American College of CardiologyScientific Meeting 2019
Remo H. M. Furtado, et al. On behalf of the DECLARE TIMI-58
Executive & Steering Committees and Investigators
Dapagliflozin and CV outcomes in
patients with type 2 diabetes and prior
myocardial infarction: a sub-analysis
from DECLARE TIMI-58
NCT01730534DECLARE TIMI-58 was funded by a grant from AstraZeneca to Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Background
Wiviott et al. N Eng J Med 2019; 380: 347
~ 60 % with no prior athero CV disease> 90 % eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73 m2
(CVD/MI/Ischemic Stroke)
Background
Zelniker et al. Lancet 2019; 393: 31
Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD):
Multiple Risk Factors (MRF):
Das et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;72: 3200
Background – ACC guidelines
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Background
Cavender et al. Circulation 2015;132:923
MACE in REACH registry (n = 19,699) across the spectrum of atherothrombotic risk Adj K-M
(%)
Months
Diabetes + only risk
factors
Diabetes + ASCVD
without prior ischemic
event
Diabetes + ASCVD
with prior ischemic
event
CV
death
, M
I or
str
oke
To investigate the benefit of
dapagliflozin in the particular
subgroup of patients with
T2DM and prior MI
Objective
▪ DECLARE TIMI-58 trial randomized patients with T2DM and
either established ASCVD or only MRF to dapagliflozin 10 mg
QD versus placebo
▪ Prior MI was pre-specified as a subgroup of interest
▪ The risks of MACE and CVD/HHF (dual primary EPs) in patients
with and without prior MI were compared in the placebo arm,
with adjustment for baseline differences (Cox model)
▪ Efficacy of dapagliflozin regarding both MACE and CVD/HHF
was evaluated stratified by history of MI
▪ Treatment-by-subgroup interactions for the absolute risk
reductions (ARR) were analyzed using Gail−Simon test.
Methods
Results - Baseline
Prior MI
(n = 3,584)
No prior MI
(n = 13,576)
P
value
Age, yrs, median (IQR) 62 (57 , 68) 64 (60 , 68) < 0.001
Female sex (%) 24 41 < 0.001
Duration of DM, yrs, median (IQR) 10 (5 , 16) 11 (6 , 16) < 0.001
Insulin (%) 46 40 < 0.001
GFR, ml/min/1.73 m2, median (IQR) 88 (73 , 97) 89 (75 , 96) 0.10
Hypertension (%) 87 91 < 0.001
Dyslipidemia (%) 93 77 < 0.001
Current smoker (%) 16 14 0.086
Heart failure (%) 22 7 < 0.001
Prior Ischemic Stroke (%) 6 7 0.27
Prior PAD (%) 8 6 < 0.001
% with events: 17.8 % (prior MI) vs. 7.1 % (no prior MI)
Adj HR* (95 % CI) = 2.28 (1.96 to 2.65); p < 0.001
* Adjusted for: age, sex, race, weight, diabetes duration, region, baseline insulin, HF, dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking, ischemic
stroke and peripheral artery disease.
Event rates in placebo arm
MACE – CV death, MI or ischemic stroke
20%
10%
0%
15%
5%
12 24 36 48
No prior MI
Prior MI
Months
Cu
mu
lati
ve in
cid
en
ce
10%
5%
0%
7.5%
2.5%
12 24 36
No prior MI
Prior MI
48
12.5%
Months
Event rates in placebo arm
CV death or hospitalization for HF
* Adjusted for: age, sex, race, weight, diabetes duration, region, baseline insulin, HF, dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking, ischemic
stroke and peripheral artery disease.
