[
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_1.0.0.0",
	"text":"Overview The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2337/​dc22-​SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-​grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2337/​dc22-​SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/​SOC. For prevention and management of diabetes complications in children and adolescents, please refer to Section 14, “Children and Adolescents” (https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2337/​dc22-​S014). Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)—defined as coronary heart disease (CHD), cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral arterial disease presumed to be of atherosclerotic origin—is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality for individuals with diabetes and results in an estimated $37.3 billion in cardiovascular-​related spending per year associated with diabetes (1). Common conditions coexisting with type 2 diabetes (e.g., hypertension and dyslipidemia) are clear risk factors for ASCVD, and diabetes itself confers independent risk. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy of controlling individual cardiovascular risk factors in preventing or slowing ASCVD in people with diabetes. Furthermore, large benefits are seen when multiple cardiovascular risk factors are addressed simultaneously. Under the current paradigm of aggressive risk factor modification in patients with diabetes, there is evidence that measures of 10-​year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk among U.S. adults with diabetes have improved significantly over the past decade (2) and that ASCVD morbidity and mortality have decreased (3,4). Heart failure is another major cause of morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease. Recent studies have found that rates of incident heart failure hospitalization (adjusted for age and sex) were twofold higher in patients with diabetes compared with those without (5,6). People with diabetes may have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Hypertension is often a precursor of heart failure of either type, and ASCVD can coexist with either type (7), whereas prior myocardial infarction (MI) is often a major factor in HFrEF. Rates of heart failure hospitalization have been improved in recent trials including patients with type 2 diabetes, most of whom also had ASCVD, with sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors (8–10). For prevention and management of both ASCVD and heart failure, cardiovascular risk factors should be systematically assessed at least annually in all patients with diabetes. These risk factors include duration of diabetes, obesity/​overweight, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, a family history of premature coronary disease, chronic kidney disease, and the presence of albuminuria. Modifiable abnormal risk factors should be treated as described in these guidelines. Notably, the majority of evidence supporting interventions to reduce cardiovascular risk in diabetes comes from trials of patients with type 2 diabetes. Few trials have been specifically designed to assess the impact of cardiovascular risk reduction strategies in patients with type 1 diabetes. As depicted in Fig. 10.1, a comprehensive approach to the reduction in risk of diabetes-​related complications is recommended. Therapy that includes multiple, concurrent evidence-​based approaches to care will provide complementary reduction in the risks of microvascular, kidney, neurologic, and cardiovascular complications. Management of glycemia, blood pressure, and lipids and the incorporation of specific therapies with cardiovascular and kidney outcomes benefit (as individually appropriate) are considered fundamental elements of global risk reduction in diabetes. *A complete list of members of the American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee can be found at https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2337/​dc22-​SPPC. This section has received endorsement from the American College of Cardiology. Suggested citation: American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 10. Cardiovascular disease and risk management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2022. Diabetes Care 2022;45(Suppl. 1):S144–S174 © 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at https:/​/​diabetesjournals.org/​journals/​pages/​license. Figure 10.1—Multifactorial approach to reduction in risk of diabetes complications. *Risk reduction interventions to be applied as individually appropriate."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_2.0.0.0",
	"text":"The Risk Calculator The American College of Cardiology/​ American Heart Association ASCVD risk calculator (Risk Estimator Plus) is generally a useful tool to estimate 10-​year risk of a first ASCVD event (available online at tools.acc.org/​ASCVD-​Risk-​EstimatorPlus). The calculator includes diabetes as a risk factor, since diabetes itself confers increased risk for ASCVD, although it should be acknowledged that these risk calculators do not account for the duration of diabetes or the presence of diabetes complications, such as albuminuria. Although some variability in calibration exists in various subgroups, including by sex, race, and diabetes, the overall ritsk prediction does not differ in those with or without diabetes (11–14), validating the use of risk calculators in people with diabetes. The 10-​year risk of a first ASCVD event should be assessed to better stratify ASCVD risk and help guide therapy, as described below. Recently, risk scores and other cardiovascular biomarkers have been developed for risk stratification of secondary prevention patients (i.e., those who are already high risk because they have ASCVD) but are not yet in widespread use (15,16). With newer, more expensive lipid-​lowering therapies now available, use of these risk assessments may help target these new therapies to “higher risk” ASCVD patients in the future."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.1.0.0",
	"text":"Hypertension/​Blood Pressure Control Overview Hypertension, defined as a sustained blood pressure ≥140/​90 mmHg, is common among patients with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Hypertension is a major risk factor for both ASCVD and microvascular complications. Moreover, numerous studies have shown that antihypertensive therapy reduces ASCVD events, heart failure, and microvascular complications. Please refer to the American Diabetes Association (ADA) position statement “Diabetes and Hypertension” for a detailed review of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of hypertension (17)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.2.1.0",
	"text":"Screening and Diagnosis Recommendations Recommendations 10.1 Blood pressure should be measured at every routine clinical visit. When possible, patients found to have elevated blood pressure (≥140/​90 mmHg) should have blood pressure confirmed using multiple readings, including measurements on a separate day, to diagnose hypertension. A Patients with blood pressure ≥180/​110 mmHg and cardiovascular disease could be diagnosed with hypertension at a single visit. E 10.2 All hypertensive patients with diabetes should monitor their blood pressure at home. A"
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.2.2.0",
	"text":"Overview Blood pressure should be measured at every routine clinical visit by a trained individual and should follow the guidelines established for the general population: measurement in the seated position, with feet on the floor and arm supported at heart level, after 5 min of rest. Cuff size should be appropriate for the upper-​arm circumference. Elevated values should preferably be confirmed on a separate day; however, in patients with cardiovascular disease and blood pressure ≥180/​110 mmHg, it is reasonable to diagnose hypertension at a single visit (18). Postural changes in blood pressure and pulse may be evidence of autonomic neuropathy and therefore require adjustment of blood pressure targets. Orthostatic blood pressure measurements should be checked on initial visit and as indicated. Home blood pressure self-​monitoring and 24-​h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring may provide evidence of white coat hypertension, masked hypertension, or other discrepancies between office and “true” blood pressure (17,18a, 18b). In addition to confirming or refuting a diagnosis of hypertension, home blood pressure assessment may be useful to monitor antihypertensive treatment. Studies of individuals without diabetes found that home measurements may better correlate with ASCVD risk than office measurements ( 19,20). Moreover, home blood pressure monitoring may improve patient medication adherence and thus help reduce cardiovascular risk (21)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.3.1.0",
	"text":"Treatment Goals Recommendations Recommendations 10.3 For patients with diabetes and hypertension, blood pressure targets should be individualized through a shared decision-​making process that addresses cardiovascular risk, potential adverse effects of antihypertensive medications, and patient preferences. B 10.4 For individuals with diabetes and hypertension at higher cardiovascular risk (existing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD] or 10-​year ASCVD risk ≥15%), a blood pressure target of <130/​80 mmHg may be appropriate, if it can be safely attained. B 10.5 For individuals with diabetes and hypertension at lower risk for cardiovascular disease (10year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk <15%), treat to a blood pressure target of <140/​90 mmHg. A 10.6 In pregnant patients with diabetes and preexisting hypertension, a blood pressure target of 110–135/​85 mmHg is suggested in the interest of reducing the risk for accelerated maternal hypertension A and minimizing impaired fetal growth. E"
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.3.2.0",
	"text":"Overview Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated unequivocally that treatment of hypertension to blood pressure <140/​ 90 mmHg reduces cardiovascular events as well as microvascular complications (22–28). Therefore, patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes who have hypertension should, at a minimum, be treated to blood pressure targets of <140/​90 mmHg. The benefits and risks of intensifying antihypertensive therapy to target blood pressures lower than <140/​90 mmHg (e.g., <130/​80 or <120/​80 mmHg) have been evaluated in large randomized clinical trials and meta-​analyses of clinical trials. Notably, there is an absence of high-​quality data available to guide blood pressure targets in type 1 diabetes."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.3.3.0",
	"text":"Randomized Controlled Trials of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Control The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure (ACCORD BP) trial provides the strongest direct assessment of the benefits and risks of intensive blood pressure control among people with type 2 diabetes (29). In ACCORD BP, compared with standard blood pressure control (target systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg), intensive blood pressure control (target systolic blood pressure <120 mmHg) did not reduce total major atherosclerotic cardiovascular events but did reduce the risk of stroke, at the expense of increased adverse events (Table 10.1). The ACCORD BP results suggest that blood pressure targets more intensive than <140/​90 mmHg are not likely to improve cardiovascular outcomes among most people with type 2 diabetes but may be reasonable for patients who may derive the most benefit and have been educated about added treatment burden, side effects, and costs, as discussed below. Additional studies, such as the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial, also examined effects of intensive versus standard control (Table 10.1), though the relevance of their results to people with diabetes is less clear. The Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation–Blood Pressure (ADVANCE BP) trial did not explicitly test blood pressure targets (30); the achieved blood pressure in the intervention group was higher than that achieved in the ACCORD BP intensive arm and would be consistent with a target blood pressure of <140/​90 mmHg. Notably, ACCORD BP and SPRINT measured blood pressure using automated office blood pressure measurement, which yields values that are generally lower than typical office blood pressure readings by approximately 5–10 mmHg (31), suggesting that implementing the ACCORD BP or SPRINT protocols in an outpatient clinic might require a systolic blood pressure target higher than <120 mmHg, such as <130 mmHg. A number of post hoc analyses have attempted to explain the apparently divergent results of ACCORD BP and SPRINT. Some investigators have argued that the divergent results are not due to differences between people with and without diabetes but rather are due to differences in study design or to characteristics other than diabetes (32–34). Others have opined that the divergent results are most readily explained by the lack of benefit of intensive blood pressure control on cardiovascular mortality in ACCORD BP, which may be due to differential mechanisms underlying cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes, to chance, or both (35). Interestingly, a post hoc analysis has found that intensive blood pressure lowering increased the risk of incident chronic kidney disease in both ACCORD BP and SPRINT, with the absolute risk of incident chronic kidney disease being higher in individuals with type 2 diabetes (36). Table 10.1—Randomized controlled trials of intensive versus standard hypertension treatment strategies ACCORD BP, Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure trial; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; ADVANCE BP, Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation–Blood Pressure trial; AKI, acute kidney injury; CVD, cardiovascular disease; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; HOT, Hypertension Optimal Treatment trial; MI, myocardial infarction; SBP, systolic blood pressure; SPRINT, Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial; T2D, type 2 diabetes. Data from this table can also be found in the ADA position statement “Diabetes and Hypertension” (17)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.3.4.0",
	"text":"Meta-​analyses of Trials To clarify optimal blood pressure targets in patients with diabetes, meta-​analyses have stratified clinical trials by mean baseline blood pressure or mean blood pressure attained in the intervention (or intensive treatment) arm. Based on these analyses, antihypertensive treatment appears to be beneficial when mean baseline blood pressure is ≥140/​90 mmHg or mean attained intensive blood pressure is ≥130/​ 80 mmHg (17,22,23,25–27). Among trials with lower baseline or attained blood pressure, antihypertensive treatment reduced the risk of stroke, retinopathy, and albuminuria, but effects on other ASCVD outcomes and heart failure were not evident. Taken together, these meta-​analyses consistently show that treating patients with baseline blood pressure ≥140 mmHg to targets <140 mmHg is beneficial, while more intensive targets may offer additional (though probably less robust) benefits."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.3.5.0",
	"text":"Individualization of Treatment Targets Patients and clinicians should engage in a shared decision-​making process to determine individual blood pressure targets (17). This approach acknowledges that the benefits and risks of intensive blood pressure targets are uncertain and may vary across patients and is consistent with a patient-​focused approach to care that values patient priorities and provider judgment (37). Secondary analyses of ACCORD BP and SPRINT suggest that clinical factors can help determine individuals more likely to benefit and less likely to be harmed by intensive blood pressure control (38,39). Absolute benefit from blood pressure reduction correlated with absolute baseline cardiovascular risk in SPRINT and in earlier clinical trials conducted at higher baseline blood pressure levels (11,39). Extrapolation of these studies suggests that patients with diabetes may also be more likely to benefit from intensive blood pressure control when they have high absolute cardiovascular risk. Therefore, it may be reasonable to target blood pressure <130/​80 mmHg among patients with diabetes and either clinically diagnosed cardiovascular disease (particularly stroke, which was significantly reduced in ACCORD BP) or 10-​year ASCVD risk ≥15%, if it can be attained safely. This approach is consistent with guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/​American Heart Association, which advocate a blood pressure target <130/​80 mmHg for all patients, with or without diabetes (40). Potential adverse effects of antihypertensive therapy (e.g., hypotension, syncope, falls, acute kidney injury, and electrolyte abnormalities) should also be taken into account (29,36,41,42). Patients with older age, chronic kidney disease, and frailty have been shown to be at higher risk of adverse effects of intensive blood pressure control (42). In addition, patients with orthostatic hypotension, substantial comorbidity, functional limitations, or polypharmacy may be at high risk of adverse effects, and some patients may prefer higher blood pressure targets to enhance quality of life. However, in ACCORD BP, it was found that intensive blood pressure lowering decreased the risk of cardiovascular events irrespective of baseline diastolic blood pressure in patients who also received standard glycemic control (43). Therefore, the presence of low diastolic blood pressure is not necessarily a contraindication to more intensive blood pressure management in the context of otherwise standard care. Patients with low absolute cardiovascular risk (10-​year ASCVD risk <15%) or with a history of adverse effects of intensive blood pressure control or at high risk of adverse effects should have a higher blood pressure target. In such patients, a blood pressure target of <140/​90 mmHg is recommended, if it can be safely attained."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.3.6.0",
	"text":"Pregnancy and Antihypertensive Medications There are few randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive therapy in pregnant women with diabetes. A 2014 Cochrane systematic review of antihypertensive therapy for mild to moderate chronic hypertension that included 49 trials and over 4,700 women did not find any conclusive evidence for or against blood pressure treatment to reduce the risk of preeclampsia for the mother or effects on perinatal outcomes such as preterm birth, small-​for-​gestational-​age infants, or fetal death (44). The more recent Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study (CHIPS) (45) enrolled mostly women with chronic hypertension. In CHIPS, targeting a diastolic blood pressure of 85 mmHg during pregnancy was associated with reduced likelihood of developing accelerated maternal hypertension and no demonstrable adverse outcome for infants compared with targeting a higher diastolic blood pressure. The mean systolic blood pressure achieved in the more intensively treated group was 133.1 ± 0.5 mmHg, and the mean diastolic blood pressure achieved in that group was 85.3 ± 0.3 mmHg. A similar approach is supported by the International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy, which specifically recommends use of antihypertensive therapy to maintain systolic blood pressure between 110 and 140 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 85 mmHg (46). Current evidence supports controlling blood pressure to 110–135/​85 mmHg to reduce the risk of accelerated maternal hypertension but also to minimize impairment of fetal growth. During pregnancy, treatment with ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and spironolactone are contraindicated as they may cause fetal damage. Antihypertensive drugs known to be effective and safe in pregnancy include methyldopa, labetalol, and long-​acting nifedipine, while hydralzine may be considered in the acute management of hypertension in pregnancy or severe preeclampsia (47). Diuretics are not recommended for blood pressure control in pregnancy but may be used during latestage pregnancy if needed for volume control (47,48). The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also recommends that postpartum patients with gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, and superimposed preeclampsia have their blood pressures observed for 72 h in the hospital and for 7–10 days postpartum. Long-​term follow-​up is recommended for these women as they have increased lifetime cardiovascular risk (49). See Section 15, “Management of Diabetes in Pregnancy” (https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2337/​dc22-​S015), for additional information."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.4.1.0",
