Packer, M. (2020). “SGLT2 Inhibitors Produce Cardiorenal Benefits by Promoting Adaptive Cellular Reprogramming to Induce a State of Fasting Mimicry: A Paradigm Shift in Understanding Their Mechanism of Action.” Diabetes Care 43(3): 508-511.
Full text of this article.
There is compelling evidence that sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors exert cardioprotective and renoprotective effects that are far greater than expected based on their effects on glycemia or glycosuria. In large-scale randomized controlled trials, SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalizations for heart failure by ∼30% and often decrease the risk of cardiovascular death. This benefit is particularly striking in patients who have the most marked impairment of systolic function prior to treatment. In parallel, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk of end-stage renal events, including the occurrence of renal death and the need for dialysis or renal transplantation by ∼30%. This benefit is seen even when glomerular filtration rates are sufficiently low to abolish the glycosuric effect of these drugs. These cardiorenal benefits cannot be explained by an action of SGLT2 inhibitors to lower blood glucose, since similar effects are not seen with antidiabetes drugs that have greater antihyperglycemic actions. Additionally, they cannot be ascribed to a natriuretic action, since these drugs exert only a modest effect on plasma volume or on circulating natriuretic peptides . . . Three lines of clinical evidence support the hypothesis that SGLT2 inhibitors exert their effects by the activation of low-energy sensors, which are responsible for mimicking a fasting transcriptional paradigm. First, SGLT2 inhibitors induce a loss of calories in the urine, and glycosuria is accompanied by a decrease of glucagon synthesis (often with the promotion of glycolysis), increased fatty acid oxidation, and the shrinkage of adipose tissue depots, including the alleviation of organ steatosis. Viewed from this perspective, the ketonemia seen with these drugs is not the source of an efficient fuel but instead is a biomarker of a fasting-like transcriptional state. Second, SGLT2 inhibitors may not only deceive cells into believing that they are fasting but also that they are hypoxic. Oxygen deprivation (like nutrient deprivation) stimulates AMPK and SIRT1. The latter activates hypoxia-inducible factor-2α (HIF-2α) and possibly also hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) under certain conditions; these represent the principal stimuli for erythropoietin synthesis. Thus, the erythrocytosis that is seen with SGLT2 inhibitors may represent a biomarker for enhanced SIRT1 signaling and its organ-protective effects. Such a relationship may explain why, in statistical mediation analyses, erythrocytosis has been the most powerful predictor of the action of SGLT2 inhibitors to reduce heart failure events in large-scale trials. Third, metformin also stimulates autophagy, primarily by activating AMPK and SIRT1 and suppressing Akt/mTOR. Metformin exerts both cardioprotective and renoprotective effects in experimental models, and it favorably influences the evolution of heart failure and nephropathy in cohort studies. The overlap in the mechanism of action between metformin and SGLT2 inhibitors (with respect to AMPK/SIRT1 activation and autophagy) may explain why the magnitude of the benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in large-scale trials may be attenuated in patients receiving metformin. However, metformin suppresses HIF-1α, thus distinguishing its action from that of SGLT2 inhibitors; this effect may explain why metformin modestly decreases hematocrit, whereas SGLT2 inhibitors induce erythrocytosis. However, since both HIF-1α and HIF-2α appear to induce autophagy in a manner than is independent of AMPK, it is possible that enhanced HIF-1α/HIF-2α signaling by SGLT2 inhibitors may amplify the autophagic flux that is already augmented by AMPK/SIRT1, thereby contributing importantly to the striking cardiorenal benefits of these drugs, which are not seen with other glucose-lowering agents. (Excerpts from text, p. 508, 510; no abstract available.)