% with events: 10.5 % (prior MI) vs. 4.5 % (no prior MI)
Adj HR* (95 % CI) = 1.77 (1.46 to 2.14); p < 0.001
Cu
mu
lati
ve in
cid
en
ce
10%
5%
0%360 24 36 48
15%
Prior MI – Placebo (N = 1,807)
Prior MI – Dapagliflozin (N = 1,777)
No Prior MI – Placebo (N = 6,771)
No Prior MI – Dapagliflozin (N = 6,805) Patients with prior MI
% with events: 17.8 % vs. 15.2 %
HR (95% CI) = HR 0.84 (0.72 to 0.99)
Patients without prior MI
% with events: 7.1 % vs. 7.1 %
HR (95% CI) = HR 1.00 (0.88 to 1.13)
20%
Months
ARR = 2.6 %
P-int HR = 0.11
P-int ARR = 0.048
CV outcomes with dapagliflozin
MACE – CV death, MI or ischemic stroke
12
ARR = 0.0 %Cu
mu
lati
ve
in
cid
en
ce
10%
5%
0%
7.5%
2.5%
12 24 36 48
12.5%Patients with prior MI
% with events: 10.5 % vs. 8.6 %
HR (95% CI) = HR 0.81 (0.65 to 1.00)
Patients without prior MI
% with events: 4.5 % vs. 3.9 %
HR (95% CI) = HR 0.85 (0.72 to 1.00)
Months
P-int ARR = 0.01
P-int HR = 0.69
CVD or HF hospitalization
CV outcomes with dapagliflozin
ARR = 1.9 %
Prior MI – Placebo (N = 1,807)
Prior MI – Dapagliflozin (N = 1,777)
No Prior MI – Placebo (N = 6,771)
No Prior MI – Dapagliflozin (N = 6,805)
ARR = 0.6 %Cu
mu
lati
ve
in
cid
en
ce
Study Endpoints by History of MI
HRP-interaction
for HRDapagliflozin
%
Placebo
%
0.78
0.99
0.80
1.08
0.64
1.01
9.2% 11.7%
6.7%
2.0 % 3.2 %
MI
Type 1 MI
Type 2 MI
3.4% 3.4%
8.3%
2.5% 2.3%
0.9% 0.9%
0.082
ARRP-interaction
for ARR
2.5%
0.0%
1.6%
- 0.2 %
1.1%
0.0 %
0.019
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0
Prior MI (N = 3,584) No Prior MI (N = 13,576)
Placebo better Dapagliflozin better Placebo better Dapagliflozin better
CV outcomes with dapagliflozin
Study Endpoints by History of MI
Placebo better Dapagliflozin better
0.92
1.03
4.9% 5.3 %CV death
2.3% 2.3 %
0.93
1.05
0.71
0.75
0.97
3.7% 3.9%
4.6%
0.54Ischemic
stroke
HHF
2.5% 2.4%
6.3%
1.9% 2.5%
0.56
0.77
- 0.1 %
- 0.1 %
0.3 %
1.8 %
0.6 %
0.50
0.001
0.56
Placebo better Dapagliflozin better
All cause
death
0.838.6% 10.3%
5.5% 5.7%0.22
0.4 %
1.7 %
0.1 % 0.084
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.00.25 0.50 1.0 2.0
HR P-interaction
for HRDapagliflozin
%Placebo
%
ARR P-interaction
for ARR
CV outcomes with dapagliflozin
Prior MI (N = 3,584) No Prior MI (N = 13,576)
MACE by time from last MI
Placebo better Dapagliflozin better
HR P-interaction
(trend)
0.84
0.007
Dapagliflozin
%Placebo
%
Overall (N = 3,584) 15.2% 17.8%
13.8% 20.3%≤ 12 months (N = 488)
12-24 months (N = 356)
24-36 months (N = 339)
> 36 months (N = 2,400)
11.8% 25.7%
15.8% 18.8%
15.8% 15.8%
0.66
0.42
0.83
1.01
Summary
▪ Patients with T2DM and prior MI are at heightened risk
of both MACE and CV death/HF hospitalization
▪ Dapagliflozin appeared to robustly reduce the risk of
MACE, and particularly MI, in patients with prior MI
▪ This 22 % RRR in MI with dapagliflozin is comparable
to other established therapies used in secondary
prevention, like DAPT1 and intensive lipid lowering2
1- Bonaca et al. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 1791
2- Sabatine et al. Circulation. 2018; 138: 756
▪ Patients with T2DM and prior MI derived important CV
events reductions with dapagliflozin.
▪ Those findings add new relevant information to recent
guidelines, reinforcing that these patients should be
strongly considered for SGLT2 inhibitors when
selecting glucose-lowering agents.
▪ The mechanisms which could explain the reduction in
recurrent MI with SGLT2 inhibitors should be clarified
in future studies.
Conclusions
Additional Information
Article available at www.ahajournals.org
Slides available at www.TIMI.org
Top Related