	"text":"Treatment Strategies Lifestyle Intervention Recommendation 10.7 For patients with blood pressure >120/​80 mmHg, lifestyle intervention consists of weight loss when indicated, a Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH)-​style eating pattern including reducing sodium and increasing potassium intake, moderation of alcohol intake, and increased physical activity. A Lifestyle management is an important component of hypertension treatment because it lowers blood pressure, enhances the effectiveness of some antihypertensive medications, promotes other aspects of metabolic and vascular health, and generally leads to few adverse effects. Lifestyle therapy consists of reducing excess body weight through caloric restriction (see Section 8, “Obesity and Weight Management for the Prevention and Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes,” https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2337/​dc22-​S008), restricting sodium intake (<2,300 mg/​ day), increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables (8–10 servings per day) and low-​fat dairy products (2–3 servings per day), avoiding excessive alcohol consumption (no more than 2 servings per day in men and no more than 1 serving per day in women) (50), and increasing activity levels (51). These lifestyle interventions are reasonable for individuals with diabetes and mildly elevated blood pressure (systolic >120 mmHg or diastolic >80 mmHg) and should be initiated along with pharmacologic therapy when hypertension is diagnosed (Fig. 10.2) (51). A lifestyle therapy plan should be developed in collaboration with the patient and discussed as part of diabetes management. Use of internet or mobile-​based digital platforms to reinforce healthy behaviors may be considered as a component of care, as these interventions have been found to enhance the efficacy of medical therapy for hypertension (52,53). Figure 10.2—Recommendations for the treatment of confirmed hypertension in people with diabetes. *An ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) is suggested to treat hypertension for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or urine albumin-​to-​creatinine ratio 30–299 mg/​g creatinine and strongly recommended for patients with urine albumin-​to-​creatinine ratio ≥300 mg/​g creatinine. **Thiazide-​like diuretic; long-​acting agents shown to reduce cardiovascular events, such as chlorthalidone and indapamide, are preferred. ***Dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB). BP, blood pressure. Adapted from de Boer et al. (17). for interactivity see here"
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.4.2.1",
	"text":"Pharmacologic Interventions Recommendations Recommendations 10.8 Patients with confirmed officebased blood pressure ≥140/​ 90 mmHg should, in addition to lifestyle therapy, have prompt initiation and timely titration of pharmacologic therapy to achieve blood pressure goals. A 10.9 Patients with confirmed officebased blood pressure ≥160/​ 100 mmHg should, in addition to lifestyle therapy, have prompt initiation and timely titration of two drugs or a single-​pill combination of drugs demonstrated to reduce cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes. A 10.10 Treatment for hypertension should include drug classes demonstrated to reduce cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes. A ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers are recommended first-​line therapy for hypertension in people with diabetes and coronary artery disease. A 10.11 Multiple-​drug therapy is generally required to achieve blood pressure targets. However, combinations of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers and combinations of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers with direct renin inhibitors should not be used. A 10.12 An ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, at the maximum tolerated dose indicated for blood pressure treatment, is the recommended first-​line treatment for hypertension in patients with diabetes and urinary albumin-​to-​creatinine ratio ≥300 mg/​g creatinine A or 30–299 mg/​g creatinine. B If one class is not tolerated, the other should be substituted. B 10.13 For patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or diuretic, serum creatinine/​estimated glomerular filtration rate and serum potassium levels should be monitored at least annually. B"
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.4.2.2",
	"text":"Initial Number of Antihypertensive Medications Initial treatment for people with diabetes depends on the severity of hypertension (Fig. 10.2). Those with blood pressure between 140/​90 mmHg and 159/​99 mmHg may begin with a single drug. For patients with blood pressure ≥160/​100 mmHg, initial pharmacologic treatment with two antihypertensive medications is recommended in order to more effectively achieve adequate blood pressure control (54–56). Single-​pill antihypertensive combinations may improve medication adherence in some patients ( 57)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.4.2.3",
	"text":"Classes of Antihypertensive Medications Initial treatment for hypertension should include any of the drug classes demonstrated to reduce cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes: ACE inhibitors (58,59), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) (58, 59), thiazide-​like diuretics (60), or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (61). In patients with diabetes and established coronary artery disease, ACE inhibitors or ARBs are recommended first-​line therapy for hypertension (62–64). For patients with albuminuria (urine albumin-​to-​creatinine ratio [UACR] ≥30 mg/​g), initial treatment should include an ACE inhibitor or ARB in order to reduce the risk of progressive kidney disease (17) (Fig. 10.2). In patients receiving ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy, continuation of those medications as kidney function declines to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/​min/​1.73 m2 may provide cardiovascular benefit without significantly increasing the risk of end-​stage kidney disease (65). In the absence of albuminuria, risk of progressive kidney disease is low, and ACE inhibitors and ARBs have not been found to afford superior cardioprotection when compared with thiazide-​like diuretics or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (66). β-​Blockers are indicated in the setting of prior MI, active angina, or HfrEF but have not been shown to reduce mortality as blood pressure–lowering agents in the absence of these conditions (24,67,68)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.4.2.4",
	"text":"Multiple-​Drug Therapy Multiple-​drug therapy is often required to achieve blood pressure targets (Fig. 10.2), particularly in the setting of diabetic kidney disease. However, the use of both ACE inhibitors and ARBs in combination, or the combination of an ACE inhibitor or ARB and a direct renin inhibitor, is contraindicated given the lack of added ASCVD benefit and increased rate of adverse events—namely, hyperkalemia, syncope, and acute kidney injury (AKI) (69–71). Titration of and/​or addition of further blood pressure medications should be made in a timely fashion to overcome therapeutic inertia in achieving blood pressure targets."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.4.2.5",
	"text":"Bedtime Dosing Although prior analyses of randomized clinical trials found a benefit to evening versus morning dosing of antihypertensive medications (72,73), these results have not been reproduced in subsequent trials. Therefore, preferential use of antihypertensives at bedtime is not recommended (73a)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.4.2.6",
	"text":"Hyperkalemia and Acute Kidney Injury Treatment with ACE inhibitors or ARBs can cause AKI and hyperkalemia, while diuretics can cause AKI and either hypokalemia or hyperkalemia (depending on mechanism of action) (74,75). Detection and management of these abnormalities is important because AKI and hyperkalemia each increase the risks of cardiovascular events and death (76). Therefore, serum creatinine and potassium should be monitored during treatment with an ACE inhibitor, ARB, or diuretic, particularly among patients with reduced glomerular filtration who are at increased risk of hyperkalemia and AKI (74,75,77)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_3.4.3.0",
	"text":"Resistant Hypertension Recommendation 10.14 Patients with hypertension who are not meeting blood pressure targets on three classes of antihypertensive medications (including a diuretic) should be considered for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist therapy. B Resistant hypertension is defined as blood pressure ≥140/​90 mmHg despite a therapeutic strategy that includes appropriate lifestyle management plus a diuretic and two other antihypertensive drugs with complimentary mechanisms of action at adequate doses. Prior to diagnosing resistant hypertension, a number of other conditions should be excluded, including medication nonadherence, white coat hypertension, and secondary hypertension. In general, barriers to medication adherence (such as cost and side effects) should be identified and addressed (Fig. 10.2). Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists are effective for management of resistant hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes when added to existing treatment with an ACE inhibitor or ARB, thiazidelike diuretic, and dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (78). Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists also reduce albuminuria and have additional cardiovascular benefits (79–82). However, adding a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to a regimen including an ACE inhibitor or ARB may increase the risk for hyperkalemia, emphasizing the importance of regular monitoring for serum creatinine and potassium in these patients, and long-​term outcome studies are needed to better evaluate the role of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in blood pressure management."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_4.1.0.0",
	"text":"Lipid Management Lifestyle Intervention Recommendations 10.15 Lifestyle modification focusing on weight loss (if indicated); application of a Mediterranean style or Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern; reduction of saturated fat and trans fat; increase of dietary n-​3 fatty acids, viscous fiber, and plant stanols/​ sterols intake; and increased physical activity should be recommended to improve the lipid profile and reduce the risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. A 10.16 Intensify lifestyle therapy and optimize glycemic control for patients with elevated triglyceride levels (≥150 mg/​dL [1.7 mmol/​L]) and/​or low HDL cholesterol (<40 mg/​dL [1.0 mmol/​L] for men, <50 mg/​dL [1.3 mmol/​L] for women). C Lifestyle intervention, including weight loss (83), increased physical activity, and medical nutrition therapy, allows some patients to reduce ASCVD risk factors. Nutrition intervention should be tailored according to each patient’s age, diabetes type, pharmacologic treatment, lipid levels, and medical conditions. Recommendations should focus on application of a Mediterranean style diet (84) or Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern, reducing saturated and trans fat intake and increasing plant stanols/​sterols, n-​3 fatty acids, and viscous fiber (such as in oats, legumes, and citrus) intake (85,86). Glycemic control may also beneficially modify plasma lipid levels, particularly in patients with very high triglycerides and poor glycemic control. See Section 5, “Facilitating Behavior Change and Well-​being to Improve Health Outcomes” (https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2337/​dc22-​S005), for additional nutrition information."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_4.2.0.0",
	"text":"Ongoing Therapy and Monitoring With Lipid Panel Recommendations 10.17 In adults not taking statins or other lipid-​lowering therapy, it is reasonable to obtain a lipid profile at the time of diabetes diagnosis, at an initial medical evaluation, and every 5 years thereafter if under the age of 40 years, or more frequently if indicated. E 10.18 Obtain a lipid profile at initiation of statins or other lipidlowering therapy, 4–12 weeks after initiation or a change in dose, and annually thereafter as it may help to monitor the response to therapy and inform medication adherence. E In adults with diabetes, it is reasonable to obtain a lipid profile (total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides) at the time of diagnosis, at the initial medical evaluation, and at least every 5 years thereafter in patients under the age of 40 years. In younger patients with longer duration of disease (such as those with youth-​onset type 1 diabetes), more frequent lipid profiles may be reasonable. A lipid panel should also be obtained immediately before initiating statin therapy. Once a patient is taking a statin, LDL cholesterol levels should be assessed 4–12 weeks after initiation of statin therapy, after any change in dose, and on an individual basis (e.g., to monitor for medication adherence and efficacy). If LDL cholesterol levels are not responding in spite of medication adherence, clinical judgment is recommended to determine the need for and timing of lipid panels. In individual patients, the highly variable LDL cholesterol–lowering response seen with statins is poorly understood (87). Clinicians should attempt to find a dose or alternative statin that is tolerable if side effects occur. There is evidence for benefit from even extremely low, less than daily statin doses (88)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.1.0.0",
	"text":"Statin Treatment Primary Prevention Recommendations 10.19 For patients with diabetes aged 40–75 years without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, use moderate-​intensity statin therapy in addition to lifestyle therapy. A 10.20 For patients with diabetes aged 20–39 years with additional atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors, it may be reasonable to initiate statin therapy in addition to lifestyle therapy. C 10.21 In patients with diabetes at higher risk, especially those with multiple atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors or aged 50–70 years, it is reasonable to use highintensity statin therapy. B 10.22 In adults with diabetes and 10year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk of 20% or higher, it may be reasonable to add ezetimibe to maximally tolerated statin therapy to reduce LDL cholesterol levels by 50% or more. C"
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.2.0.0",
	"text":"Secondary Prevention Recommendations 10.23 For patients of all ages with diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, high-​intensity statin therapy should be added to lifestyle therapy. A 10.24 For patients with diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease considered very high risk using specific criteria, if LDL cholesterol is ≥70 mg/​dL on maximally tolerated statin dose, consider adding additional LDLlowering therapy (such as ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitor). A 10.25 For patients who do not tolerate the intended intensity, the maximally tolerated statin dose should be used. E 10.26 In adults with diabetes aged >75 years already on statin therapy, it is reasonable to continue statin treatment. B 10.27 In adults with diabetes aged >75 years, it may be reasonable to initiate statin therapy after discussion of potential benefits and risks. C 10.28 Statin therapy is contraindicated in pregnancy. B"
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.3.1.0",
	"text":"Initiating Statin Therapy Based on Risk Overview Patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased prevalence of lipid abnormalities, contributing to their high risk of ASCVD. Multiple clinical trials have demonstrated the beneficial effects of statin therapy on ASCVD outcomes in subjects with and without CHD (89,90). Subgroup analyses of patients with diabetes in larger trials (91–95) and trials in patients with diabetes (96,97) showed significant primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD events and CHD death in patients with diabetes. Meta-​analyses, including data from over 18,000 patients with diabetes from 14 randomized trials of statin therapy (mean follow-​up 4.3 years), demonstrate a 9% proportional reduction in all-​cause mortality and 13% reduction in vascular mortality for each 1 mmol/​L (39 mg/​dL) reduction in LDL cholesterol (98). Accordingly, statins are the drugs of choice for LDL cholesterol lowering and cardioprotection.Table 10.2 shows the two statin dosing intensities that are recommended for use in clinical practice: high-​intensity statin therapy will achieve approximately a ≥50% reduction in LDL cholesterol, and moderate-​intensity statin regimens achieve 30–49% reductions in LDL cholesterol. Low-​dose statin therapy is generally not recommended in patients with diabetes but is sometimes the only dose of statin that a patient can tolerate. For patients who do not tolerate the intended intensity of statin, the maximally tolerated statin dose should be used. As in those without diabetes, absolute reductions in ASCVD outcomes (CHD death and nonfatal MI) are greatest in people with high baseline ASCVD risk (known ASCVD and/​or very high LDL cholesterol levels), but the overall benefits of statin therapy in people with diabetes at moderate or even low risk for ASCVD are convincing (99,100). The relative benefit of lipid-​lowering therapy has been uniform across most subgroups tested (90,98), including subgroups that varied with respect to age and other risk factors. Table 10.2—High-​intensity and moderate-​intensity statin therapy* High-​intensity statin therapy (lowers LDL cholesterol by ≥50%) Moderate-​intensity statin therapy (lowers LDL cholesterol by 30–49%) Atorvastatin 40–80 mg Rosuvastatin 20–40 mg Atorvastatin 10–20 mg Rosuvastatin 5–10 mg Simvastatin 20–40 mg Pravastatin 40–80 mg Lovastatin 40 mg Fluvastatin XL 80 mg Pitavastatin 1–4 mg *Once-​daily dosing. XL, extended release."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.3.2.0",
	"text":"Primary Prevention (Patients Without ASCVD) For primary prevention, moderate-​dose statin therapy is recommended for those 40 years and older (92,99,100), though high-​intensity therapy may be considered on an individual basis in the context of additional ASCVD risk factors. The evidence is strong for patients with diabetes aged 40–75 years, an age-​group well represented in statin trials showing benefit. Since risk is enhanced in patients with diabetes, as noted above, patients who also have multiple other coronary risk factors have increased risk, equivalent to that of those with ASCVD. As such, recent guidelines recommend that in patients with diabetes who are at higher risk, especially those with multiple ASCVD risk factors or aged 50–70 years, it is reasonable to prescribe high-​intensity statin therapy (12,101). Furthermore, for patients with diabetes whose ASCVD risk is ≥20%, i.e., an ASCVD risk equivalent, the same high-​intensity statin therapy is recommended as for those with documented ASCVD (12). In those individuals, it may also be reasonable to add ezetimibe to maximally tolerated statin therapy if needed to reduce LDL cholesterol levels by 50% or more (12). The evidence is lower for patients aged >75 years; relatively few older patients with diabetes have been enrolled in primary prevention trials. However, heterogeneity by age has not been seen in the relative benefit of lipid-​lowering therapy in trials that included older participants ( 90,97,98), and because older age confers higher risk, the absolute benefits are actually greater (90,102). Moderate-​intensity statin therapy is recommended in patients with diabetes who are 75 years or older. However, the risk-​benefit profile should be routinely evaluated in this population, with downward titration of dose performed as needed. See Section 13, “Older Adults” (https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2337/​dc22-​S013), for more details on clinical considerations for this population."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.3.3.0",
	"text":"Age <40 Years and/​or Type 1 Diabetes Very little clinical trial evidence exists for patients with type 2 diabetes under the age of 40 years or for patients with type 1 diabetes of any age. For pediatric recommendations, see Section 14, “Children and Adolescents” (https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2337/​dc22-​S014). In the Heart Protection Study (lower age limit 40 years), the subgroup of ~600 patients with type 1 diabetes had a proportionately similar, although not statistically significant, reduction in risk to that in patients with type 2 diabetes (92). Even though the data are not definitive, similar statin treatment approaches should be considered for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, particularly in the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors. Patients below the age of 40 have lower risk of developing a cardiovascular event over a 10-​year horizon; however, their lifetime risk of developing cardiovascular disease and suffering an MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death is high. For patients who are younger than 40 years of age and/​or have type 1 diabetes with other ASCVD risk factors, it is recommended that the patient and health care provider discuss the relative benefits and risks and consider the use of moderate-​intensity statin therapy. Please refer to “Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association” (103) for additional discussion."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.3.4.0",
