Evidence Hub

Empagliflozin targets a renal neuro-epithelial-immune axis in heart failure

Jennifer Nogueira-Coelho, Livia C. Simonete, J. Ribeiro-Silva, Érika F. Jesus, Andreia Boaro, Flavia L. Martins, Jose W N Correa, L. Ferreira-Santos et al.

American Journal of Physiology - Cell Physiology, 2026

1 citation

Abstract

ABSTRACT:

Background: Persistent neurohormonal activation is a key driver of maladaptive remodeling and disease progression in heart failure (HF). Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) confer robust renoprotective effects in HF; however, the extent to which these benefits involve modulation of renal neurohormonal activity remains unclear. We hypothesized that SGLT2i-mediated renoprotection in HF is associated with attenuation of excessive renal neurohormonal activation.

Methods: Male rats with myocardial infarction-induced HF and sham controls were fed standard chow or chow containing empagliflozin (EMPA, 300 mg/kg) for four weeks, followed by assessment of renal inflammatory and neurohormonal markers. Parallel in vitro studies in THP-1 macrophages and HK-2 proximal tubule cells evaluated the direct effects of EMPA on norepinephrine (NE)-dependent tubular inflammatory signaling.

Results: HF rats displayed higher renal cortical renin gene expression and angiotensin II concentrations, which remained unaffected by EMPA. Conversely, EMPA normalized the elevated urinary NE excretion and renal cortical NE content observed in HF rats. Given the inflammatory role of sympathetic hyperactivity, we assessed renal macrophage polarization. EMPA-treated HF rats showed reduced expression of pro-inflammatory markers ( Tnf, Ccr2, Nos2, Il-6 ) and increased expression of markers associated with a reparative macrophage profile ( Arg1, Mrc1, CD163 ), supported by higher CD206⁺…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a preprint, done in cell cultures (in vitro), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free