Panagiotis I Georgianos1, Rajiv Agarwal2. 1. Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, 1st Department of Medicine, AHEPA Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. 2. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine and Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN ragarwal@iu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors lower clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP), possibly through their natriuretic action. However, it remains unclear whether this BP-lowering effect is dose dependent and different from that of low-dose hydrochlorothiazide. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to quantify the association of the dose with response of ambulatory BP to SGLT-2 inhibition and to provide comparative evaluation with low-dose hydrochlorothiazide. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane database of clinical trials from inception of each database through 22 August 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting treatment effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors on ambulatory BP. We extracted data on the mean difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline (CFB) of ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP. RESULTS: We identified seven RCTs (involving 2,381 participants) comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors with placebo. Of these, two RCTs included low-dose hydrochlorothiazide as active comparator. CFB in 24-h systolic BP between SGLT-2 inhibitor and placebo groups was -3.62 mmHg (95% CI -4.29, -2.94) and in diastolic BP was -1.70 mmHg (95% CI -2.13, -1.26). BP lowering with SGLT-2 inhibition was more potent during daytime than during nighttime. The CFB in ambulatory BP was comparable between low-dose and high-dose subgroups and was similar to that for low-dose hydrochlorothiazide. Eligible RCTs did not evaluate cardiovascular outcomes/mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that SGLT-2 inhibitors provoke an average reduction of systolic/diastolic BP 3.62/1.70 mmHg in 24-h ambulatory BP. This BP-lowering effect remains unmodified regardless of the dose of SGLT-2 inhibitor and is comparable with BP-lowering efficacy of low-dose hydrochlorothiazide.
OBJECTIVE: Sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors lower clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP), possibly through their natriuretic action. However, it remains unclear whether this BP-lowering effect is dose dependent and different from that of low-dose hydrochlorothiazide. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to quantify the association of the dose with response of ambulatory BP to SGLT-2 inhibition and to provide comparative evaluation with low-dose hydrochlorothiazide. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane database of clinical trials from inception of each database through 22 August 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting treatment effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors on ambulatory BP. We extracted data on the mean difference between the active treatment and placebo groups in change from baseline (CFB) of ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP. RESULTS: We identified seven RCTs (involving 2,381 participants) comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors with placebo. Of these, two RCTs included low-dose hydrochlorothiazide as active comparator. CFB in 24-h systolic BP between SGLT-2 inhibitor and placebo groups was -3.62 mmHg (95% CI -4.29, -2.94) and in diastolic BP was -1.70 mmHg (95% CI -2.13, -1.26). BP lowering with SGLT-2 inhibition was more potent during daytime than during nighttime. The CFB in ambulatory BP was comparable between low-dose and high-dose subgroups and was similar to that for low-dose hydrochlorothiazide. Eligible RCTs did not evaluate cardiovascular outcomes/mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that SGLT-2 inhibitors provoke an average reduction of systolic/diastolic BP 3.62/1.70 mmHg in 24-h ambulatory BP. This BP-lowering effect remains unmodified regardless of the dose of SGLT-2 inhibitor and is comparable with BP-lowering efficacy of low-dose hydrochlorothiazide.
Authors: Despoina Vasilakou; Thomas Karagiannis; Eleni Athanasiadou; Maria Mainou; Aris Liakos; Eleni Bekiari; Maria Sarigianni; David R Matthews; Apostolos Tsapas Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Hiddo J L Heerspink; Bruce A Perkins; David H Fitchett; Mansoor Husain; David Z I Cherney Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Dena Ettehad; Connor A Emdin; Amit Kiran; Simon G Anderson; Thomas Callender; Jonathan Emberson; John Chalmers; Anthony Rodgers; Kazem Rahimi Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ilkka Tikkanen; Kirsi Narko; Cordula Zeller; Alexandra Green; Afshin Salsali; Uli C Broedl; Hans J Woerle Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Bruce Neal; Vlado Perkovic; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Dick de Zeeuw; Greg Fulcher; Ngozi Erondu; Wayne Shaw; Gordon Law; Mehul Desai; David R Matthews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-06-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anil K Pareek; Franz H Messerli; Nitin B Chandurkar; Shruti K Dharmadhikari; Anil V Godbole; Prasita P Kshirsagar; Manish A Agarwal; Kamal H Sharma; Shyam L Mathur; Mukund M Kumbla Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R Chilton; I Tikkanen; C P Cannon; S Crowe; H J Woerle; U C Broedl; O E Johansen Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Husam M Salah; Subodh Verma; Carlos G Santos-Gallego; Ankeet S Bhatt; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Muhammad Shahzeb Khan; Renato D Lopes; Subhi J Al'Aref; Darren K McGuire; Marat Fudim Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Katherine R Tuttle; Frank C Brosius; Matthew A Cavender; Paola Fioretto; Kevin J Fowler; Hiddo J L Heerspink; Tom Manley; Darren K McGuire; Mark E Molitch; Amy K Mottl; Leigh Perreault; Sylvia E Rosas; Peter Rossing; Laura Sola; Volker Vallon; Christoph Wanner; Vlado Perkovic Journal: Diabetes Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 9.461