	"text":"Secondary Prevention (Patients With ASCVD) Because risk is high in patients with ASCVD, intensive therapy is indicated and has been shown to be of benefit in multiple large randomized cardiovascular outcomes trials (98,102,104,105). Highintensity statin therapy is recommended for all patients with diabetes and ASCVD. This recommendation is based on the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration involving 26 statin trials, of which 5 compared high-​intensity versus moderate-​intensity statins. Together, they found reductions in nonfatal cardiovascular events with more intensive therapy, in patients with and without diabetes (90,94,104). Over the past few years, there have been multiple large randomized trials investigating the benefits of adding nonstatin agents to statin therapy, including those that evaluated further lowering of LDL cholesterol with ezetimibe (102, 106) and proprotein convertase subtilisin/​kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors (105). Each trial found a significant benefit in the reduction of ASCVD events that was directly related to the degree of further LDL cholesterol lowering. These large trials included a significant number of participants with diabetes. For very high-​risk patients with ASCVD who are on highintensity (and maximally tolerated) statin therapy and have an LDL cholesterol ≥70 mg/​dL, the addition of nonstatin LDLlowering therapy can be considered. The decision to add a nonstatin agent should be made following a clinician-​patient discussion about the net benefit, safety, and cost of combination therapy. Although the costs of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy have decreased over time, the lower cost of ezetimibe may be preferred by many patients. Definition of very high-​risk patients with ASCVD includes the use of specific criteria (major ASCVD events and high-​risk conditions); refer to the “2018 AHA/​ACC/​AACVPR/​AAPA/​ABC/​ACPM/​ ADA/​AGS/​APhA/​ASPC/​NLA/​PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/​American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines” (12) for further details regarding this definition of risk, and to the additional “2018 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Novel Therapies for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease” (107) for recommendations for primary and secondary prevention and for statin and combination treatment in adults with diabetes."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.4.1.0",
	"text":"Combination Therapy for LDL Cholesterol Lowering Statins and Ezetimibe The IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-​IT) was a randomized controlled trial in 18,144 patients comparing the addition of ezetimibe to simvastatin therapy versus simvastatin alone. Individuals were ≥50 years of age, had experienced a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and were treated for an average of 6 years. Overall, the addition of ezetimibe led to a 6.4% relative benefit and a 2% absolute reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (atherosclerotic cardiovascular events), with the degree of benefit being directly proportional to the change in LDL cholesterol, which was 70 mg/​dL in the statin group on average and 54 mg/​dL in the combination group (102). In those with diabetes (27% of participants), the combination of moderate-​intensity simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) showed a significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events with an absolute risk reduction of 5% (40% vs. 45% cumulative incidence at 7 years) and a relative risk reduction of 14% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86 [95% CI 0.78–0.94]) over moderate-​intensity simvastatin (40 mg) alone (106)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.4.2.0",
	"text":"Statins and PCSK9 Inhibitors Placebo-​controlled trials evaluating the addition of the PCSK9 inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab to maximally tolerated doses of statin therapy in participants who were at high risk for ASCVD demonstrated an average reduction in LDL cholesterol ranging from 36% to 59%. These agents have been approved as adjunctive therapy for patients with ASCVD or familial hypercholesterolemia who are receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy but require additional lowering of LDL cholesterol ( 108,109). The effects of PCSK9 inhibition on ASCVD outcomes was investigated in the Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk (FOURIER) trial, which enrolled 27,564 patients with prior ASCVD and an additional high-​risk feature who were receiving their maximally tolerated statin therapy (twothirds were on high-​intensity statin) but who still had LDL cholesterol ≥70 mg/​ dL or non-​HDL cholesterol ≥100 mg/​dL (105). Patients were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of evolocumab (either 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg every month based on patient preference) versus placebo. Evolocumab reduced LDL cholesterol by 59% from a median of 92 to 30 mg/​dL in the treatment arm. During the median follow-​up of 2.2 years, the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for angina, or revascularization occurred in 11.3% vs. 9.8% of the placebo and evolocumab groups, respectively, representing a 15% relative risk reduction (P < 0.001). The combined end point of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was reduced by 20%, from 7.4% to 5.9% (P < 0.001). Evolocumab therapy also significantly reduced all strokes (1.5% vs. 1.9%; HR 0.79 [95% CI 0.66–0.95]; P = 0.01) and ischemic stroke (1.2% vs. 1.6%; HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.62–0.92]; P = 0.005) in the total population, with findings being consistent in patients with or without a history of ischemic stroke at baseline (110). Importantly, similar benefits were seen in a prespecified subgroup of patients with diabetes, comprising 11,031 patients (40% of the trial) (111). In the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab), 18,924 patients (28.8% of whom had diabetes) with recent acute coronary syndrome were randomized to the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab or placebo every 2 weeks in addition to maximally tolerated statin therapy, with alirocumab dosing titrated between 75 and 150 mg to achieve LDL cholesterol levels between 25 and 50 mg/​dL (112). Over a median follow-​up of 2.8 years, a composite primary end point (comprising death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal MI, fatal or nonfatal ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospital admission) occurred in 903 patients (9.5%) in the alirocumab group and in 1,052 patients (11.1%) in the placebo group (HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.78–0.93]; P < 0.001). Combination therapy with alirocumab plus statin therapy resulted in a greater absolute reduction in the incidence of the primary end point in patients with diabetes (2.3% [95% CI 0.4–4.2]) than in those with prediabetes (1.2% [0.0–2.4]) or normoglycemia (1.2% [–0.3 to 2.7]) (113)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.4.3.0",
	"text":"Statins and Bempedoic Acid Bempedoic acid is a novel LDL cholesterol–lowering agent that is indicated as an adjunct to diet and maximally tolerated statin therapy for the treatment of adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who require additional lowering of LDL cholesterol. A pooled analysis suggests that bempedoic acid therapy lowers LDL cholesterol levels by about 23% compared with placebo (114). At this time, there are no completed trials demonstrating a cardiovascular outcomes benefit to use of this medication; however, this agent may be considered for patients who cannot use or tolerate other evidence-​based LDL cholesterol–lowering approaches, or for whom those other therapies are inadequately effective (115)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.5.0.0",
	"text":"Treatment of Other Lipoprotein Fractions or Targets Recommendations 10.29 For patients with fasting triglyceride levels ≥500 mg/​dL, evaluate for secondary causes of hypertriglyceridemia and consider medical therapy to reduce the risk of pancreatitis. C 10.30 In adults with moderate hypertriglyceridemia (fasting or non–fasting triglycerides 175–499 mg/​dL), clinicians should address and treat lifestyle factors (obesity and metabolic syndrome), secondary factors (diabetes, chronic liver or kidney disease and/​or nephrotic syndrome, hypothyroidism), and medications that raise triglycerides. C 10.31 In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or other cardiovascular risk factors on a statin with controlled LDL cholesterol but elevated triglycerides (135–499 mg/​dL), the addition of icosapent ethyl can be considered to reduce cardiovascular risk. A Hypertriglyceridemia should be addressed with dietary and lifestyle changes including weight loss and abstinence from alcohol (116). Severe hypertriglyceridemia (fasting triglycerides ≥500 mg/​dL and especially >1,000 mg/​dL) may warrant pharmacologic therapy (fibric acid derivatives and/​or fish oil) and reduction in dietary fat to reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis. Moderateor high-​intensity statin therapy should also be used as indicated to reduce risk of cardiovascular events (see “Statin Treatment”). In patients with moderate hypertriglyceridemia, lifestyle interventions, treatment of secondary factors, and avoidance of medications that might raise triglycerides are recommended. The Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial (REDUCE-​IT) enrolled 8,179 adults receiving statin therapy with moderately elevated triglycerides (135–499 mg/​dL, median baseline of 216 mg/​dL) who had either established cardiovascular disease (secondary prevention cohort) or diabetes plus at least one other cardiovascular risk factor (primary prevention cohort). Patients were randomized to icosapent ethyl 4 g/​day (2 g twice daily with food) versus placebo. The trial met its primary end point, demonstrating a 25% relative risk reduction (P < 0.001) for the primary end point composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina. This reduction in risk was seen in patients with or without diabetes at baseline. The composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke was reduced by 26% (P < 0.001). Additional ischemic end points were significantly lower in the icosapent ethyl group than in the placebo group, including cardiovascular death, which was reduced by 20% (P = 0.03). The proportions of patients experiencing adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between the active and placebo treatment groups. It should be noted that data are lacking with other n-​3 fatty acids, and results of the REDUCE-​IT trial should not be extrapolated to other products (117). As an example, the addition of 4 g per day of a carboxylic acid formulation of the n-​3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) (n-​3 carboxylic acid) to statin therapy in patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia and high cardiovascular risk, 70% of whom had diabetes, did not reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with the inert comparator of corn oil (118). Low levels of HDL cholesterol, often associated with elevated triglyceride levels, are the most prevalent pattern of dyslipidemia in individuals with type 2 diabetes. However, the evidence for the use of drugs that target these lipid fractions is substantially less robust than that for statin therapy (119). In a large trial in patients with diabetes, fenofibrate failed to reduce overall cardiovascular outcomes (120)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.6.1.0",
	"text":"Other Combination Therapy Recommendations Recommendations 10.32 Statin plus fibrate combination therapy has not been shown to improve atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease outcomes and is generally not recommended. A 10.33 Statin plus niacin combination therapy has not been shown to provide additional cardiovascular benefit above statin therapy alone, may increase the risk of stroke with additional side effects, and is generally not recommended. A"
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.6.2.0",
	"text":"Statin and Fibrate Combination Therapy Combination therapy (statin and fibrate) is associated with an increased risk for abnormal transaminase levels, myositis, and rhabdomyolysis. The risk of rhabdomyolysis is more common with higher doses of statins and renal insufficiency and appears to be higher when statins are combined with gemfibrozil (compared with fenofibrate) (121). In the ACCORD study, in patients with type 2 diabetes who were at high risk for ASCVD, the combination of fenofibrate and simvastatin did not reduce the rate of fatal cardiovascular events, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke as compared with simvastatin alone. Prespecified subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity in treatment effects with possible benefit for men with both a triglyceride level ≥204 mg/​dL (2.3 mmol/​L) and an HDL cholesterol level ≤34 mg/​dL (0.9 mmol/​L) (122). A prospective trial of a newer fibrate in this specific population of patients is ongoing (123)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.6.3.0",
	"text":"Statin and Niacin Combination Therapy The Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/​High Triglycerides: Impact on Global Health Outcomes (AIM-​HIGH) trial randomized over 3,000 patients (about one-​third with diabetes) with established ASCVD, LDL cholesterol levels <180 mg/​dL [4.7 mmol/​L], low HDL cholesterol levels (men <40 mg/​dL [1.0 mmol/​L] and women <50 mg/​dL [1.3 mmol/​L]), and triglyceride levels of 150–400 mg/​dL (1.7–4.5 mmol/​L) to statin therapy plus extended-​release niacin or placebo. The trial was halted early due to lack of efficacy on the primary ASCVD outcome (first event of the composite of death from CHD, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for an ACS, or symptomdriven coronary or cerebral revascularization) and a possible increase in ischemic stroke in those on combination therapy (124). The much larger Heart Protection Study 2–Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events (HPS2THRIVE) trial also failed to show a benefit of adding niacin to background statin therapy (125). A total of 25,673 patients with prior vascular disease were randomized to receive 2 g of extendedrelease niacin and 40 mg of laropiprant (an antagonist of the prostaglandin D2 receptor DP1 that has been shown to improve adherence to niacin therapy) versus a matching placebo daily and followed for a median follow-​up period of 3.9 years. There was no significant difference in the rate of coronary death, MI, stroke, or coronary revascularization with the addition of niacin–laropiprant versus placebo (13.2% vs. 13.7%; rate ratio 0.96; P = 0.29). Niacin–laropiprant was associated with an increased incidence of new-​onset diabetes (absolute excess, 1.3 percentage points; P < 0.001) and disturbances in diabetes control among those with diabetes. In addition, there was an increase in serious adverse events associated with the gastrointestinal system, musculoskeletal system, skin, and, unexpectedly, infection and bleeding. Therefore, combination therapy with a statin and niacin is not recommended given the lack of efficacy on major ASCVD outcomes and increased side effects."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.7.0.0",
	"text":"Diabetes Risk With Statin Use Several studies have reported a modestly increased risk of incident diabetes with statin use (126,127), which may be limited to those with diabetes risk factors. An analysis of one of the initial studies suggested that although statin use was associated with diabetes risk, the cardiovascular event rate reduction with statins far outweighed the risk of incident diabetes even for patients at highest risk for diabetes (128). The absolute risk increase was small (over 5 years of follow-​up, 1.2% of participants on placebo developed diabetes and 1.5% on rosuvastatin developed diabetes) (128). A meta-​analysis of 13 randomized statin trials with 91,140 participants showed an odds ratio of 1.09 for a new diagnosis of diabetes, so that (on average) treatment of 255 patients with statins for 4 years resulted in one additional case of diabetes while simultaneously preventing 5.4 vascular events among those 255 patients (127)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_5.8.0.0",
	"text":"Lipid-​Lowering Agents and Cognitive Function Although concerns regarding a potential adverse impact of lipid-​lowering agents on cognitive function have been raised, several lines of evidence point against this association, as detailed in a 2018 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel statement (129). First, there are three large randomized trials of statin versus placebo where specific cognitive tests were performed, and no differences were seen between statin and placebo (130–133). In addition, no change in cognitive function has been reported in studies with the addition of ezetimibe (102) or PCSK9 inhibitors (105,134) to statin therapy, including among patients treated to very low LDL cholesterol levels. In addition, the most recent systematic review of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) postmarketing surveillance databases, randomized controlled trials, and cohort, case-​control, and cross-​sectional studies evaluating cognition in patients receiving statins found that published data do not reveal an adverse effect of statins on cognition (135). Therefore, a concern that statins or other lipid-​lowering agents might cause cognitive dysfunction or dementia is not currently supported by evidence and should not deter their use in individuals with diabetes at high risk for ASCVD (135)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_6.1.0.0",
	"text":"Antiplatelet Agents Recommendations Recommendations 10.34 Use aspirin therapy (75–162 mg/​day) as a secondary pre-vention strategy in those with diabetes and a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. A 10.35 For patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and documented aspirin allergy, clopidogrel (75 mg/​day) should be used. B 10.36 Dual antiplatelet therapy (with low-​dose aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor) is reasonable for a year after an acute coronary syndrome and may have benefits beyond this period. A 10.37 Long-​term treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy should be considered for patients with prior coronary intervention, high ischemic risk, and low bleeding risk to prevent major adverse cardiovascular events. A 10.38 Combination therapy with aspirin plus low-​dose rivaroxaban should be considered for patients with stable coronary and/​or peripheral artery disease and low bleeding risk to prevent major adverse limb and cardiovascular events. A 10.39 Aspirin therapy (75–162 mg/​ day) may be considered as a primary prevention strategy in those with diabetes who are at increased cardiovascular risk, after a comprehensive discussion with the patient on the benefits versus the comparable increased risk of bleeding. A"
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_6.2.0.0",
