Cited by 83Heart Failure Treatment and ManagementCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Prevalence of Prediabetes and Undiagnosed Diabetes in Patients with HFpEF and HFrEF and Associated Clinical Outcomes

Open access
CHARM Investigators and Committees, Kristensen, Søren L., Jhund, Pardeep S., Lee, Matthew M. Y., Køber, Lars, Solomon, Scott D., Granger, Christopher B., Yusuf, Salim +3 more·2017·Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy

Abstract

PURPOSE: The prevalence and consequences of prediabetic dysglycemia and undiagnosed diabetes is unknown in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and has not been compared to heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: We examined the prevalence and outcomes associated with normoglycemia, prediabetic dysglycemia and diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed) among individuals with a baseline glycated hemoglobin (hemoglobin A1c, HbA1c) measurement stratified by HFrEF or HFpEF in the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity programme (CHARM). We studied the primary outcome of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular (CV) death, and all-cause death, and estimated hazard ratios (HR) by use of multivariable Cox regression models. RESULTS: HbA1c was measured at baseline in CHARM patients enrolled in the USA and Canada and was available in 1072/3023 (35%) of patients with HFpEF and 1578/4576 (34%) patients with HFrEF. 18 and 16% had normoglycemia (HbA1c < 6.0), 20 and 22% had prediabetes (HbA1c 6.0-6.4), respectively. Finally among patients with HFpEF 22% had undiagnosed diabetes (HbA1c > 6.4), and 40% had known diabetes (any HbA1c), with corresponding prevalence among HFrEF patients being 26 and 35%. The rates of both clinical outcomes of interest were higher in patients with undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes, compared to normoglycemic patients, irrespective of HF subtype, and in general higher among HFrEF patients. For the primary composite outcome among HFpEF patients, the HRs were 1.02 (95% CI 0.63-1.65) for prediabetes, HR 1.18 (0.75-1.86) for undiagnosed diabetes and 2.75 (1.83-4.11) for known diabetes, respectively, p value for trend across groups < 0.001. Dysglycemia was also associated with worse outcomes in HFrEF. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the remarkably high prevalence of dysglycemia in heart failure irrespective of ejection fraction phenotype, and demonstrate that dysglycemia is associated with a higher risk of adverse clinical outcomes, even before the diagnosis of diabetes and institution of glucose lowering therapy in patients with HFpEF as well as HFrEF.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10557-017-6754-x

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
CHARM Investigators and Committees, Kristensen, S. L., Jhund, P. S., Lee, M. M. Y., Køber, L., Solomon, S. D., Granger, C. B., Yusuf, S., Pfeffer, M. A., Swedberg, K., & McMurray, J. J. V.
Affiliations
  • Rigshospitalet (DK)
  • British Heart Foundation (GB)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Population Health Research Institute (CA)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
McMurray, John J. V.
Venue
Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy
Published
2017-09-25
Volume
31
Issue
5-6
Pages
545-549
ISSN
  • 0920-3206 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7241
OpenAlex
W2758676322
Cited by
83
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8
FWCI
5.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cardiovascular Drugs and Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
AstraZeneca
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
prediabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HbA1c, dysglycemia, diabetes prevalence, heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, CHARM trial, candesartan, renin-angiotensin system blockade
MeSH terms
Aged, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Heart Failure, Glycated Hemoglobin, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prediabetic State, Stroke Volume, Comorbidity, Prevalence, Multivariate Analysis, Proportional Hazards Models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review