Skip to main content

Preventing major adverse cardiovascular events by SGLT-2 inhibition in patients with type 2 diabetes: the role of kidney


Cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have demonstrated a significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated by SGLT-2 inhibitors. This holds true in the presence of background therapy with statins in most patients. Noteworthy, this SGLT-2 inhibitors effect is unique because, at variance with other components of cardiorenal protection, MACE prevention does not appear to be a class effect. Here, we present meta-analysis of the four key CVOTs indicating a major role of renal function in determining the extent of MACE prevention, with the benefit increasing in more severe kidney disease, that is, a high-risk condition where effectiveness of the traditional approach with statins is reduced.

The recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTS) [1,2,3,4] testing the cardiorenal effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) have demonstrated a significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The clinical significance of this effect is even more relevant when considering that SGLT-2 inhibitors were added on the top of optimal therapy, including renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors and statins in the vast majority of cases.

The risk reduction for MACE ranges from 7% of DECLARE trial (not significant) to 20% of CREDENCE trial (significant), with intermediate and significant reduction (14%) in both EMPA-REG OUTCOME and CANVAS trials. As the cardiorenal protection by SGLT-2 inhibition is considered a class effect [5, 6], the reasons for this divergence is not readily apparent, even because the major risk factors for MACE (age, smoking, body weight, blood pressure and lipids) were on average similarly controlled in the four trials, and treatment with RAS inhibitors and statins were comparable (Table 1). It has been suggested that the observed differences are inherent to the population studied; in the DECLARE trial, patients were globally (and relatively) healthier at baseline, which reduced the power to detect differences between the two arms of the study. In particular, most patients in DECLARE had less atherosclerotic disease and more preserved renal function. On the other hand, the extent of risk reduction for MACE was definitely greater in the CREDENCE trial where atherosclerotic disease was prevalent and renal function severely impaired.

Table 1 Main basal risk factors for MACE in the cardiovascular outcome trials testing the effect of SGLT2 inhibition in type 2 diabetes

MACE risk in diabetic kidney disease

In order to assess whether the benefits exerted by SGLT-2 inhibitors on MACE may be positively associated to the greater renal impairment at baseline, we did a meta-analysis of the four CVOTs [1,2,3,4] with SGLT-2 inhibitors on MACE risk, as compared with placebo. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for efficacy outcomes were synthesized. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using the Cochran’s Q test, with P values of less than 0.10 representing significant heterogeneity. We did an additional sensitivity analysis to assess the effects of treatment in participants with eGFR lower than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and those with an eGFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or greater. When required, effect estimates for subgroups within the same study (e.g., eGFR 30 to < 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and 45 to < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, or eGFR > 60 to 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and > 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2) were merged by use of a fixed-effects model. We limited the evaluation to MACE in order to minimize the statistical impact of post hoc analyses. Pooled summary estimates were calculated according to the random effects model, using the empirical Bayes method that, in Stata software, corresponds to the Paule–Mandel method [7]. In subgroup analysis, p-heterogeneity value lower than 0.1 was considered to reflect a high likelihood of difference beyond that expected by chance [8]. All analyses were done with Stata, version 16.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX).

Our meta-analysis included data for a total of 38 724 randomly assigned participants from six continents. The proportion of participants with an eGFR less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 ranged from 7.4% in DECLARE–TIMI 58 to 59.8% in CREDENCE, and the proportion of participants taking anti-RAS therapy ranged from 80% (CANVAS) to almost 100% (CREDENCE) (Table 1). In the overall analysis, risk of MACE was reduced by 12% (HR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.82–0.94; P < 0.001) compared with placebo, with null heterogeneity among trials (I2 = 0%) (Fig. 1). Most patients had preserved kidney function, with 7754 participants (20%) with baseline eGFR < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2. There was evidence that patients with reduced kidney function achieved greater proportional risk reductions for MACE (HR, 0.77; 95% CI 0.65–0.90) than patients with preserved kidney function (HR, 0.91; 95% CI 0.85–0.99) (P for heterogeneity between subgroups = 0.053) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1

Effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors on risk of MACE in the four CVOTs with gliflozins

Fig. 2

Random-effect meta-analysis describing the effect of the four CVOTs with gliflozins on the primary endpoint (MACE) according to the renal function of patients with T2D

Renal function and MACE

The relationship between renal function and MACE is well established. The ADVANCE study evidenced in more than 10,000 patients with T2D aged ≥ 55 years that higher albuminuria and lower eGFR levels predict increased risk of CV events, including CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke [9]. The independent role of kidney disease in dictating the CV prognosis has been further supported by a large meta-analysis of CKD Consortium, in more than one million subjects, evidencing that hazards for CV mortality at a given eGFR or ACR were 1.2 to 1.9 times higher in diabetic vs non diabetic individuals across the whole spectrum of eGFR and ACR strata. However, no interaction was disclosed on CV risk between CKD severity and diabetic status, supporting the idea of the independent role of kidney disease as CV risk modifier [10]. This concept has been reinforced by a similarly large study from the Alberta Kidney Disease Network showing that in patients with no previous history of heart diseases, the incidence of acute myocardium infarction did not differ in people with diabetes and no CKD versus those with CKD stage 1–4 and no diabetes [11]. The study also demonstrated that in more advanced CKD without diabetes (eGFR < 45 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and severe proteinuria), the risk of coronary events actually overcame that observed in diabetic patients without CKD. On the other hand, CKD is prevalent in coronary heart disease: the EUROASPIRE IV study, that evaluated patients with coronary heart disease followed in cardiology setting from 24 European countries, found that as many as one-third population had CKD (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in 17.3% while albuminuria with normal eGFR was detected in an additional 12%) [12].

Overall, these findings have allowed to identify CKD as a “coronary heart disease risk equivalent” as it was recognized for T2D. With the notable difference that T2D may no longer be a risk equivalent for coronary heart disease if all risk factors (glycemia, blood pressure, LDL-cholesterol, body weight, smoking) are being controlled by treatment (drug and/or lifestyle) [13, 14]; this may not the case for CKD as its current therapeutic armamentarium does not restore to normal albuminuria, eGFR, or both. CKD also acts as major predisposing risk factor also for stroke and peripheral artery disease [15, 16]. Indeed, impaired renal function and abnormal albuminuria can per se promote endothelial dysfunction and accelerate atherosclerosis, independently from hypertension and diabetes, and this phenomenon strongly modifies the fate of CKD patients so that a vast proportion of CKD patients are more likely to die prematurely due to CV disease than to survive long enough to reach end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) [17, 18].

SGLT-2 inhibition as anti-MACE therapy in diabetic kidney disease (DKD)

The four CVOT have provided a strong argument favoring the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors for prevention of MACE in diabetic patients with or without DKD. These trial-derived data have been confirmed in the large, multinational CVD-REAL study comparing CV outcome in patients initiated on SGLT2-inhibitors versus other glucose-lowering drugs [19]. Indeed, in this propensity-matching study (n = 235,034 patients in either group), SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke by 19% and 32%, respectively: these beneficial effects were obtained in a low-risk population because CVD-REAL patients had a positive history of CV disease in less than 30% cases and CKD prevalence was irrelevant (< 2%), and most patients were under RAS inhibitors (55%) and statins (65%). The findings from this large real-world study must be integrated with those of CVOT. Indeed, MACE prevention by means of SGLT-2 inhibition, which was more evident in the higher risk CVOT, emerges also in low-risk patients when the sample examined is very large.