	"text":"Risk Reduction Aspirin has been shown to be effective in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in high-​risk patients with previous MI or stroke (secondary prevention) and is strongly recommended. In primary prevention, however, among patients with no previous cardiovascular events, its net benefit is more controversial (136,137). Previous randomized controlled trials of aspirin specifically in patients with diabetes failed to consistently show a significant reduction in overall ASCVD end points, raising questions about the efficacy of aspirin for primary prevention in people with diabetes, although some sex differences were suggested (138–140). The Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration published an individual patient–level meta-​analysis (136) of the six large trials of aspirin for primary prevention in the general population. These trials collectively enrolled over 95,000 participants, including almost 4,000 with diabetes. Overall, they found that aspirin reduced the risk of serious vascular events by 12% (relative risk 0.88 [95% CI 0.82–0.94]). The largest reduction was for nonfatal MI, with little effect on CHD death (relative risk 0.95 [95% CI 0.78–1.15]) or total stroke. Most recently, the ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events iN Diabetes) trial randomized 15,480 patients with diabetes but no evident cardiovascular disease to aspirin 100 mg daily or placebo (141). The primary efficacy end point was vascular death, MI, or stroke or transient ischemic attack. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (i.e., intracranial hemorrhage, sightthreatening bleeding in the eye, gastrointestinal bleeding, or other serious bleeding). During a mean follow-​up of 7.4 years, there was a significant 12% reduction in the primary efficacy end point (8.5% vs. 9.6%; P = 0.01). In contrast, major bleeding was significantly increased from 3.2% to 4.1% in the aspirin group (rate ratio 1.29; P = 0.003), with most of the excess being gastrointestinal bleeding and other extracranial bleeding. There were no significant differences by sex, weight, or duration of diabetes or other baseline factors including ASCVD risk score. Two other large randomized trials of aspirin for primary prevention, in patients without diabetes (ARRIVE [Aspirin to Reduce Risk of Initial Vascular Events]) (142) and in the elderly (ASPREE [Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly]) ( 143), which included 11% with diabetes, found no benefit of aspirin on the primary efficacy end point and an increased risk of bleeding. In ARRIVE, with 12,546 patients over a period of 60 months follow-​up, the primary end point occurred in 4.29% vs. 4.48% of patients in the aspirin versus placebo groups (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.81–1.13]; P = 0.60). Gastrointestinal bleeding events (characterized as mild) occurred in 0.97% of patients in the aspirin group vs. 0.46% in the placebo group (HR 2.11 [95% CI 1.36–3.28]; P = 0.0007). In ASPREE, including 19,114 individuals, for cardiovascular disease (fatal CHD, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure) after a median of 4.7 years of follow-​up, the rates per 1,000 person-​years were 10.7 vs. 11.3 events in aspirin vs. placebo groups (HR 0.95 [95% CI 0.83–1.08]). The rate of major hemorrhage per 1,000 person-​years was 8.6 events vs. 6.2 events, respectively (HR 1.38 [95% CI 1.18–1.62]; P < 0.001). Thus, aspirin appears to have a modest effect on ischemic vascular events, with the absolute decrease in events depending on the underlying ASCVD risk. The main adverse effect is an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. The excess risk may be as high as 5 per 1,000 per year in real-​world settings. However, for adults with ASCVD risk >1% per year, the number of ASCVD events prevented will be similar to the number of episodes of bleeding induced, although these complications do not have equal effects on long-​term health (144). Recommendations for using aspirin as primary prevention include both men and women aged ≥50 years with diabetes and at least one additional major risk factor (family history of premature ASCVD, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, or chronic kidney disease/​albuminuria) who are not at increased risk of bleeding (e.g., older age, anemia, renal disease) (145–148). Noninvasive imaging techniques such as coronary calcium scoring may potentially help further tailor aspirin therapy, particularly in those at low risk (149,150). For patients over the age of 70 years (with or without diabetes), the balance appears to have greater risk than benefit (141,143). Thus, for primary prevention, the use of aspirin needs to be carefully considered and may generally not be recommended. Aspirin may be considered in the context of high cardiovascular risk with low bleeding risk, but generally not in older adults. Aspirin therapy for primary prevention may be considered in the context of shared decision-​making, which carefully weighs the cardiovascular benefits with the fairly comparable increase in risk of bleeding. For patients with documented ASCVD, use of aspirin for secondary prevention has far greater benefit than risk; for this indication, aspirin is still recommended (136)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_6.3.0.0",
	"text":"Aspirin Use in People <50 Years of Age Aspirin is not recommended for those at low risk of ASCVD (such as men and women aged <50 years with diabetes with no other major ASCVD risk factors) as the low benefit is likely to be outweighed by the risks of bleeding. Clinical judgment should be used for those at intermediate risk (younger patients with one or more risk factors or older patients with no risk factors) until further research is available. Patients’ willingness to undergo long-​term aspirin therapy should also be considered (151). Aspirin use in patients aged <21 years is generally contraindicated due to the associated risk of Reye syndrome."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_6.4.0.0",
	"text":"Aspirin Dosing Average daily dosages used in most clinical trials involving patients with diabetes ranged from 50 mg to 650 mg but were mostly in the range of 100–325 mg/​day. There is little evidence to support any specific dose, but using the lowest possible dose may help to reduce side effects (152). In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-​Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-​term Effectiveness) trial of patients with established cardiovascular disease, 38% of whom had diabetes, there were no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily (153). In the U.S., the most common low-​dose tablet is 81 mg. Although platelets from patients with diabetes have altered function, it is unclear what, if any, effect that finding has on the required dose of aspirin for cardioprotective effects in the patient with diabetes. Many alternate pathways for platelet activation exist that are independent of thromboxane A2 and thus are not sensitive to the effects of aspirin (154). “Aspirin resistance” has been described in patients with diabetes when measured by a variety of ex vivo and in vitro methods (platelet aggregometry, measurement of thromboxane B2) (155), but other studies suggest no impairment in aspirin response among patients with diabetes (156). A recent trial suggested that more frequent dosing regimens of aspirin may reduce platelet reactivity in individuals with diabetes (157); however, these observations alone are insufficient to empirically recommend that higher doses of aspirin be used in this group at this time. Another recent meta-​analysis raised the hypothesis that low-​dose aspirin efficacy is reduced in those weighing more than 70 kg (158); however, the ASCEND trial found benefit of low-​dose aspirin in those in this weight range, which would thus not validate this suggested hypothesis ( 141). It appears that 75–162 mg/​day is optimal."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_6.5.0.0",
	"text":"Indications for P2Y12 Receptor Antagonist Use A P2Y12 receptor antagonist in combination with aspirin is reasonable for at least 1 year in patients following an ACS and may have benefits beyond this period. Evidence supports use of either ticagrelor or clopidogrel if no percutaneous coronary intervention was performed and clopidogrel, ticagrelor, or prasugrel if a percutaneous coronary intervention was performed (159). In patients with diabetes and prior MI (1–3 years before), adding ticagrelor to aspirin significantly reduces the risk of recurrent ischemic events including cardiovascular and CHD death (160). Similarly, the addition of ticagrelor to aspirin reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events compared with aspirin alone in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease (161,162). However, a higher incidence of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage, was noted with dual antiplatelet therapy. The net clinical benefit (ischemic benefit vs. bleeding risk) was improved with ticagrelor therapy in the large prespecified subgroup of patients with history of percutaneous coronary intervention, while no net benefit was seen in patients without prior percutaneous coronary intervention (162). However, early aspirin discontinuation compared with continued dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting may reduce the risk of bleeding without a corresponding increase in the risks of mortality and ischemic events, as shown in a prespecified analysis of patients with diabetes enrolled in the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-​Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial and a recent meta-​analysis (163,164)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_6.6.0.0",
	"text":"Combination Antiplatelet and Anticoagulation Therapy Combination therapy with aspirin plus low dose rivaroxaban may be considered for patients with stable coronary and/​or peripheral artery disease to prevent major adverse limb and cardiovascular complications. In the COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial of 27,395 patients with established coronary artery disease and/​or peripheral artery disease, aspirin plus rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily was superior to aspirin plus placebo in the reduction of cardiovascular ischemic events including major adverse limb events. The absolute benefits of combination therapy appeared larger in patients with diabetes, who comprised 10,341 of the trial participants (165,166). A similar treatment strategy was evaluated in the Vascular Outcomes Study of ASA (acetylsalicylic acid) Along with Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease (VOYAGER PAD) trial (167), in which 6,564 patients with peripheral artery disease who had undergone revascularization were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin. Rivaroxaban treatment in this group of patients was also associated with a significantly lower incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events, including major adverse limb events. However, an increased risk of major bleeding was noted with rivaroxaban added to aspirin treatment in both COMPASS and VOYAGER PAD. The risks and benefits of dual antiplatelet or antiplatelet plus anticoagulant treatment strategies should be thoroughly discussed with eligible patients, and shared decision-​making should be used to determine an individually appropriate treatment approach. This field of cardiovascular risk reduction is evolving rapidly, as are the definitions of optimal care for patients with differing types and circumstances of cardiovascular complications."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_7.1.0.0",
	"text":"Cardiovascular Disease Screening Recommendations 10.40 In asymptomatic patients, routine screening for coronary artery disease is not recommended as it does not improve outcomes as long as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors are treated. A 10.41 Consider investigations for coronary artery disease in the presence of any of the following: atypical cardiac symptoms (e.g., unexplained dyspnea, chest discomfort); signs or symptoms of associated vascular disease including carotid bruits, transient ischemic attack, stroke, claudication, or peripheral arterial disease; or electrocardiogram abnormalities (e.g., Q waves). E"
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_7.2.0.0",
	"text":"Treatment Recommendations 10.42 Among patients with type 2 diabetes who have established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or established kidney disease, a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor or glucagon-​like peptide 1 receptor agonist with demonstrated cardiovascular disease benefit (Table 10.3B and Table 10.3C) is recommended as part of the comprehensive cardiovascular risk reduction and/​or glucose-​lowering regimens. A 10.42a In patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, multiple atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors, or diabetic kidney disease, a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor with demonstrated cardiovascular benefit is recommended to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and/​or heart failure hospitalization. A 10.42b In patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, a glucagon-​like peptide 1 receptor agonist with demonstrated cardiovascular benefit is recommended to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. A 10.42c In patients with type 2 diabetes and established athero-​sclerotic cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, combined therapy with a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor with demonstrated cardiovascular benefit and a glucagon-​like peptide 1 receptor agonist with demonstrated cardiovascular benefit may be considered for additive reduction in the risk of adverse cardiovascular and kidney events. A 10.43In patients with type 2 diabetes and established heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor with proven benefit in this patient population is recommended to reduce risk of worsening heart failure and cardiovascular death. A 10.44In patients with known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, particularly coronary artery disease, ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy is recommended to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. A 10.45In patients with prior myocardial infarction, b-​blockers should be continued for 3 years after the event. B 10.46Treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should include a β-​blocker with proven cardiovascular outcomes benefit, unless otherwise contraindicated. A 10.47In patients with type 2 diabetes with stable heart failure, metformin may be continued for glucose lowering if estimated glomerular filtration rate remains >30 mL/​min/​1.73 m2 but should be avoided in unstable or hospitalized patients with heart failure. B"
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_7.3.0.0",
	"text":"Cardiac Testing Candidates for advanced or invasive cardiac testing include those with 1) typical or atypical cardiac symptoms and 2) an abnormal resting electrocardiogram (ECG). Exercise ECG testing without or with echocardiography may be used as the initial test. In adults with diabetes ≥40 years of age, measurement of coronary artery calcium is also reasonable for cardiovascular risk assessment. Pharmacologic stress echocardiography or nuclear imaging should be considered in individuals with diabetes in whom resting ECG abnormalities preclude exercise stress testing (e.g., left bundle branch block or ST-​T abnormalities). In addition, individuals who require stress testing and are unable to exercise should undergo pharmacologic stress echocardiography or nuclear imaging."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_7.4.0.0",
	"text":"Screening Asymptomatic Patients The screening of asymptomatic patients with high ASCVD risk is not recommended (168), in part because these high-​risk patients should already be receiving intensive medical therapy—an approach that provides benefit similar to invasive revascularization (169,170). There is also some evidence that silent ischemia may reverse over time, adding to the controversy concerning aggressive screening strategies (171). In prospective studies, coronary artery calcium has been established as an independent predictor of future ASCVD events in patients with diabetes and is consistently superior to both the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine and the Framingham Risk Score in predicting risk in this population (172–174). However, a randomized observational trial demonstrated no clinical benefit to routine screening of asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes and normal ECGs (175). Despite abnormal myocardial perfusion imaging in more than one in five patients, cardiac outcomes were essentially equal (and very low) in screened versus unscreened patients. Accordingly, indiscriminate screening is not considered cost-​effective. Studies have found that a risk factor–based approach to the initial diagnostic evaluation and subsequent follow-​up for coronary artery disease fails to identify which patients with type 2 diabetes will have silent ischemia on screening tests ( 176, 177). Any benefit of newer noninvasive coronary artery disease screening methods, such as computed tomography calcium scoring and computed tomography angiography, to identify patient subgroups for different treatment strategies remains unproven in asymptomatic patients with diabetes, though research is ongoing. Although asymptomatic patients with diabetes with higher coronary disease burden have more future cardiac events (172,178,179), the role of these tests beyond risk stratification is not clear. While coronary artery screening methods, such as calcium scoring, may improve cardiovascular risk assessment in people with type 2 diabetes (180), their routine use leads to radiation exposure and may result in unnecessary invasive testing such as coronary angiography and revascularization procedures. The ultimate balance of benefit, cost, and risks of such an approach in asymptomatic patients remains controversial, particularly in the modern setting of aggressive ASCVD risk factor control."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_7.5.0.0",
	"text":"Lifestyle and Pharmacologic Interventions Intensive lifestyle intervention focusing on weight loss through decreased caloric intake and increased physical activity as performed in the Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) trial may be considered for improving glucose control, fitness, and some ASCVD risk factors (181). Patients at increased ASCVD risk should receive statin, ACE inhibitor, or ARB therapy if the patient has hypertension, and possibly aspirin, unless there are contraindications to a particular drug class. Clear benefit exists for ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy in patients with diabetic kidney disease or hypertension, and these agents are recommended for hypertension management in patients with known ASCVD (particularly coronary artery disease) (63,64,182). β-​Blockers should be used in patients with active angina or HFrEF and for 3 years after MI in patients with preserved left ventricular function (183, 184)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_7.6.1.0",
	"text":"Glucose-​Lowering Therapies and Cardiovascular Outcomes Overview In 2008, the FDA issued a guidance for industry to perform cardiovascular outcomes trials for all new medications for the treatment for type 2 diabetes amid concerns of increased cardiovascular risk (185). Previously approved diabetes medications were not subject to the guidance. Recently published cardiovascular outcomes trials have provided additional data on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes with cardiovascular disease or at high risk for cardiovascular disease (see Table 10.3 A, Table 10.3B, and Table 10.3C). An expanded review of the effects of glucose-​lowering and other therapies in patients with chronic kidney disease is included in Section 11, “Chronic Kidney Disease and Risk Management” (https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2337/​dc22-​S011). Cardiovascular outcomes trials of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-​4) inhibitors have all, so far, not shown cardiovascular benefits relative to placebo. In addition, the CAROLINA (Cardiovascular Outcome Study of Linagliptin Versus Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes) study demonstrated noninferiority between a DPP-​4 inhibitor, linagliptin, and a sulfonylurea, glimepiride, on cardiovascular outcomes despite lower rates of hypoglycemia in the linagliptin treatment group (186). However, results from other new agents have provided a mix of results. Table 10.3A—Cardiovascular and cardiorenal outcomes trials of available antihyperglycemic medications completed after the issuance of the FDA 2008 guidelines: DPP-​4 inhibitors —, not assessed/​reported; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; CHF, congestive heart failure; CV, cardiovascular; CVD, cardiovascular disease; DPP4, dipeptidyl peptidase 4; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ESRD, end-​stage renal disease; GLP-​1, glucagon-​like peptide 1; HF, heart failure; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular event; MI, myocardial infarction; UL, upper limit. Data from this table was adapted from Cefalu et al. (225) in the January 2018 issue of Diabetes Care. †Age was reported as means in all trials except EXAMINE, which reported medians; diabetes duration was reported as means in all trials except SAVOR-​TIMI 53 and EXAMINE, which reported medians. ‡Significant difference in A1C between groups ( P < 0.05). §Outcomes reported as hazard ratio (95% CI). jjWorsening nephropathy is defined as a doubling of creatinine level, initiation of dialysis, renal transplantation, or creatinine >6.0 mg/​dL (530 mmol/​L) in SAVOR-​TIMI 53. Worsening nephropathy was a prespecified exploratory adjudicated outcome in SAVOR-​TIMI 53. Table 10.3B—Cardiovascular and cardiorenal outcomes trials of available antihyperglycemic medications completed after the issuance of the FDA 2008 guidelines: GLP-​1 receptor agonists —, not assessed/​reported; ACS, acute coronary syndrome; ASCVD, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; CHF, congestive heart failure; CKD, chronic kidney disease; CV, cardiovascular; CVD, cardiovascular disease; GLP-​1, glucagon-​like peptide 1; HF, heart failure; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular event; MI, myocardial infarction. Data from this table was adapted from Cefalu et al. (225) in the January 2018 issue of Diabetes Care. *Powered to rule out a hazard ratio of 1.8; superiority hypothesis not prespecified. †Age was reported as means in all trials; diabetes duration was reported as means in all trials except EXSCEL, which reported medians. ‡Significant difference in A1C between groups ( P < 0.05). ^A1C change of 0.66% with 0.5 mg and 1.05% with 1 mg dose of semaglutide. §Outcomes reported as hazard ratio (95% CI). jjWorsening nephropathy is defined as the new onset of urine albumin-​to-​creatinine ratio >300 mg/​g creatinine or a doubling of the serum creatinine level and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <45 mL/​min/​1.73 m2, the need for continuous renal replacement therapy, or death from renal disease in LEADER and SUSTAIN-​6 and as new macroalbuminuria, a sustained decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30% or more from baseline, or chronic renal replacement therapy in REWIND. Worsening nephropathy was a prespecified exploratory adjudicated outcome in LEADER, SUSTAIN-​6, and REWIND. Table 10.3C—Cardiovascular and cardiorenal outcomes trials of available antihyperglycemic medications completed after the issuance of the FDA 2008 guidelines: SGLT2 inhibitors —, not assessed/​reported; CHF, congestive heart failure; CV, cardiovascular; CVD, cardiovascular disease; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ESRD, end-​stage renal disease; HF, heart failure; MACE, major adverse cardiovascular event; MI, myocardial infarction; SGLT2, sodium–glucose cotransporter 2; NYHA, New York Heart Association. Data from this table was adapted from Cefalu et al. (225) in the January 2018 issue of Diabetes Care. *Baseline characteristics for EMPEROR-​Reduced displayed as empagliflozin, placebo. †Age was reported as means in all trials; diabetes duration was reported as means in all trials except EMPA-​REG OUTCOME, which reported as percentage of population with diabetes duration >10 years, and DECLARE-​TIMI 58, which reported median. ‡Significant difference in A1C between groups ( P < 0.05). ^A1C change of 0.30 in EMPA-​REG OUTCOME is based on pooled results for both doses (i.e., 0.24% for 10 mg and 0.36% for 25 mg of empagliflozin). §Outcomes reported as hazard ratio (95% CI). ‖Definitions of worsening nephropathy differed between trials."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_7.6.2.0",
