
n = 306
0 2 3 4 5
p = .0111
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1
Insulin-glucose
Infusion
Control
Mortality
Years in Study
n = 133
n = 139
0 2 3 4 5
p = .004
Total Cohort No Insulin - Low Risk
19% @ 1 year
26%
CHF accounted for 66% of all deaths
EXAMINE: Primary End Point(ACS within15 to 90 days)
Composite of death from CV causes, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke
CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; EXAMINE, Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care
in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Acute Coronary Syndrome; MI, myocardial infarction.
White WB et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1327-35.
No. at Risk
Placebo 2679 2299 1891 1375 805 286
Alogliptin 2701 2316 1899 1394 821 296
Months
0 6 12 18 24 30
0
6
12
18
24
Cu
mu
lati
ve In
cid
ence
of
Pri
mar
y E
nd
-
Po
int
Eve
nts
(%
)
Alogliptin
Placebo
HR (95% CI) = 0.96 (≤1.16)
P < 0.001 for noninferiority
P = 0.32 for superiority
Alogliptin was non-inferior but not superior
to placebo with respect to the primary end point
ELIXA: Primary End Point(ACS within 180 days)
Time to the first occurrence of the primary CV event(CV death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke, hospitalization for UA)
CV, cardiovascular; ELIXA, Evaluation of LIXisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome; MI, myocardial infarction; UA, unstable angina.Pfeffer MA et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2247-57.
Lixisenatide 406/3034 = 13.4%
0
5
10
15
20
0 12 24 36
Pe
rce
nt
Months
Placebo 399/3034 = 13.2%
Number at risk
Placebo 3034 2759 1566 476Lixisenatide 3034 2785 1558 484
HR = 1.02 (0.89, 1.17)Lixisenatide was non-inferior but not superior to placebo with respect to the primary end point
What do we know about the effects of specific
antihyperglycemic agents in stable CAD?
Hypoglycemia May Affect CV Events
Desouza CV et al. Diabetes Care 2010; 33:1389-94.
Blood
coagulation
abnormalities
Sympathoadrenal response
Inflammation
Endothelial
dysfunction
Vasodilation
Rhythm abnormalities Hemodynamic changes
Adrenaline
Contractility
Oxygen consumption
Heart workload
VEGF IL-6CRP
Neutrophil
activation
Platelet
activation
Factor VII
Heart rate variability
Hypoglycemia
SAVOR-TIMI 53, EXAMINE & TECOS
ACS, acute coronary syndrome; CVD, cardiovascular disease; FU, follow-up; MI, myocardial infarction; R, randomization; UA, unstable angina.Green JB et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:232-42; Scirica BM et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1317-26; White WB et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1327-35.
Median Duration of Follow-up
CV death, Nonfatal MI, Nonfatal stroke, or UA requiring hospitalization
Randomization Year 3Year 2Year 1
RSaxagliptin
Placebo6.5–12.0
A1C , % Primary End pointDuration of Treatment(as part of usual care)
CV death, Nonfatal MI,or Nonfatal stroke
CV death, Nonfatal MI,or Nonfatal strokeEstablished CVD
and/or multiple risk factors
ACS within15 to 90 days
Preexisting CVD
RAlogliptin
Placebo6.5–11.0
RSitagliptin
Placebo6.5–8.0
MedianFU, y
2.1
3.0
1.5
HR(95% CI)
1.00(0.89, 1.12)
0.98(0.89, 1.08)
0.96(≤1.16)
EXAMINE, SAVOR-TIMI 53, and TECOSHospitalization for Heart Failure
Adapted from Armstrong PW, Van de Werf F. Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin in patients with type-2 Diabetes: TECOS. European Society of Cardiology 2015, August 29-September 2, 2015, London, United Kingdom; Scirica BM et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1317-26; EXAMINE: Zannad F et al. Lancet. 2015;385:2067-76; ; TECOS: Green JB et al. N Engl J Med.2015;373:232-42.