The beneficial effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors on MACE are probably multifactorial [20, 21]: they are thought to produce benefits on cardiovascular system through their ability to reduce myocardial inflammation, oxidative stress, apoptosis, mitochondrial dysfunction, ionic dyshomeostasis, preload, cardiac stretch, blood pressure and after load, and increased natriuresis. Moreover, it is possible to hypothesize that the remarkable nephroprotection may play a major role. Prevention of eGFR decline may indeed protect from MACE not only directly but also indirectly by decreasing progressive decline of renal function. Accordingly, the recent results of CVD-REAL 3 study in over 70,000 diabetic patients, i.e., the first real-world data analysis on the effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors on renal outcomes, are of great interest [22]. Investigators demonstrated that initiation of SGLT-2 inhibitors allowed 51% reduction of the composite outcome of a 50% decline in eGFR or ESKD (3.0 vs 6.3 events per 10,000 patient-years). The importance of these results is in the low-risk population under study; patients had on average an eGFR 91 mL/min/1.73 m2 with only less than 10% of whole cohort being classified with overt CKD (stage 3 or higher).


The data herein presented provide robust evidence of cardiovascular (MACE) benefits with SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with T2D, with significant evidence that effects may be even greater in patients with DKD. Statin therapy, while not substantially modifying renal risk, leaves a substantial portion of CKD patients, especially in those with more advanced stages of disease, at high risk of CV events [23, 24]. These findings indicate that a broad range of patients with T2D are likely to achieve important benefits from use of this drug class [25] and should encourage physicians taking care of diabetic patients to an early use of SGLT-2 inhibitors in order to slow down progression of diabetic kidney disease and prevent MACE.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable



Sodium–glucose transporter-2


Type 2 diabetes


Diabetic kidney disease


Cardiovascular outcome trials


Empagliflozin cardiovascular outcome event trial in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients-removing excess glucose randomized double-blind controlled


CANagliflozin CardioVascular Assessment Study


Dapagliflozin Effect on CardiovascuLAR Events randomized double-blind controlled trial


Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation randomized double-blind controlled trial


Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: preterAx and diamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation


Comparative effectiveness of cardiovascular outcomes in new users of SGLT-2 inhibitors


  1. 1.