	"text":"SGLT2 Inhibitor Trials The BI 10773 (Empagliflozin) Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients (EMPA-​REG OUTCOME) was a randomized, doubleblind trial that assessed the effect of empagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, versus placebo on cardiovascular outcomes in 7,020 patients with type 2 diabetes and existing cardiovascular disease. Study participants had a mean age of 63 years, 57% had diabetes for more than 10 years, and 99% had established cardiovascular disease. EMPA-​REG OUTCOME showed that over a median follow-​up of 3.1 years, treatment reduced the composite outcome of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death by 14% (absolute rate 10.5% vs. 12.1% in the placebo group, HR in the empagliflozin group 0.86 [95% CI 0.74–0.99]; P = 0.04 for superiority) and cardiovascular death by 38% (absolute rate 3.7% vs. 5.9%, HR 0.62 [95% CI 0.49–0.77]; P < 0.001) (8). The FDA added an indication for empagliflozin to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular death in adults with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Two large outcomes trials of the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin have been conducted that separately assessed 1) the cardiovascular effects of treatment in patients at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and 2) the impact of canagliflozin therapy on cardiorenal outcomes in patients with diabetes-​related chronic kidney disease (187). First, the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program integrated data from two trials. The CANVAS trial that started in 2009 was partially unblinded prior to completion because of the need to file interim cardiovascular outcomes data for regulatory approval of the drug (188). Thereafter, the postapproval CANVAS-​Renal (CANVAS-​R) trial was started in 2014. Combining both of these trials, 10,142 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomized to canagliflozin or placebo and were followed for an average 3.6 years. The mean age of patients was 63 years, and 66% had a history of cardiovascular disease. The combined analysis of the two trials found that canagliflozin significantly reduced the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke versus placebo (occurring in 26.9 vs. 31.5 participants per 1,000 patient-​years; HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.75–0.97]). The specific estimates for canagliflozin versus placebo on the primary composite cardiovascular outcome were HR 0.88 (95% CI 0.75–1.03) for the CANVAS trial and 0.82 (0.66–1.01) for CANVAS-​R, with no heterogeneity found between trials. Of note, there was an increased risk of lower-​limb amputation with canagliflozin (6.3 vs. 3.4 participants per 1,000 patient-​years; HR 1.97 [95% CI 1.41–2.75]) (9). Second, the Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) trial randomized 4,401 patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic diabetes-​related kidney disease (UACR >300 mg/​g and eGFR 30 to <90 mL/​ min/​1.73 m2) to canagliflozin 100 mg daily or placebo (187). The primary outcome was a composite of end-​stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. The trial was stopped early due to conclusive evidence of efficacy identified during a prespecified interim analysis with no unexpected safety signals. The risk of the primary composite outcome was 30% lower with canagliflozin treatment when compared with placebo (HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.59–0.82]). Moreover, it reduced the prespecified end point of end-​stage kidney disease alone by 32% (HR 0.68 [95% CI 0.54–0.86]). Canagliflozin was additionally found to have a lower risk of the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.67–0.95]), as well as lower risk of hospitalizations for heart failure (HR 0.61 [95% CI 0.47–0.80]) and of the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR 0.69 [95% CI 0.57–0.83]). In terms of safety, no significant increase in lower-​limb amputations, fractures, acute kidney injury, or hyperkalemia was noted for canagliflozin relative to placebo in CREDENCE. An increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis was noted, however, with 2.2 and 0.2 events per 1,000 patientyears noted in the canagliflozin and placebo groups, respectively (HR 10.80 [95% CI 1.39–83.65]) (187). The Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events–Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction 58 (DECLARE-​TIMI 58) trial was another randomized, double-​blind trial that assessed the effects of dapagliflozin versus placebo on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in 17,160 patients with type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD or multiple risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (189). Study participants had a mean age of 64 years, with ~40% of study participants having established ASCVD at baseline—a characteristic of this trial that differs from other large cardiovascular trials where a majority of participants had established cardiovascular disease. DECLARE-​TIMI 58 met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events but did not show a lower rate of major adverse cardiovascular events when compared with placebo (8.8% in the dapagliflozin group and 9.4% in the placebo group; HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.84–1.03]; P = 0.17). A lower rate of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure was noted (4.9% vs. 5.8%; HR 0.83 [95% CI 0.73–0.95]; P = 0.005), which reflected a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure (HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.61–0.88]). No difference was seen in cardiovascular death between groups. In the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease (DAPA-​CKD) trial (190), 4,304 patients with chronic kidney disease (UACR 200–5,000 mg/​g and eGFR 25–75 mL/​min/​1.73 m2), with or without diabetes, were randomized to dapagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of sustained decline in eGFR of at least 50%, endstage kidney disease, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Over a median follow-​up period of 2.4 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 9.2% of participants in the dapagliflozin group and 14.5% of those in the placebo group. The risk of the primary composite outcome was significantly lower with dapagliflozin therapy compared with placebo (HR 0.61 [95% CI 0.51– 0.72]), as were the risks for a renal composite outcome of sustained decline in eGFR of at least 50%, endstage kidney disease, or death from renal causes (HR 0.56 [95% CI 0.45–0.68]), and a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (HR 0.71 [95% CI 0.55–0.92]). The effects of dapagliflozin therapy were similar in patients with and without type 2 diabetes. Results of the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-​HF) trial and the Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and a Reduced Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-​Reduced), which assessed the effects of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin, respectively, in patients with established heart failure (191), are described below in GLUCOSE-​LOWERING THERAPIES AND HEART FAILURE. The Evaluation of Ertugliflozin Efficacy and Safety Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (VERTIS CV) (192) was a randomized, double-​blind trial that established the effects of ertugliflozin versus placebo on cardiovascular outcomes in 8,246 patients with type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD. Participants were assigned to the addition of 5 mg or 15 mg of ertugliflozin or to placebo once daily to background standard care. Study participants had a mean age of 64.4 years and a mean duration of diabetes of 13 years at baseline and were followed for a median of 3.0 years. VERTIS CV met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of ertugliflozin to placebo with respect to the primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (11.9% in the pooled ertugliflozin group and 11.9% in the placebo group; HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.85–1.11]; P < 0.001). Ertugliflozin was not superior to placebo for the key secondary outcomes of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure; death from cardiovascular causes; or the composite of death from renal causes, renal replacement therapy, or doubling of the serum creatinine level. The hazard ratio for a secondary outcome of hospitalization for heart failure (ertugliflozin vs. placebo) was 0.70 [95% CI 0.54–0.90], consistent with findings from other SGLT2 inhibitor cardiovascular outcomes trials. Sotagliflozin, an investigational SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor that lowers glucose via delayed glucose absorption in the gut in addition to increasing urinary glucose excretion, has been evaluated in the Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate Renal Impairment Who Are at Cardiovascular Risk (SCORED) trial (193). A total of 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and additional cardiovascular risk were enrolled in SCORED and randomized to sotagliflozin 200 mg once daily (uptitrated to 400 mg once daily if tolerated) or placebo. SCORED ended early due to a lack of funding; thus, changes to the prespecified primary end points were made prior to unblinding to accommodate a lower than anticipated number of end point events. The primary end point of the trial was the total number of deaths from cardiovascular causes, hospitalizations for heart failure, and urgent visits for heart failure. After a median of 16 months of follow-​up, the rate of primary end point events was reduced with sotagliflozin (5.6 events per 100 patient-​years in the sotagliflozin group and 7.5 events per 100 patientyears in the placebo group [HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.63–0.88); P < 0.001]). Sotagliflozin also reduced the risk of the secondary end point of total number of hospitalizations for heart failure and urgent visits for heart failure (3.5% in the sotagliflozin group and 5.1% in the placebo group; HR 0.67 [95% CI 0.55–0.82]; P < 0.001) but not the secondary end point of deaths from cardiovascular causes. No significant between-​group differences were found for the outcome of all-​cause mortality or for a composite renal outcome comprising the first occurrence of long-​term dialysis, renal transplantation, or a sustained reduction in eGFR. In general, the adverse effects of sotagliflozin were similar to those seen with use of SGLT2 inhibitors, but they also included an increased rate of diarrhea potentially related to the inhibition of SGLT1."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_7.6.3.0",
	"text":"GLP-​1 Receptor Agonist Trials The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial was a randomized, double-​blind trial that assessed the effect of liraglutide, a glucagon-​like peptide 1 (GLP-​1) receptor agonist, versus placebo on cardiovascular outcomes in 9,340 patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular disease or with cardiovascular disease. Study participants had a mean age of 64 years and a mean duration of diabetes of nearly 13 years. Over 80% of study participants had established cardiovascular disease. After a median follow-​up of 3.8 years, LEADER showed that the primary composite outcome (MI, stroke, or cardiovascular death) occurred in fewer participants in the treatment group (13.0%) when compared with the placebo group (14.9%) (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.78–0.97]; P < 0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.01 for superiority). Deaths from cardiovascular causes were significantly reduced in the liraglutide group (4.7%) compared with the placebo group (6.0%) (HR 0.78 [95% CI 0.66–0.93]; P = 0.007) (194). The FDA approved the use of liraglutide to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, including heart attack, stroke, and cardiovascular death, in adults with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease. Results from a moderate-​sized trial of another GLP-​1 receptor agonist, semaglutide, were consistent with the LEADER trial (195). Semaglutide is a once-​weekly GLP-​1 receptor agonist approved by the FDA for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-​term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN-​6) was the initial randomized trial powered to test noninferiority of semaglutide for the purpose of regulatory approval. In this study, 3,297 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive once-​weekly semaglutide (0.5 mg or 1.0 mg) or placebo for 2 years. The primary outcome (the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke) occurred in 108 patients (6.6%) in the semaglutide group vs. 146 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (HR 0.74 [95% CI 0.58–0.95]; P < 0.001). More patients discontinued treatment in the semaglutide group because of adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal. The cardiovascular effects of the oral formulation of semaglutide compared with placebo have been assessed in Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) 6, a preapproval trial designed to rule out an unacceptable increase in cardiovascular risk. In this trial of 3,183 patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk followed for a median of 15.9 months, oral semaglutide was noninferior to placebo for the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke (HR 0.79 [95% CI 0.57–1.11]; P < 0.001 for non-​inferiority) (196). The cardiovascular effects of this formulation of semaglutide will be further tested in a large, longer-​term outcomes trial. The Harmony Outcomes trial randomized 9,463 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease to once-​weekly subcutaneous albiglutide or matching placebo, in addition to their standard care. Over a median duration of 1.6 years, the GLP-​1 receptor agonist reduced the risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke to an incidence rate of 4.6 events per 100 person-​years in the albiglutide group vs. 5.9 events in the placebo group (HR ratio 0.78, P = 0.0006 for superiority) (197). This agent is not currently available for clinical use. The Researching Cardiovascular Events With a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial was a randomized, double-​blind, placebo-​controlled trial that assessed the effect of the once-​weekly GLP-​1 receptor agonist dulaglutide versus placebo on major adverse cardiovascular events in ~9,990 patients with type 2 diabetes at risk for cardiovascular events or with a history of cardiovascular disease (198). Study participants had a mean age of 66 years and a mean duration of diabetes of ~10 years. Approximately 32% of participants had history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular events at baseline. After a median follow-​up of 5.4 years, the primary composite outcome of nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 12.0% and 13.4% of participants in the dulaglutide and placebo treatment groups, respectively (HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.79–0.99]; P = 0.026). These findings equated to incidence rates of 2.4 and 2.7 events per 100 person-​years, respectively. The results were consistent across the subgroups of patients with and without history of CV events. Allcause mortality did not differ between groups (P = 0.067). The Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA) trial studied the once-​daily GLP-​1 receptor agonist lixisenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary event (199). A total of 6,068 patients with type 2 diabetes with a recent hospitalization for MI or unstable angina within the previous 180 days were randomized to receive lixisenatide or placebo in addition to standard care and were followed for a median of ~2.1 years. The primary outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina occurred in 406 patients (13.4%) in the lixisenatide group vs. 399 (13.2%) in the placebo group (HR 1.2 [95% CI 0.89–1.17]), which demonstrated the noninferiority of lixisenatide to placebo (P < 0.001) but did not show superiority (P = 0.81). The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) trial also reported results with the once-​weekly GLP-​1 receptor agonist extended-​release exenatide and found that major adverse cardiovascular events were numerically lower with use of extended-​release exenatide compared with placebo, although this difference was not statistically significant (200). A total of 14,752 patients with type 2 diabetes (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were randomized to receive extended-​release exenatide 2 mg or placebo and followed for a median of 3.2 years. The primary end point of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke occurred in 839 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-​years) in the exenatide group and in 905 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-​years) in the placebo group (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.83–1.00]; P < 0.001 for noninferiority), but exenatide was not superior to placebo with respect to the primary end point (P = 0.06 for superiority). However, all-​cause mortality was lower in the exenatide group (HR 0.86 [95% CI 0.77–0.97]). The incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. In summary, there are now numerous large randomized controlled trials reporting statistically significant reductions in cardiovascular events for three of the FDA-​approved SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, with lesser benefits seen with ertugliflozin) and four FDA-​approved GLP-​1 receptor agonists (liraglutide, albiglutide [although that agent was removed from the market for business reasons], semaglutide [lower risk of cardiovascular events in a moderate-​sized clinical trial but one not powered as a cardiovascular outcomes trial], and dulaglutide). Meta-​analyses of the trials reported to date suggest that GLP-​1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors reduce risk of atherosclerotic major adverse cardiovascular events to a comparable degree in patients with type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD (201,202). SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce risk of heart failure hospitalization and progression of kidney disease in patients with established ASCVD, multiple risk factors for ASCVD, or albuminuric kidney disease (203,204). In patients with type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD, multiple ASCVD risk factors, or diabetic kidney disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with demonstrated cardiovascular benefit is recommended to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events and/​or heart failure hospitalization. In patients with type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD or multiple risk factors for ASCVD, a glucagon-​like peptide 1 receptor agonist with demonstrated cardiovascular benefit is recommended to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. For many patients, use of either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-​1 receptor agonist to reduce cardiovascular risk is appropriate. Emerging data suggest that use of both classes of drugs will provide an additive cardiovascular and kidney outcomes benefit; thus, combination therapy with an SGLT2 inhibitor and a GLP-​1 receptor agonist may be considered to provide the complementary outcomes benefits associated with these classes of medication. Evidence to support such an approach includes findings from AMPLITUDE-​O (Effect of Efpeglenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes), the recently completed outcomes trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and either cardiovascular or kidney disease plus at least one other risk factor randomized to the investigational GLP-​1 receptor agonist efpeglenatide or placebo (205). Randomization was stratified by current or potential use of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy, a class ultimately used by >15% of the trial participants. Over a median follow-​up of 1.8 years, efpeglenatide therapy reduced the risk of incident major adverse cardiovascular events by 27% and of a composite renal outcome event by 32%. Importantly, the effects of efpeglenatide did not vary by use of SGLT2 inhibitors, suggesting that the beneficial effects of the GLP-​1 receptor agonist were independent of those provided by SGLT2 inhibitor therapy."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_7.6.4.0",