Study Drugn/N (%)
Placebon/N (%)
Hazard Ratio
95%CI
P Value
SAVOR-TIMI 53(saxagliptin vsplacebo)
289/8280(3.5%)
228/8212(2.8%)
1.27 1.07, 1.51 0.007
EXAMINE(alogliptin vsplacebo)
106/2701(3.9%)
89/2679(3.3%)
1.19 0.89, 1.59 0.235
TECOS(sitagliptin vsplacebo)
228/7332(3.1%)
229/7339(3.1%)
1.00 0.84, 1.20 1.000
SAVOR-TIMI 53 + EXAMINE+ TECOS
623/18313(3.4%)
546/18230(3.0%)
1.14 0.97, 1.34 0.102
Favours Treatment Favours Placebo0 1 2
Test for heterogeneity for 3 trials:p=0.16, I2=44.9%
EMPA-REG OUTCOMEStudy Design
Randomisation
(n = 7042)*
Placeborun-in
2 weeks
Empagliflozin 10 mg QD
Empagliflozin 25 mg QD
Placebo
Screening (n =
11,507)
Background therapy
adjustment
allowed after Week 12
12 weeks of
stable
background
therapy
Visit 1
Week
4 8 12 16 28 40 520-2-3
Visit 2 Visit 3 Visits 4–7every 4 weeks
Visits 8–10every 12 weeks
Visits every 14 weeks
QD, once daily.*7042 patients were randomised, 7034 of whom comprised the treated set.
• Age ≥ 18 years • HbA1C ≥ 7% and ≤ 10% or ≥ 7% and
≤ 9% (drug-naïve)• BMI ≤ 45 kg/m2 And to have ≥ 1 of the following criteria:• History of MI (> 2 months prior to
enrolment)• Evidence of CAD in ≥ 2 major vessels
or left main coronary artery• Evidence of single-vessel CAD with
no scheduled revascularisation/previously unsuccessful revascularisation and:
- Positive non-invasive, functional stress test for ischaemia (ECG, echo or nuclear), or
- Hospital discharge due to unstable angina pectoris ≤ 12 months before enrolment
Inclusion Criteria
Zinman B, et al. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2014;13:102.
Empagliflozin (pooled)HR 0.86
(95.02% CI 0.74, 0.99)p=0.0382*
Empagliflozin 25 mgHR 0.86 (95% CI 0.73, 1.02),p=0.0865
Empagliflozin 10 mgHR 0.85 (95% CI 0.72, 1.01), p=0.0668
Cumulative incidence function. MACE, Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event; HR, hazard ratio. * Two-sided tests for superiority were conducted (statistical significance was indicated if p≤0.0498)Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al. Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med Sep 17, 2015. 10.1056/NEJMoa1504720
Primary outcome:3-point MACE: CV Death, Non-Fatal MI or
Non-Fatal Stroke
EMPA-REG Outcome3-point MACE and 4-point MACE
Cox regression analysis.*95.02% CI and two-sided p-value. †Nominal p-value RRR for 3P-MACE 14%; ARR for 3P-MACE 1.6%, AR rate difference for 3P-MACE: –6.5; RRR for CV death 38%; ARR for CV death 2.2%, AR rate difference in CV death: –7.7AR, absolute risk; CV, cardiovascular; HR, hazard ratio; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular event; MI, myocardial infarction; UA, unstable anginaZinman B et al. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2117-28.
