SGLT2 inhibitors and cardioprotection: a matter of debate and multiple hypotheses

ABSTRACT

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors inhibit glucose re-absorption in the proximal renal tubules. Two trials have shown significant reductions of cardiovascular (CV) events with empagliflozin and canagliflozin, which could not be attributed solely to their antidiabetic effects. The aim of the review is the critical presentation of suggested mechanisms/hypotheses for the SGLT2 inhibitors' cardioprotection. The search of the literature revealed many possible cardioprotective mechanisms, because SGLT2 inhibitors (i) increase natriuresis and act as diuretics with unique properties leading to a reduction in preload and myocardial stretch (the diuretic hypothesis); (ii) decrease blood pressure and afterload (the blood pressure lowering hypothesis), (iii) favor the production of ketones, which can act as a ‘superfuel’ in the cardiac and renal tissue (the ‘thrifty substrate’ hypothesis), (iv) improve many metabolic variables (the metabolic effects hypothesis), (v) exert many anti-inflammatory effects (the anti-inflammatory effects hypothesis), (vi) can act through the angiotensin II type II receptors in the context of simultaneous renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) blockade leading to vasodilation and positive inotropic effects (the RAAS hypothesis), (vii) directly decrease the activity of the upregulated in heart failure Na⁺–H⁺ exchanger in myocardial cells leading to restoration of mitochondrial calcium handling in cardiomyocytes (the sodium hypothesis). Additionally, some SGLT2 inhibitors exhibit also SGLT1 inhibitory action possibly resulting in an attenuation of oxidative stress in ischemic myocardium (the SGLT1 inhibition hypothesis). Thus, many mechanisms have been suggested (and possibly act cumulatively) for the cardioprotective effects of SGLT2 inhibitors.

KEYWORDS:

• Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors
• cardiovascular
• blood pressure
• metabolic effects
• thrifty substrate

Declaration of interest

Elisaf M reports personal fees from Astra-Zeneca, grants and personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, Abbott, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli-Lilly and GSK. Filippatos T, Liontos A and Papakitsou I have given talks and attended conferences sponsored by various pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Lilly, Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Vianex, Teva and MSD. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. A peer reviewer on this manuscript has received honoraria for speaker bureau from AZ, Boehringher Ingelheim, and Janssen. Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no other relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.

Additional information

Funding

This manuscript was not funded.