	"text":"Glucose-​Lowering Therapies and Heart Failure As many as 50% of patients with type 2 diabetes may develop heart failure (206). These conditions, which are each associated with increased morbidity and mortality, commonly coincide and independently contribute to adverse outcomes (207). Strategies to mitigate these risks are needed, and the heart failure–related risks and benefits of glucose-​lowering medications should be considered carefully when determining a regimen of care for patients with diabetes and either established heart failure or high risk for the development of heart failure. Data on the effects of glucose-​lowering agents on heart failure outcomes have demonstrated that thiazolidinediones have a strong and consistent relationship with increased risk of heart failure (208–210). Therefore, thiazolidinedione use should be avoided in patients with symptomatic heart failure. Restrictions to use of metformin in patients with medically treated heart failure were removed by the FDA in 2006 (211). Observational studies of patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure suggest that metformin users have better outcomes than patients treated with other antihyperglycemic agents (212); however, no randomized trial of metformin therapy has been conducted in patients with heart failure. Metformin may be used for the management of hyperglycemia in patients with stable heart failure as long as kidney function remains within the recommended range for use (213). Recent studies examining the relationship between DPP-​4 inhibitors and heart failure have had mixed results. The Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus – Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53 (SAVOR-​TIMI 53) study showed that patients treated with the DPP-​4 inhibitor saxagliptin were more likely to be hospitalized for heart failure than those given placebo (3.5% vs. 2.8%, respectively) (214). However, three other cardiovascular outcomes trials—Examination of Cardiovascular Outcomes with Alogliptin versus Standard of Care (EXAMINE) (215), Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) (216), and the Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin (CARMELINA) (186)—did not find a significant increase in risk of heart failure hospitalization with DPP-​4 inhibitor use compared with placebo. No increased risk of heart failure hospitalization has been identified in the cardiovascular outcomes trials of the GLP-​1 receptor agonists lixisenatide, liraglutide, semaglutide, exenatide once-​weekly, albiglutide, or dulaglutide compared with placebo (Table 10.3 B) (194, 195,198–200). Reduced incidence of heart failure has been observed with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors (187,189). In EMPAREG OUTCOME, the addition of empagliflozin to standard care led to a significant 35% reduction in hospitalization for heart failure compared with placebo (8). Although the majority of patients in the study did not have heart failure at baseline, this benefit was consistent in patients with and without a history of heart failure (10). Similarly, in CANVAS and DECLARE-​TIMI 58, there were 33% and 27% reductions in hospitalization for heart failure, respectively, with SGLT2 inhibitor use versus placebo (9,189). Additional data from the CREDENCE trial with canagliflozin showed a 39% reduction in hospitalization for heart failure, and 31% reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, in a diabetic kidney disease population with albuminuria (UACR of >300 to 5,000 mg/​g) (187). These combined findings from four large outcomes trials of three different SGLT2 inhibitors are highly consistent and clearly indicate robust benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors in the prevention of heart failure hospitalizations. The EMPA-​REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, DECLARE-​TIMI 58, and CREDENCE trials suggested, but did not prove, that SGLT2 inhibitors would be beneficial in the treatment of patients with established heart failure. More recently, the placebo-​controlled DAPA-​HF trial evaluated the effects of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome of a composite of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular death in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less. Of the 4,744 trial participants, 45% had a history of type 2 diabetes. Over a median of 18.2 months, the group assigned to dapagliflozin treatment had a lower risk of the primary outcome (HR 0.74 [95% CI 0.65–0.85]), lower risk of first worsening heart failure event (HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.59–0.83]), and lower risk of cardiovascular death (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.69–0.98]) compared with placebo. The effect of dapagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent regardless of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes (191). Ongoing trials are assessing the effects of several SGLT2 inhibitors in heart failure patients with both reduced and preserved ejection fraction. EMPEROR-​Reduced assessed the effects of empagliflozin 10 mg once daily versus placebo on a primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening heart failure in a population of 3,730 patients with NYHA class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less (217). At baseline, 49.8% of participants had a history of diabetes. Over a median follow-​up of 16 months, those in the empagliflozin-​treated group had a reduced risk of the primary outcome (HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.65–0.86]; P < 0.001) and fewer total hospitalizations for heart failure (HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.58–0.85]; P < 0.001). The effect of empagliflozin on the primary outcome was consistent irrespective of diabetes diagnosis at baseline. The risk of a prespecified renal composite outcome (chronic dialysis, renal transplantation, or a sustained reduction in eGFR) was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (1.6% in the empagliflozin group vs. 3.1% in the placebo group; HR 0.50 [95% CI 0.32–0.77]). Therefore, in patients with type 2 diabetes and established HFrEF, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit in this patient population is recommended to reduce the risk of worsening heart failure and cardiovascular death. The benefits seen in this patient population likely represent a class effect, and they appear unrelated to glucose lowering given comparable outcomes in HFrEF patients with and without diabetes. Additional data are accumulating regarding the effects of SGLT inhibition in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure and in heart failure patients with HFpEF. As an example, the investigational SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor sotagliflozin has also been studied in the Effect of Sotagliflozin on Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Post Worsening Heart Failure (SOLOIST-​WHF) trial (218). In SOLOIST-​WHF, 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes who were recently hospitalized for worsening heart failure were randomized to sotagliflozin 200 mg once daily (with uptitration to 400 mg once daily if tolerated) or placebo either before or within 3 days after hospital discharge. Patients were eligible if hospitalized for signs and symptoms of heart failure (including elevated natriuretic peptide levels) requiring treatment with intravenous diuretic therapy. Exclusion criteria included end-​stage heart failure or recent acute coronary syndrome or intervention, or an eGFR <30 mL/​min/​1.73 m2). Patients were required to be clinically stable prior to randomization, defined as no use of supplemental oxygen, a systolic blood pressure ≥100 mmHg, and no need for intravenous inotropic or vasodilator therapy other than nitrates. Similar to SCORED, SOLOIST-​WHF ended early due to a lack of funding, resulting in a change to the prespecified primary end point prior to unblinding to accommodate a lower than anticipated number of end point events. At a median follow-​up of 9 months, the rate of primary end point events (the total number of cardiovascular deaths and hospitalizations and urgent visits for heart failure) was lower in the sotagliflozin group than in the placebo group (51.0 vs. 76.3; HR 0.67 [95% CI 0.52–0.85]; P < 0.001). No significant between-​group differences were found in the rates of cardiovascular death or all-​cause mortality. Both diarrhea (6.1% vs. 3.4%) and severe hypoglycemia (1.5% vs. 0.3%) were more common with sotagliflozin than with placebo. The trial was originally also intended to evaluate the effects of SGLT inhibition in patients with HFpEF, and ultimately no evidence of heterogeneity oftreatment effect by ejection fraction was noted. However, the relatively small percentage of such patients enrolled (only 21% of participants had ejection fraction >50%) and the early termination of the trial limited the ability to determine the effects of sotagliflozin in HFpEF specifically. Additional data regarding the impact of SGLT2 inhibitor therapy in patients with HFpEF will soon be available from EMPEROR-​Preserved, the empagliflozin outcome trial of nearly 6,000 patients with symptomatic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction >40%) (219), with or without type 2 diabetes."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_7.6.5.0",
	"text":"Clinical Approach As has been carefully outlined in Fig. 9.3 in the preceding Section 9, “Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment” (https:/​/​doi.org/​10.2337/​dc22-​S009), patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk for ASCVD, heart failure, or CKD should be treated with a cardioprotective SGLT2 inhibitor and/​or GLP-​1 receptor agonist as part of the comprehensive approach to cardiovascular and kidney risk reduction. Importantly, these agents should be included in the regimen of care irrespective of the need for additional glucose lowering, and irrespective of metformin use. Such an approach has also been described in the ADA-​endorsed American College of Cardiology “2020 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Novel Therapies for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes” (220). Figure 10.3, reproduced from that decision pathway, outlines the approach to risk reduction with SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-​1 receptor agonist therapy in conjunction with other traditional, guideline-​based preventive medical therapies for blood pressure, lipids, and glycemia and antiplatelet therapy. Adoption of these agents should be reasonably straightforward in patients with established cardiovascular or kidney disease who are later diagnosed with diabetes, as the cardioprotective agents can be used from the outset of diabetes management. On the other hand, incorporation of SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-​1 receptor agonist therapy in the care of patients with more long-​standing diabetes may be more challenging, particularly if patients are using an already complex glucose-​lowering regimen. In such patients, SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-​1 receptor agonist therapy may need to replace some or all of their existing medications to minimize risks of hypoglycemia and adverse side effects, and potentially to minimize medication costs. Close collaboration between primary and specialty care providers can help to facilitate these transitions in clinical care and, in turn, improve outcomes for highrisk patients with type 2 diabetes. Figure 10.3—Approach to risk reduction with SGLT2 inhibitor or GLP-​1 receptor agonist therapy in conjunction with other traditional, guideline-​based preventive medical therapies for blood pressure, lipids, and glycemia and antiplatelet therapy. Reprinted with permission from Das et al. (220)."
},
{
	"page":"ENAS6572_8.0.0.0",
	"text":"References American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2017. Diabetes Care 2018;41:917–928 Ali MK, Bullard KM, Saaddine JB, Cowie CC, Imperatore G, Gregg EW. Achievement of goals in U.S. diabetes care, 1999-​2010. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1613–1624 Buse JB, Ginsberg HN, Bakris GL, et al.; American Heart Association; American Diabetes Association. Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in people with diabetes mellitus: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2007;30:162–172 Gaede P, Lund-​Andersen H, Parving H-​H, Pedersen O. Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;358:580–591 Cavender MA, Steg PG, Smith SC Jr, et al.; REACH Registry Investigators. Impact of diabetes mellitus on hospitalization for heart failure, cardiovascular events, and death: outcomes at 4 years from the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry. Circulation 2015;132:923–931 McAllister DA, Read SH, Kerssens J, et al. Incidence of hospitalization for heart failure and case-​fatality among 3.25 million people with and without diabetes mellitus. Circulation 2018;138: 2774–2786 Lam CSP, Voors AA, de Boer RA, Solomon SD, van Veldhuisen DJ. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: from mechanisms to therapies. Eur Heart J 2018;39:2780–2792 Zinman B, Wanner C, Lachin JM, et al.; EMPAREG OUTCOME Investigators. Empagliflozin, cardiovascular outcomes, and mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2117–2128 Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, et al.; CANVAS Program Collaborative Group. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2017;377: 644–657 Fitchett D, Butler J, van de Borne P, et al.; EMPA-​REG OUTCOMEVR trial investigators. Effects of empagliflozin on risk for cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization across the spectrum of heart failure risk in the EMPA-​REG OUTCOME VR trial. Eur Heart J 2018;39:363–370. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Blood pressure-​lowering treatment based on cardiovascular risk: a meta-​analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 2014;384:591–598 Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, et al. 2018 AHA/​ACC/​AACVPR/​AAPA/​ABC/​ACPM/​ADA/​AGS/​ APhA/​ASPC/​NLA/​PCNA Guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/​American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;73:3168–3209 Muntner P, Colantonio LD, Cushman M, et al. Validation of the atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease Pooled Cohort risk equations. JAMA 2014;311:1406–1415 DeFilippis AP, Young R, McEvoy JW, et al. Risk score overestimation: the impact of individual cardiovascular risk factors and preventive therapies on the performance of the American Heart Association-​American College of CardiologyAtherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk score in a modern multi-​ethnic cohort. Eur Heart J 2017;38:598–608 Bohula EA, Morrow DA, Giugliano RP, et al. Atherothrombotic risk stratification and ezetimibe for secondary prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:911–921 Bohula EA, Bonaca MP, Braunwald E, et al. Atherothrombotic risk stratification and the efficacy and safety of vorapaxar in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and previous myocardial infarction. Circulation 2016;134: 304–313 de Boer IH, Bangalore S, Benetos A, et al. Diabetes and hypertension: a position statement by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2017;40:1273–1284 Unger T, Borghi C, Charchar F, et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines. Hypertension 2020;75:1334–1357 18a. Stergiou GS, Parati G, McManus RJ, Head GA, Myers MG, Whelton PK. Guidelines for blood pressure measurement: development over 30 years. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2018;20: 1089–1091 18b. Stergiou GS, Palatini P, Gianfranco P, et al.; European Society of Hypertension Council and the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability. 2021 European Society of Hypertension practice guidelines for office and out-​of-​office blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens 2021;39:1293–1302 Bobrie G, Genes N, Vaur L, et al. Is “isolated home” hypertension as opposed to “isolated office” hypertension a sign of greater cardiovascular risk? Arch Intern Med 2001;161: 2205–2211 Sega R, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, et al. Prognostic value of ambulatory and home blood pressures compared with office blood pressure in the general population: follow-​up results from the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study. Circulation 2005; 111:1777–1783 Omboni S, Gazzola T, Carabelli G, Parati G. Clinical usefulness and cost effectiveness of home blood pressure telemonitoring: metaanalysis of randomized controlled studies. J Hypertens 2013;31:455–467; discussion 467–468 Emdin CA, Rahimi K, Neal B, Callender T, Perkovic V, Patel A. Blood pressure lowering in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and metaanalysis. JAMA 2015;313:603–615 Arguedas JA, Leiva V, Wright JM. Blood pressure targets for hypertension in people with diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;10:CD008277 Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, et al. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Lancet 2016;387:957–967 Brunstro€m M, Carlberg B. Effect of antihypertensive treatment at different blood pressure levels in patients with diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-​analyses. BMJ 2016;352:i717 Bangalore S, Kumar S, Lobach I, Messerli FH. Blood pressure targets in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus/​impaired fasting glucose: observations from traditional and bayesian random-​effects meta-​analyses of randomized trials. Circulation 2011;123:2799–2810 Thomopoulos C, Parati G, Zanchetti A. Effects of blood-​pressure-​lowering treatment on outcome incidence in hypertension: 10 Should blood pressure management differ in hypertensive patients with and without diabetes mellitus? Overview and meta-​analyses of randomized trials. J Hypertens 2017;35:922–944 Xie X, Atkins E, Lv J, et al. Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular and renal outcomes: updated systematic review and meta-​analysis. Lancet 2016;387:435–443 Cushman WC, Evans GW, Byington RP, et al.; ACCORD Study Group. Effects of intensive bloodpressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1575–1585 Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al.; ADVANCE Collaborative Group. Effects of a fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide on macrovascular and microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (the ADVANCE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;370:829–840 Bakris GL. The implications of blood pressure measurement methods on treatment targets for blood pressure. Circulation 2016;134:904–905 Margolis KL, O’Connor PJ, Morgan TM, et al. Outcomes of combined cardiovascular risk factor management strategies in type 2 diabetes: the ACCORD randomized trial. Diabetes Care 2014; 37:1721–1728 Buckley LF, Dixon DL, Wohlford GF 4th, Wijesinghe DS, Baker WL, Van Tassell BW. Intensive versus standard blood pressure control in SPRINT-​eligible participants of ACCORD-​BP. Diabetes Care 2017;40:1733–1738 Brouwer TF, Vehmeijer JT, Kalkman DN, et al. Intensive blood pressure lowering in patients with and patients without type 2 diabetes: a pooled analysis from two randomized trials. Diabetes Care 2018;41:1142–1148 Lamprea-​Montealegre JA, de Boer IH. Reevaluating the evidence for blood pressure targets in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2018;41:1132–1133 Beddhu S, Greene T, Boucher R, et al. Intensive systolic blood pressure control and incident chronic kidney disease in people with and without diabetes mellitus: secondary analyses of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2018;6:555–563 de Boer IH, Bakris G, Cannon CP. Individualizing blood pressure targets for people with diabetes and hypertension: comparing the ADA and the ACC/​AHA recommendations. JAMA 2018;319:1319–1320 Basu S, Sussman JB, Rigdon J, Steimle L, Denton BT, Hayward RA. Benefit and harm of intensive blood pressure treatment: derivation and validation of risk models using data from the SPRINT and ACCORD trials. PLoS Med 2017;14:e1002410 Phillips RA, Xu J, Peterson LE, Arnold RM, Diamond JA, Schussheim AE. Impact of cardiovascular risk on the relative benefit and harm of intensive treatment of hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:1601–1610 Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/​AHA/​AAPA/​ABC/​ACPM/​AGS/​APhA/​ASH/​ASPC/​ NMA/​PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and manage-​ment of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/​American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:e127–e248 Wright JT Jr, Williamson JD, Whelton PK, et al.; SPRINT Research Group. A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-​pressure control. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2103–2116 Sink KM, Evans GW, Shorr RI, et al. Syncope, hypotension, and falls in the treatment of hypertension: results from the randomized clinical systolic blood pressure intervention trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2018;66:679–686 Ilkun OL, Greene T, Cheung AK, et al. The influence of baseline diastolic blood pressure on the effects of intensive blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular outcomes and all-​cause mortality in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2020;43:1878–1884 Abalos E, Duley L, Steyn DW. Antihypertensive drug therapy for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2:CD002252 Magee LA, von Dadelszen P, Rey E, et al. Less-​tight versus tight control of hypertension in pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2015;372:407–417 Brown MA, Magee LA, Kenny LC, et al.; International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy (ISSHP). Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: ISSHP classification, diagnosis, and management recommendations for international practice. Hypertension 2018;72: 24–43 47. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:1122–1131 Al-​Balas M, Bozzo P, Einarson A. Use of diuretics during pregnancy. Can Fam Physician 2009;55:44–45 Irgens HU, Reisaeter L, Irgens LM, Lie RT. Long term mortality of mothers and fathers after pre-​eclampsia: population based cohort study. BMJ 2001;323:1213–1217 Sacks FM, Svetkey LP, Vollmer WM, et al.; DASH-​Sodium Collaborative Research Group. Effects on blood pressure of reduced dietary sodium and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet. N Engl J Med 2001;344:3–10 James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, et al. 2014 evidence-​based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 2014;311: 507–520 Mao Y, Lin W, Wen J, Chen G. Impact and efficacy of mobile health intervention in the management of diabetes and hypertension: a systematic review and meta-​analysis. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2020;8:e001225 Stogios N, Kaur B, Huszti E, Vasanthan J, Nolan RP. Advancing digital health interventions as a clinically applied science for blood pressure reduction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Can J Cardiol 2020;36:764–774 Bakris GL, Weir MR; Study of Hypertension and the Efficacy of Lotrel in Diabetes (SHIELD) Investigators. Achieving goal blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes: conventional versus fixed-​dose combination approaches. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2003;5:202–209 Feldman RD, Zou GY, Vandervoort MK, Wong CJ, Nelson SAE, Feagan BG. A simplified approach to the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension: a cluster randomized, controlled trial. Hypertension 2009;53:646–653 Webster R, Salam A, de Silva HA, et al.; TRIUMPH Study Group. Fixed low-​dose triple combination antihypertensive medication vs usual care for blood pressure control in patients with mild to moderate hypertension in Sri Lanka: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2018;320: 566–579 Bangalore S, Kamalakkannan G, Parkar S, Messerli FH. Fixed-​dose combinations improve medication compliance: a meta-​analysis. Am J Med 2007;120:713–719 Catal&≤39;a-​Lo&≤39;pez F, Mac&≤39;ıas Saint-​Gerons D, Gonz&≤39;alez-​Bermejo D, et al. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes of renin-​angiotensin system blockade in adult patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with network meta-​analyses. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1001971 Palmer SC, Mavridis D, Navarese E, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of blood pressure-​lowering agents in adults with diabetes and kidney disease: a network meta-​analysis. Lancet 2015;385:2047–2056 Barzilay JI, Davis BR, Bettencourt J, et al.; ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Cardiovascular outcomes using doxazosin vs. chlorthalidone for the treatment of hypertension in older adults with and without glucosedisorders: a report from the ALLHAT study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2004;6:116–125 Weber MA, Bakris GL, Jamerson K, et al.; ACCOMPLISH Investigators. Cardiovascular events during differing hypertension therapies in patients with diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;56: 77–85 Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-​HOPE substudy. Lancet 2000;355:253–259 Arnold SV, Bhatt DL, Barsness GW, et al.; American Heart Association Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health and Council on Clinical Cardiology. Clinical management of stable coronary artery disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2020; 141:e779–e806 Yusuf S, Teo K, Anderson C, et al.; Telmisartan Randomised AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant subjects with cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) Investigators. Effects of the angiotensin-​receptor blocker telmisartan on cardiovascular events in high-​risk patients intolerant to angiotensin-​converting enzyme inhibitors: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008;372:1174–1183 Qiao Y, Shin J-​I, Chen TK, et al. Association between renin-​angiotensin system blockade discontinuation and all-​cause mortality among persons with low estimated glomerular filtration rate. JAMA Intern Med 2020;180:718–726 Bangalore S, Fakheri R, Toklu B, Messerli FH. Diabetes mellitus as a compelling indication for use of renin angiotensin system blockers: systematic review and meta-​analysis of randomized trials. BMJ 2016;352:i438 Carlberg B, Samuelsson O, Lindholm LH. Atenolol in hypertension: is it a wise choice? Lancet 2004;364:1684–1689 Murphy SP, Ibrahim NE, Januzzi JL Jr. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a review. JAMA 2020;324:488–504 Yusuf S, Teo KK, Pogue J, et al.; ONTARGET Investigators. Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1547–1559 Fried LF, Emanuele N, Zhang JH, et al.; VA NEPHRON-​D Investigators. Combined angiotensin inhibition for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1892–1903 Makani H, Bangalore S, Desouza KA, Shah A, Messerli FH. Efficacy and safety of dual blockade of the renin-​angiotensin system: meta-​analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2013;346:f360 Zhao P, Xu P, Wan C, Wang Z. Evening versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy for hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;10:CD004184 Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojo&≤39;n A, Fern&≤39;andez JR. Influence of time of day of blood pressurelowering treatment on cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2011;34:1270–1276 73a. Rahman M, Greene T, Phillips RA, et al. A trial of 2 strategies to reduce nocturnal blood pressure in blacks with chronic kidney disease. Hypertension 2013;61:82–88 Nilsson E, Gasparini A, A€rnlo€v J, et al. Incidence and determinants of hyperkalemia and hypokalemia in a large healthcare system. Int J Cardiol 2017;245:277–284 Bandak G, Sang Y, Gasparini A, et al. Hyperkalemia after initiating renin-​angiotensin system blockade: the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project. J Am Heart Assoc 2017;6:e005428 Hughes-​Austin JM, Rifkin DE, Beben T, et al. The relation of serum potassium concentration with cardiovascular events and mortality in community-​living individuals. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2017;12:245–252 James MT, Grams ME, Woodward M, et al.; CKD Prognosis Consortium. A meta-​analysis of the association of estimated GFR, albuminuria, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension with acute kidney injury. Am J Kidney Dis 2015;66:602–612 Iliescu R, Lohmeier TE, Tudorancea I, Laffin L, Bakris GL. Renal denervation for the treatment of resistant hypertension: review and clinical perspective. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2015; 309:F583–F594 Bakris GL, Agarwal R, Chan JC, et al.; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist Tolerability Study–Diabetic Nephropathy (ARTS-​DN) Study Group. Effect of finerenone on albuminuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2015;314:884–894 Williams B, MacDonald TM, Morant S, et al.; British Hypertension Society’s PATHWAY Studies Group. Spironolactone versus placebo, bisoprolol, and doxazosin to determine the optimal treatment for drug-​resistant hypertension (PATHWAY-​2): a randomised, double-​blind, crossover trial. Lancet 2015;386:2059–2068 Filippatos G, Anker SD, Bo€hm M, et al. A randomized controlled study of finerenone vs. eplerenone in patients with worsening chronic heart failure and diabetes mellitus and/​or chronic kidney disease. Eur Heart J 2016;37: 2105–2114 Bomback AS, Klemmer PJ. Mineralocorticoid receptor blockade in chronic kidney disease. Blood Purif 2012;33:119–124 Jensen MD, Ryan DH, Apovian CM, et al.; American College of Cardiology/​American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; Obesity Society. 2013 AHA/​ACC/​TOS guideline for the management of overweight and obesity in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/​American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and The Obesity Society. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63(25 Pt B):2985–3023 Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-​Salvado&≤39; J, et al.; PREDIMED Study Investigators. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-​virgin olive oil or nuts. N Engl J Med 2018;378:e34 Eckel RH, Jakicic JM, Ard JD, et al. 2013 AHA/​ ACC guideline on lifestyle management to reduce cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/​American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2013;129:S76–S99 Arnett DK, Blumenthal RS, Albert MA, et al. 2019 ACC/​AHA guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/​American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2019;140:e596–e646 Chasman DI, Posada D, Subrahmanyan L, Cook NR, Stanton VP Jr, Ridker PM. Pharmacogenetic study of statin therapy and cholesterol reduction. JAMA 2004;291:2821–2827 Meek C, Wierzbicki AS, Jewkes C, et al. Daily and intermittent rosuvastatin 5 mg therapy in statin intolerant patients: an observational study. Curr Med Res Opin 2012;28:371–378 Mihaylova B, Emberson J, Blackwell L, et al.; Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators. The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-​analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. Lancet 2012;380:581–590 Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, et al.; Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-​lowering treatment: prospective meta-​analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet 2005;366:1267–1278 Pyovr€al€a K, Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Faergeman O, Olsson AG, Thorgeirsson G. Cholesterol lowering with simvastatin improves prognosis of diabetic patients with coronary heart disease. A subgroup analysis of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Diabetes Care 1997;20:614–620 Collins R, Armitage J, Parish S, Sleigh P; Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/​BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-​lowering with simvastatin in 5963 people with diabetes: a randomised placebo-​controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361:2005–2016 Goldberg RB, Mellies MJ, Sacks FM, et al.; The Care Investigators. Cardiovascular events and their reduction with pravastatin in diabetic and glucose-​intolerant myocardial infarction survivors with average cholesterol levels: subgroup analyses in the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) trial. Circulation 1998;98:2513–2519 Shepherd J, Barter P, Carmena R, et al. Effect of lowering LDL cholesterol substantially below currently recommended levels in patients with coronary heart disease and diabetes: the Treating to New Targets (TNT) study. Diabetes Care 2006;29:1220–1226 Sever PS, Poulter NR, Dahlo€f B, et al. Reduction in cardiovascular events with atorvastatin in 2,532 patients with type 2 diabetes: Anglo-​Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–lipid-​lowering arm (ASCOT-​LLA). Diabetes Care 2005;28:1151–1157 Knopp RH, d’Emden M, Smilde JG, Pocock SJ. Efficacy and safety of atorvastatin in the prevention of cardiovascular end points in subjects with type 2 diabetes: the Atorvastatin Study for Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease Endpoints in non-​insulin-​dependent diabetes mellitus (ASPEN). Diabetes Care 2006;29: 1478–1485 Colhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN, et al.; CARDS investigators. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS): multicentre randomised placebo-​controlled trial. Lancet 2004;364: 685–696 Kearney PM, Blackwell L, Collins R, et al.; Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators. Efficacy of cholesterol-​lowering therapy in 18,686 people with diabetes in 14 randomised trials of statins: a meta-​analysis. Lancet 2008; 371:117–125 Taylor F, Huffman MD, Macedo AF, et al. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;1:CD004816. Carter AA, Gomes T, Camacho X, Juurlink DN, Shah BR, Mamdani MM. Risk of incident diabetes among patients treated with statins: population based study. BMJ 2013;346: f2610–f2610 Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J, et al.; Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a metaanalysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet 2010;376:1670–1681 Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al.; IMPROVE-​IT Investigators. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2387–2397 de Ferranti SD, de Boer IH, Fonseca V, et al. Type 1 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care 2014;37:2843–2863 Cannon CP, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al.; Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-​Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 22 Investigators. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2004;350: 1495–1504 Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Keech AC, et al.; FOURIER Steering Committee and Investigators. Evolocumab and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1713–1722 Giugliano RP, Cannon CP, Blazing MA, et al.; IMPROVE-​IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) Investigators. Benefit of adding ezetimibe to statin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes and safety in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus: results from IMPROVE-​IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial). Circulation 2018;137:1571–1582 Das SR, Everett BM, Birtcher KK, et al. 2018 ACC expert consensus decision pathway on novel therapies for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72:3200–3223 Moriarty PM, Jacobson TA, Bruckert E, et al. Efficacy and safety of alirocumab, a monoclonal antibody to PCSK9, in statinintolerant patients: design and rationale of ODYSSEY ALTERNATIVE, a randomized phase 3 trial. J Clin Lipidol 2014;8:554–561 Zhang X-​L, Zhu Q-​Q, Zhu L, et al. Safety and efficacy of anti-​PCSK9 antibodies: a meta-​analysis of 25 randomized, controlled trials. BMC Med 2015;13:123 Giugliano RP, Pedersen TR, Saver JL, et al.; FOURIER Investigators. Stroke prevention with the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin-​kexin type 9) inhibitor evolocumab added to statin in high-​risk patients with stable atherosclerosis. Stroke 2020;51:1546–1554 Sabatine MS, Leiter LA, Wiviott SD, et al. Cardiovascular safety and efficacy of the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab in patients with and without diabetes and the effect of evolocumab on glycaemia and risk of new-​onset diabetes: a prespecified analysis of the FOURIER randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017;5:941–950 Schwartz GG, Steg PG, Szarek M, et al.; ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Committees and Investigators. Alirocumab and cardiovascular outcomes after acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2018;379: 2097–2107 Ray KK, Colhoun HM, Szarek M, et al.; ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Committees and Investigators. Effects of alirocumab on cardiovascular and metabolic outcomes after acute coronary syndrome in patients with or without diabetes: a prespecified analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2019;7:618–628 Dai L, Zuo Y, You Q, Zeng H, Cao S. Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid in patients with hypercholesterolemia: a systematic review and meta-​analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2021;28:825–833 Di Minno A, Lupoli R, Calcaterra I, et al. Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid in patients with hypercholesterolemia: systematic review and meta-​analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Heart Assoc 2020;9:e016262 Berglund L, Brunzell JD, Goldberg AC, et al.; Endocrine Society. Evaluation and treatment of hypertriglyceridemia: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012; 97:2969–2989 Bhatt DL, Steg PG, Miller M, et al.; REDUCEIT Investigators. Cardiovascular risk reduction with icosapent ethyl for hypertriglyceridemia. N Engl J Med 2019;380:11–22 Nicholls SJ, Lincoff AM, Garcia M, et al. Effect of high-​dose omega-​3 fatty acids vs corn oil on major adverse cardiovascular events in patients at high cardiovascular risk: the STRENGTH randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020; 324:2268–2280 Singh IM, Shishehbor MH, Ansell BJ. Highdensity lipoprotein as a therapeutic target: a systematic review. JAMA 2007;298:786–798 Keech A, Simes RJ, Barter P, et al.; FIELD study investigators. Effects of long-​term fenofibrate therapy on cardiovascular events in 9795 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (the FIELD study): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:1849–1861 Jones PH, Davidson MH. Reporting rate of rhabdomyolysis with fenofibrate 1 statin versus gemfibrozil 1 any statin. Am J Cardiol 2005;95: 120–122 Ginsberg HN, Elam MB, Lovato LC, et al.; ACCORD Study Group. Effects of combination lipid therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1563–1574 Kowa Research Institute, Inc. Pemafibrate to Reduce Cardiovascular OutcoMes by Reducing Triglycerides IN patiENts With diabeTes (PROMINENT) In: ClinicalTrials.gov. Bethesda, MD, National Library of Medicine. NLM Identifier: NCT03071692. Accessed 21 October 2021. Available from https:/​/​clinicaltrials.gov/​ct2/​show/​NCT03071692 Boden WE, Probstfield JL, Anderson T, et al.; AIM-​HIGH Investigators. Niacin in patients with low HDL cholesterol levels receiving intensive statin therapy. N Engl J Med 2011;365: 2255–2267 Landray MJ, Haynes R, Hopewell JC, et al.; HPS2-​THRIVE Collaborative Group. Effects of extended-​release niacin with laropiprant in highrisk patients. N Engl J Med 2014;371:203–212 Rajpathak SN, Kumbhani DJ, Crandall J, Barzilai N, Alderman M, Ridker PM. Statin therapy and risk of developing type 2 diabetes: a meta-​analysis. Diabetes Care 2009;32:1924–1929 Sattar N, Preiss D, Murray HM, et al. Statins and risk of incident diabetes: a collaborative meta-​analysis of randomised statin trials. Lancet 2010;375:735–742 Ridker PM, Pradhan A, MacFadyen JG, Libby P, Glynn RJ. Cardiovascular benefits and diabetes risks of statin therapy in primary prevention: an analysis from the JUPITER trial. Lancet 2012;380:565–571 Mach F, Ray KK, Wiklund O, et al.; European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel. Adverse effects of statin therapy: perception vs. the evidence focus on glucose homeostasis, cognitive, renal and hepatic function, haemorrhagic stroke and cataract. Eur Heart J 2018;39:2526–2539 Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/​BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-​risk individuals: a randomised placebocontrolled trial. Lancet 2002;360:7–22 Shepherd J, Blauw GJ, Murphy MB, et al.; PROSPER study group. PROspective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk. Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360:1623–1630 Trompet S, van Vliet P, de Craen AJM, et al. Pravastatin and cognitive function in the elderly. Results of the PROSPER study. J Neurol 2010; 257:85–90 Yusuf S, Bosch J, Dagenais G, et al.; HOPE-​3 Investigators. Cholesterol lowering in intermediate-​risk persons without cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 2016;374:2021–2031 Giugliano RP, Mach F, Zavitz K, et al.; EBBINGHAUS Investigators. Cognitive function in a randomized trial of evolocumab. N Engl J Med 2017;377:633–643 Richardson K, Schoen M, French B, et al. Statins and cognitive function: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2013;159:688–697 Baigent C, Blackwell L, Collins R, et al.; Antithrombotic Trialists’ (ATT) Collaboration. Aspirin in the primary and secondary prevention of vascular disease: collaborative meta-​analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet 2009;373:1849–1860 Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H, et al.; European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR); ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG). European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). The Fifth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Eur Heart J 2012;33:1635–1701 Belch J, MacCuish A, Campbell I, et al.; Prevention of Progression of Arterial Disease and Diabetes Study Group; Diabetes Registry Group; Royal College of Physicians Edinburgh. The prevention of progression of arterial disease and diabetes (POPADAD) trial: factorial randomised placebo controlled trial of aspirin and antioxidants in patients with diabetes and asymptomatic peripheral arterial disease. BMJ 2008;337:a1840–a1840 Zhang C, Sun A, Zhang P, et al. Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes: a meta-​analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010;87:211–218 De Berardis G, Sacco M, Strippoli GFM, et al. Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in people with diabetes: meta-​analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2009;339:b4531 ASCEND Study Collaborative Group. Effects of aspirin for primary prevention in persons with diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2018;379: 1529–1539. Gaziano JM, Brotons C, Coppolecchia R, et al.; ARRIVE Executive Committee. Use of aspirin to reduce risk of initial vascular events in patients at moderate risk of cardiovascular disease (ARRIVE): a randomised, double-​blind, placebocontrolled trial. Lancet 2018;392:1036–1046 McNeil JJ, Wolfe R, Woods RL, et al.; ASPREE Investigator Group. Effect of aspirin on cardiovascular events and bleeding in the healthy elderly. N Engl J Med 2018;379:1509–1518 Pignone M, Earnshaw S, Tice JA, Pletcher MJ. Aspirin, statins, or both drugs for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease events in men: a cost-​utility analysis. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:326–336 Huxley RR, Peters SAE, Mishra GD, Woodward M. Risk of all-​cause mortality and vascular events in women versus men with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2015;3: 198–206 Peters SAE, Huxley RR, Woodward M. Diabetes as risk factor for incident coronary heart disease in women compared with men: a systematic review and meta-​analysis of 64 cohorts including 858,507 individuals and 28,203 coronary events. Diabetologia 2014;57:1542–1551 Kalyani RR, Lazo M, Ouyang P, et al. Sex differences in diabetes and risk of incident coronary artery disease in healthy young and middle-​aged adults. Diabetes Care 2014;37: 830–838 Peters SAE, Huxley RR, Woodward M. Diabetes as a risk factor for stroke in women compared with men: a systematic review and meta-​analysis of 64 cohorts, including 775,385 individuals and 12,539 strokes. Lancet 2014;383: 1973–1980 Miedema MD, Duprez DA, Misialek JR, et al. Use of coronary artery calcium testing to guide aspirin utilization for primary prevention: estimates from the multi-​ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2014;7:453–460 Dimitriu-​Leen AC, Scholte AJHA, van Rosendael AR, et al. Value of coronary computed tomography angiography in tailoring aspirin therapy for primary prevention of atherosclerotic events in patients at high risk with diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 2016;117:887–893 Mora S, Ames JM, Manson JE. Low-​dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: shared decision making in clinical practice. JAMA 2016;316:709–710 Campbell CL, Smyth S, Montalescot G, Steinhubl SR. Aspirin dose for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review. JAMA 2007;297:2018–2024 Jones WS, Mulder H, Wruck LM, et al.; ADAPTABLE Team. Comparative effectiveness of aspirin dosing in cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 2021;384:1981–1990 Dav ı G, Patrono C. Platelet activation and atherothrombosis. N Engl J Med 2007;357: 2482–2494 Larsen SB, Grove EL, Neergaard-​Petersen S, Wu€rtz M, Hvas A-​M, Kristensen SD. Determinants of reduced antiplatelet effect of aspirin in patients with stable coronary artery disease. PLoS One 2015;10:e0126767 Zaccardi F, Rizzi A, Petrucci G, et al. In vivo platelet activation and aspirin responsiveness in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes 2016;65:503–509 Bethel MA, Harrison P, Sourij H, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing impact on platelet reactivity of twice-​daily with oncedaily aspirin in people with type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med 2016;33:224–230 Rothwell PM, Cook NR, Gaziano JM, et al. Effects of aspirin on risks of vascular events and cancer according to bodyweight and dose: analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials. Lancet 2018;392:387–399 Vandvik PO, Lincoff AM, Gore JM, et al. Primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-​Based Clinical Practice Guidelines [published correction appears in Chest 2012;141:1129]. Chest 2012;141(Suppl.): e637S–e668S. Bhatt DL, Bonaca MP, Bansilal S, et al. Reduction in ischemic events with ticagrelor in diabetic patients with prior myocardial infarction in PEGASUS-​TIMI 54. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;67:2732–2740 Steg PG, Bhatt DL, Simon T, et al.; THEMIS Steering Committee and Investigators. Ticagrelor in patients with stable coronary disease and diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1309–1320 Bhatt DL, Steg PG, Mehta SR, et al.; THEMIS Steering Committee and Investigators. Ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease with a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (THEMISPCI): a phase 3, placebo-​controlled, randomised trial. Lancet 2019;394:1169–1180 Angiolillo DJ, Baber U, Sartori S, et al. Ticagrelor with or without aspirin in high-​risk patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;75:2403–2413 Wiebe J, Ndrepepa G, Kufner S, et al. Early aspirin discontinuation after coronary stenting: a systematic review and meta-​analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2021;10:e018304 Bhatt DL, Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, et al.; COMPASS Steering Committee and Investigators. Role of combination antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease: insights from the COMPASS trial. Circulation 2020;141:1841–1854 Connolly SJ, Eikelboom JW, Bosch J, et al.; COMPASS investigators. Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable coronary artery disease: an international, randomised, double-​blind, placebo-​controlled trial. Lancet 2018;391:205–218 Bonaca MP, Bauersachs RM, Anand SS, et al. Rivaroxaban in peripheral artery disease after revascularization. N Engl J Med 2020;382: 1994–2004 Bax JJ, Young LH, Frye RL, Bonow RO, Steinberg HO, Barrett EJ. Screening for coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care 2007;30:2729–2736 Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al.; COURAGE Trial Research Group. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1503–1516 Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, et al.; BARI 2D Study Group. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009;360:2503–2515 Wackers FJT, Chyun DA, Young LH, et al.; Detection of Ischemia in Asymptomatic Diabetics (DIAD) Investigators. Resolution of asymptomatic myocardial ischemia in patients with type 2 diabetes in the Detection of Ischemia in Asymptomatic Diabetics (DIAD) study. Diabetes Care 2007;30:2892–2898 Elkeles RS, Godsland IF, Feher MD, et al.; PREDICT Study Group. Coronary calcium measurement improves prediction of cardiovascular events in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes: the PREDICT study. Eur Heart J 2008;29:2244–2251 Raggi P, Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Callister TQ. Prognostic value of coronary artery calcium screening in subjects with and without diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1663–1669 Anand DV, Lim E, Hopkins D, et al. Risk stratification in uncomplicated type 2 diabetes: prospective evaluation of the combined use of coronary artery calcium imaging and selective myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J 2006;27:713–721 Young LH, Wackers FJT, Chyun DA, et al.; DIAD Investigators. Cardiac outcomes after screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: the DIAD study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;301:1547–1555 Wackers FJT, Young LH, Inzucchi SE, et al.; Detection of Ischemia in Asymptomatic Diabetics Investigators. Detection of silent myocardial ischemia in asymptomatic diabetic subjects: the DIAD study. Diabetes Care 2004;27:1954–1961 Scognamiglio R, Negut C, Ramondo A, Tiengo A, Avogaro A. Detection of coronary artery disease in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:65–71 Hadamitzky M, Hein F, Meyer T, et al. Prognostic value of coronary computed tomographic angiography in diabetic patients without known coronary artery disease. Diabetes Care 2010;33:1358–1363 Choi E-​K, Chun EJ, Choi S-​I, et al. Assessment of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis in asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with single photon emission computed tomography and coronary computed tomography angiography. Am J Cardiol 2009;104: 890–896 Malik S, Zhao Y, Budoff M, et al. Coronary artery calcium score for long-​term risk classification in individuals with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome from the Multi-​Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. JAMA Cardiol 2017;2: 1332–1340 Wing RR, Bolin P, Brancati FL, et al.; Look AHEAD Research Group. Cardiovascular effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2013;369:145–154 Braunwald E, Domanski MJ, Fowler SE, et al.; PEACE Trial Investigators. Angiotensinconverting-​enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004;351: 2058–2068 Kezerashvili A, Marzo K, De Leon J. Beta blocker use after acute myocardial infarction in the patient with normal systolic function: when is it “ok” to discontinue? Curr Cardiol Rev 2012;8:77–84 Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al.; American College of Cardiology Foundation; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines; American College of Physicians; American Association for Thoracic Surgery; Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association; Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; Society of Thoracic Surgeons. 2012 ACCF/​AHA/​ACP/​AATS/​PCNA/​SCAI/​STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/​American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:e44–e164 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Diabetes mellitus— evaluating cardiovascular risk in new antidiabetic therapies to treat type 2 diabetes. Silver Spring, MD, 2008. Accessed 21 October 2021. Available from https:/​/​www.federalregister.gov/​documents/​ 2008/​12/​19/​E8-​30086/​guidance-​for-​industry-​ondiabetes-​mellitus-​evaluating-​cardiovascular-​risk-​innew-​antidiabetic Rosenstock J, Perkovic V, Johansen OE, et al.; CARMELINA Investigators. Effect of linagliptin vs placebo on major cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular and renal risk: the CARMELINA randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;321:69–79 Perkovic V, Jardine MJ, Neal B, et al. Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2019;380:2295–2306. Neal B, Perkovic V, Matthews DR, et al.; CANVAS-​R Trial Collaborative Group. Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment StudyRenal (CANVAS-​R): a randomized, placebocontrolled trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 2017;19: 387–393 Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP, et al.; DECLARE–TIMI 58 Investigators. Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019;380:347–357 Heerspink HJL, Stef&≤39;ansson BV, Correa-​Rotter R, et al.; DAPA-​CKD Trial Committees and Investigators. Dapagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med 2020;383: 1436–1446 McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, et al.; DAPA-​HF Trial Committees and Investigators. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1995–2008 Cannon CP, Pratley R, Dagogo-​Jack S, et al.; VERTIS CV Investigators. Cardiovascular outcomes with ertugliflozin in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1425–1435 Bhatt DL, Szarek M, Pitt B, et al.; SCORED Investigators. Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med 2021;384:129–139 Marso SP, Daniels GH, Brown-​Frandsen K, et al.; LEADER Steering Committee; LEADER Trial Investigators. Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2016;375:311–322 Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, et al.; SUSTAIN-​6 Investigators. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1834–1844 Husain M, Birkenfeld AL, Donsmark M, et al. Oral semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019;381:841–851. Hernandez AF, Green JB, Janmohamed S, et al. Albiglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (Harmony Outcomes): a double-​blind, randomised placebo-​controlled trial. Lancet 2018;392:1519–1529. Gerstein HC, Colhoun HM, Dagenais GR, et al.; REWIND Investigators. Dulaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes (REWIND): a double-​blind, randomised placebocontrolled trial. Lancet 2019;394:121–130 Pfeffer MA, Claggett B, Diaz R, et al.; ELIXA Investigators. Lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes and acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2247–2257 Holman RR, Bethel MA, Mentz RJ, et al.; EXSCEL Study Group. Effects of once-​weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1228–1239 Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, et al. Comparison of the effects of glucagon-​like peptide receptor agonists and sodium-​glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation 2019;139:2022–2031 Palmer SC, Tendal B, Mustafa RA, et al. Sodium-​glucose cotransporter protein-​2 (SGLT-​2) inhibitors and glucagon-​like peptide-​1 (GLP-​1) receptor agonists for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-​analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2021;372:m4573 Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, et al. SGLT2 inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-​analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials. Lancet 2019; 393:31–39 McGuire DK, Shih WJ, Cosentino F, et al. Association of SGLT2 inhibitors with cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-​analysis. JAMA Cardiol 2021;6:148–158 Gerstein HC, Sattar N, Rosenstock J, et al.; AMPLITUDE-​O Trial Investigators. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with efpeglenatide in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2021;385:896–907 Kannel WB, Hjortland M, Castelli WP. Role of diabetes in congestive heart failure: the Framingham study. Am J Cardiol 1974;34:29–34 Dunlay SM, Givertz MM, Aguilar D, et al.; American Heart Association Heart Failure and Transplantation Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Heart Failure Society of America. Type 2 diabetes mellitus and heart failure, a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and Heart Failure Society of America. J Card Fail 2019;25:584–619 Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland DJA, et al.; PROactive Investigators. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:1279–1289 Singh S, Loke YK, Furberg CD. Long-​term risk of cardiovascular events with rosiglitazone: a meta-​analysis. JAMA 2007;298:1189–1195 Lincoff AM, Wolski K, Nicholls SJ, Nissen SE. Pioglitazone and risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a metaanalysis of randomized trials. JAMA 2007;298: 1180–1188 Inzucchi SE, Masoudi FA, McGuire DK. Metformin in heart failure. Diabetes Care 2007;30:e129–e129 Eurich DT, Majumdar SR, McAlister FA, Tsuyuki RT, Johnson JA. Improved clinical outcomes associated with metformin in patients with diabetes and heart failure. Diabetes Care 2005;28:2345–2351 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA drug safety communication: FDA revises warnings regarding use of the diabetes medicine metformin in certain patients with reduced kidney function, 2016. Accessed 21 October 2021. Available from https:/​/​www.fda.gov/​drugs/​drug-​safety-​andavailability/​fda-​drug-​safety-​communication-​fdarevises-​warnings-​regarding-​use-​diabetes-​medicinemetformin-​certain Scirica BM, Bhatt DL, Braunwald E, et al.; SAVOR-​TIMI 53 Steering Committee and Investigators. Saxagliptin and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1317–1326 Zannad F, Cannon CP, Cushman WC, et al.; EXAMINE Investigators. Heart failure and mortality outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes taking alogliptin versus placebo in EXAMINE: a multicentre, randomised, doubleblind trial. Lancet 2015;385:2067–2076 Green JB, Bethel MA, Armstrong PW, et al.; TECOS Study Group. Effect of sitagliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015;373:232–242 Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, et al.; EMPEROR-​Reduced Trial Investigators. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with empagliflozin in heart failure. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1413–1424 Bhatt DL, Szarek M, Steg PG, et al.; SOLOIST-​WHF Trial Investigators. Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and recent worsening heart failure. N Engl J Med 2021;384:117–128 Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, et al.; EMPEROR-​Preserved Trial Committees and Investigators. Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in the EMPEROR-​Preserved trial. Eur J Heart Fail 2020;22:2383–2392 Das SR, Everett BM, Birtcher KK, et al. 2020 expert consensus decision pathway on novel therapies for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes: a report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1117–1145 Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al.; HOT Study Group. Effects of intensive blood-​pressure lowering and low-​dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. Lancet 1998;351:1755– 1762 White WB, Cannon CP, Heller SR, et al.; EXAMINE Investigators. Alogliptin after acute coronary syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1327–1335 Rosenstock J, Perkovic V, Alexander JH, et al.; CARMELINAVR investigators. Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of the CArdiovascular safety and Renal Microvascular outcomE study with LINAgliptin (CARMELINAVR ): a randomized, double-​blind, placebo-​controlled clinical trial in patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardio-​renal risk. Cardiovasc Diabetol 2018;17:39 Marx N, Rosenstock J, Kahn SE, et al. Design and baseline characteristics of the CARdiovascular Outcome Trial of LINAgliptin Versus Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes (CAROLINAV R ). Diab Vasc Dis Res 2015;12:164–174 Cefalu WT, Kaul S, Gerstein HC, et al. Cardiovascular outcomes trials in type 2 diabetes: where do we go from here? Reflections from a Diabetes Care Editors’ Expert Forum. Diabetes Care 2018;41:14–31 Wheeler DC, Stefansson BV, Batiushin M, et al. The dapagliflozin and prevention of adverse outcomes in chronic kidney disease (DAPA-​CKD) trial: baseline characteristics. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2020;35:1700–1711 Cannon CP, McGuire DK, Pratley R, et al.; VERTIS-​CV Investigators. Design and baseline characteristics of the eValuation of ERTugliflozin effIcacy and Safety CardioVascular outcomes trial (VERTIS-​CV). Am Heart J 2018;206: 11–23"
}
]