Patients with event/analyzed
Empagliflozin Placebo HR (95% CI) p-value
3-point MACE490/4687 (10.5%)
282/2333 (12.1%)
0.86 (0.74, 0.99)* 0.04*
CV death172/4687
(3.7%)137/2333
(5.9%)0.62 (0.49, 0.77) <0.001†
Non-fatal MI213/4687
(4.5%)121/2333
(5.2%)0.87 (0.70, 1.09) 0.22†
Non-fatal stroke150/4687
(3.2%)60/2333 (2.6%)
1.24 (0.92, 1.67) 0.16†
4-point MACE599/4687 (12.8%)
333/2333 (14.3%)
0.89 (0.78, 1.01)* 0.08*
Hospitalization for UA133/4687
(2.8%)66/2333 (2.8%)
0.99 (0.74, 1.34) 0.97†
0.25 0.50 1.00 2.00
Favours empagliflozin Favours placebo
CV death
Empagliflozin (pooled)HR 0.62
(95% CI 0.49, 0.77)p<0.0001
Empagliflozin 25 mgHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.45, 0.77), p=0.0001
Empagliflozin 10 mgHR 0.65 (95% CI 0.50, 0.85), p=0.0016
Cumulative incidence function. HR, hazard ratio Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al. Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med Sep 17, 2015. 10.1056/NEJMoa1504720
Hospitalization for heart failure
Empagliflozin (pooled)HR 0.65
(95% CI 0.50, 0.85)p=0.0017
Empagliflozin 10 mgHR 0.62 (95% CI 0.45, 0.86), p=0.0044
Empagliflozin 25 mgHR 0.68 (95% CI 0.50, 0.93), p=0.0166
Cumulative incidence function. HR, hazard ratio Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al. Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med Sep 17, 2015. 10.1056/NEJMoa1504720
LEADER: Study Design
*Daily single-blind SC injection of placeboA1C, glycated hemoglobin; LEADER, Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of cardiovascular outcome Results; OAHA, oral antihyperglycemicagent; SC, subcutaneous; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus.Adapted from Marso SP et al. Am Heart J. 2013;166:823-30.
RANDOMIZATION
(1:1)
Key inclusion criteria
Adult T2DM patients:• A1C >7.0%• Antidiabetic drug naive; or• Treated with one or more
OAHAs; or• Treated with basal or
premix insulin (alone or in combination with OAHAs)
N=9340 Standard of care + liraglutide
(0.6–1.8 mg once daily)
Standard of care + placebo*
3.5–5 year follow-up
Placebo* run-in period of ≥2 weeksPatients demonstrating ≥50% adherence to regimen and willingness to continue with injection protocol for duration of trial proceeded to randomization
LEADERKey Inclusion Criteria
• Adults with T2DM and A1C ≥7.0% at screening• Prior CVD cohort
– Age ≥50 years and at least one of the following:• Cardiovascular disease• Cerebrovascular disease• Peripheral vascular disease• Chronic renal failure • Chronic heart failure
• No prior CVD cohort– Age ≥60 years and at least one of the following:
• Micro- or macroalbuminuria• Hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy by ECG or imaging• Left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction by imaging• Ankle-brachial index <0.9
CVD, cardiovascular disease; ECG, electrocardiogram; A1C, glycated hemoglobin; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus.Marso SP et al. Am Heart J. 2013;166:823-30.
LEADER: Primary CV outcomes
The primary composite outcome in the time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke. The cumulative incidences were estimated with the use of the Kaplan–Meier method, and the hazard ratios with the use of the Cox proportional-hazard regression model. The data analyses are truncated at 54 months, because less than 10% of the patients had an observation time beyond 54 months. CI: confidence interval; CV: cardiovascular; HR: hazard ratio.
Adapted from Marso SP et al. N Engl J Med. 2016. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1603827; and presentation at the American Diabetes Association 76th Scientific Sessions, Session 3-CT-SY24. June 13 2016, New Orleans, LA, USA.