    Wanner C, Inzucchi SE, Lachin JM, EMPA–REG OUTCOME Investigators, et al. Empagliflozin and progression of kidney disease in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:323–34.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Neal B, Perkovic V, Mahaffey KW, CANVAS Program Collaborative Group, et al. Canagliflozin and cardiovascular and renal events in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:644–57.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Wiviott SD, Raz I, Bonaca MP, DECLARE–TIMI 58 Investigators, et al. Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:347–57.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Perkovic V, Jardine MJ, Neal B, CREDENCE Trial Investigators, et al. Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2295–306.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kluger AY, Tecson KM, Lee AY, et al. Class effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiorenal outcomes. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2019;18:99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Giugliano Dario, Esposito Katherine. Class effect for SGLT-2 inhibitors: a tale of 9 drugs. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2019;18:94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Langan D, Higgins JPT, Simmonds M. Comparative performance of heterogeneity variance estimators in meta-analysis: a review of simulation studies. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8:181–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Neuen BL, Young T, Heerspink HJL, et al. SGLT2 inhibitors for the prevention of kidney failure inpatients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2019;7:845–54.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ninomiya T, Perkovic V, de Galan BE, ADVANCE Collaborative Group, et al. Albuminuria and kidney function independently predict cardiovascular and renal outcomes in diabetes. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20:1813–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Fox CS, Matsushita K, Woodward M, Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium, et al. Associations of kidney disease measures with mortality and end-stage renal disease in individuals with and without diabetes: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012;380:1662–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Tonelli M, Muntner P, Lloyd A, Alberta Kidney Disease Network, et al. Risk of coronary events in people with chronic kidney disease compared with those with diabetes: a population-level cohort study. Lancet. 2012;380:807–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Wagner M, Wanner C, Kotseva K, EUROASPIRE IV investigators, et al. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease and its determinants in coronary heart disease patients in 24 European countries: insights from the EUROASPIRE IV survey of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2017;24:1168–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Giugliano D, Ceriello A, De Nicola L, Perrone-Filardi P, Cosentino F, Esposito K. Primary versus secondary cardiorenal prevention in type 2 diabetes: which newer anti-hyperglycaemic drug matters? Diabetes Obes Metab. 2020;22:149–57.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Giugliano D, Maiorino MI, Bellastella G, Esposito K. Diabetes is a cardiovascular disease, isn’t it? Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;135:229–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Cherng YG, Lin CS, Shih CC, et al. Stroke risk and outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease or end-stage renal disease: two nationwide studies. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0191155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    O’Hare AM, Glidden DV, Fox CS, Hsu CY. High prevalence of peripheral arterial disease in persons with renal insufficiency: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2000. Circulation. 2004;109:320–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Sarnak MJ, Levey AS, Schoolwerth AC, American Heart Association Councils on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, High Blood Pressure Research, Clinical Cardiology, and Epidemiology and Prevention, et al. Kidney disease as a risk factor for development of cardiovascular disease: a statement from the American Heart Association Councils on Kidney in cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure research, clinical cardiology, and epidemiology and prevention. Circulation. 2003;108:2154–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Provenzano M, Coppolino G, De Nicola L, et al. Unraveling cardiovascular risk in renal patients: a new take on old tale. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2019;7:314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kosiborod M, Lam CSP, Kohsaka S, Investigators and Study Group, et al. Cardiovascular events associated with SGLT-2 inhibitors versus other glucose-lowering drugs: the CVD-REAL 2 Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:2628–39.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Lahnwong S, Chattipakorn SC, Chattipakorn N. Potential mechanisms responsible for cardioprotective effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2018;17:101.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Filippatos TD, Liontos A, Papakitsou I, Elisaf ME. SGLT2 inhibitors and cardioprotection: a matter of debate and multiple hypotheses. Postgrad Med. 2019;131:82–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Heerspink HJL, Karasik A, Thuresson M, et al. Kidney outcomes associated with use of SGLT2 inhibitors in real-world clinical practice (CVD-REAL 3): a multinational observational cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020;8:27–35.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Hou W, Lv J, Perkovic V, et al. Effect of statin therapy on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:1807–17.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Qin X, Dong H, Fang K, Lu F. The effect of statins on renal outcomes in patients with diabetic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2017;33(6):e2901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Prattichizzo F, La Sala L, Rydén L, et al. Glucose-lowering therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019;26(2):73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references




No funding was specifically related to this paper.

Author information




DG and LDN wrote the paper. All authors made important contributions to the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dario Giugliano.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

D G. has been an advisory board member for and/or has received speaker’s fees from Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Mundipharma and Sanofi. L.D.N. has been an advisory board member for and/or has received speaker’s fees from Abiogen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Mundipharma and Vifor. M.I.M. received honoraria for speaking at meetings from Astra-Zeneca, Novo Nordisk, Bruno, Mundi Pharma, Merck. G.B. received honoraria for speaking at meetings for Roche and Novo Nordisk. A. C. has been an advisory board member for Abbott, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, DOC Generici, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk and OM Pharma; has given lectures for Astra Zeneca, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk and Roche Diagnostics; and has received research grants from Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Mitsubishi and Novartis. K. E. has been an advisory board member for and/or has received speaker’s fees from Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Mundipharma, Sanofi, Bruno Farmaceutici, Abbott, Lifescan, Roche. P.C., C.G., and G.B. declare they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giugliano, D., De Nicola, L., Maiorino, M.I. et al. Preventing major adverse cardiovascular events by SGLT-2 inhibition in patients with type 2 diabetes: the role of kidney. Cardiovasc Diabetol 19, 35 (2020).

Download citation


  • SGLT-2 inhibitors
  • Type 2 diabetes
  • MACE
  • Diabetic kidney disease
  • Statin therapy