MACE: CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
0
5
10
15
20
P la ce b oP
atie
nts
wit
h a
n e
ven
t (%
)
Time from randomization (months)Patients at risk
Liraglutide
Placebo
4668
4672
4593
4588
4496
4473
4400
4352
4280
4237
4172
4123
4072
4010
3982
3914
1562
1543
424
407
HR=0.8795% CI (0.78 ; 0.97)
p<0.001 for non-inferiorityp=0.01 for superiority
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54
0
5
10
15
20
L ira g lu t id e
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 540
5
10
15
20
LEADER: MACE and individual components
Hazard ratio(95% CI) p value
Liraglutide (N=4668)Placebo
(N=4672)
N % R N % R
Primary outcome 0.87 (0.78–0.97) 0.01 608 13.0 3.4 694 13.9 3.9
CV death 0.78 (0.66–0.93) 0.007 219 4.7 1.2 278 6.0 1.6
Non-fatal MI 0.88 (0.75–1.03) 0.11 281 6.0 1.6 317 6.8 1.8
Non-fatal stroke 0.89 (0.72–1.11) 0.30 159 3.4 0.9 177 3.8 1.0
Hazard ratios and p-values were estimated with the use of a Cox proportional-hazards model with treatment as a covariate.%, percentage of group; CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; HR, hazard ratio; N, number of patients; R, incidence rate per 100 patient-years of observation. Adapted from Marso SP et al. N Engl J Med. 2016. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1603827; and presentation at the American Diabetes Association 76th Scientific Sessions, Session 3-CT-SY24. June 13 2016, New Orleans, LA, USA.
0.50 1.50
Favours Placebo
Hazard ratio (95% CI)
Favours Liraglutide
Overview of CVOTs of Glucose-Lowering Drugs
Timings represent estimated completion dates as per ClinicalTrials.gov.
Adapted from Johansen OE. World J Diabetes. 2015;6:1092-6.
CANVAS-R8
(n = 5700)Albuminuria
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
SAVOR-TIMI 531
(n = 16,492)1,222 3P-MACE
EXAMINE2
(n = 5380)621 3P-MACE
TECOS4
(n = 14,724)≥ 1300 4P-MACE
LEADER6
(n = 9340)≥ 611 3P-MACE
SUSTAIN-67
(n = 3297)3P-MACE
DECLARE-TIMI 5815
(n = 17,150)≥ 1390 3P-MACE
EMPA-REG OUTCOME®5
(n = 7034)≥ 691 3P-MACE
CANVAS10
(n = 4365)≥ 420 3P-MACE
CREDENCE17
(n = 3700)Renal + 5P-MACE
CAROLINA®11
(n = 6000)≥ 631 4P-MACE
ITCA CVOT9
(n = 4000)4P-MACE
EXSCEL14
(n = 14,000)≥ 1591 3P-MACE
DPP4 inhibitor CVOTs
SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs
GLP1 CVOTsErtugliflozinCVOT18
(n = 3900)3P-MACE
OMNEON13
(n = 4000)4P-MACE
CARMELINA12
(n = 8300)4P-MACE + renal
REWIND16
(n = 9622)≥ 1067 3P-MACE
2021
ELIXA3
(n = 6068)≥ 844 4P-MACE
HARMONY Outcomes19
(n = 9400) 3P-MACE
guidelines.diabetes.ca | 1-800-BANTING (226-8464) | diabetes.ca
Copyright © 2013 Canadian Diabetes Association
Add another agent best suited to the individual by prioritizing patient
characteristics:
Degree of hyperglycemia
Risk of hypoglycemia
Overweight or obesity
CV disease or multiple risk factors
Comorbidities (renal, CHF, hepatic)
Preferences & access to treatment
Consider relative A1C lowering
Rare hypoglycemia
Weight loss or weight neutral
Effect on cardiovascular outcome
See therapeutic considerations
See cost column; consider access
PATIENT CHARACTERISTIC CHOICE OF AGENT
PRIORITY:
Clinical Cardiovascular Disease
SGLT2 inhibitor with
demonstrated CV outcome
benefit
2016
SUMMARY
• Diabetes mellitus has a major impact during and after ACS but we have no definitive evidence that glucose lowering post ACS will reduce CV risk
• In patients with stable CAD:-Recent clinical trials have demonstrated the overall CV safety, but not
superiority, of DPP-4 inhibitors (with perhaps some heterogeneity in the HF signal) and 1GLP-1RA
-Data from 2 trials with GLP-1RAs have demonstrated CV benefit-The one completed trial with an SGLT2 inhibitor has demonstrated significant
reductions in CV mortality and HF• Most patients will require multiple antihyperglycemic agents in order to
achieve glycemic targets