Evidence Hub

Empagliflozin inhibits proximal tubule NHE3 activity, preserves GFR and restores euvolemia in nondiabetic rats with induced heart failure

Flávio A. Borges-Júnior, Danúbia Silva dos Santos, Acaris Benetti, Renato O. Crajoinas, Ednei L. Antonio, Leonardo Jensen, Bruno Caramelli, Gerhard Malnic et al.

bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), 2020

2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors reduce the risk of heart failure (HF) mortality and morbidity, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes, but the mechanisms underlying this benefit remain unclear. We tested the hypothesis that the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin inhibits proximal tubule (PT) Na + /H + exchanger isoform 3 (NHE3) activity and improves renal salt and water handling in nondiabetic rats with HF. Methods and Results Male Wistar rats were subjected to myocardial infarction or sham operation. After four weeks, rats that developed HF and sham rats were treated with empagliflozin (EMPA) or untreated for an additional four weeks. EMPA-treated HF rats displayed lower levels of serum brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and lower right ventricle and lung weight to tibia length than untreated HF rats. Upon saline challenge, the diuretic and natriuretic responses of EMPA-treated HF rats were similar to those of sham rats and were higher than those of untreated HF rats. Additionally, EMPA treatment normalized the glomerular filtration rate and proteinuria in HF rats. PT NHE3 activity was higher in HF rats than in sham rats, whereas treatment with EMPA markedly reduced NHE3 activity. Unexpectedly, SGLT2 function and protein and mRNA abundance were upregulated in the PT of HF rats. Conclusion Collectively, our data show that the prevention of HF progression by empagliflozin is associated with inhibition of PT NHE3 activity and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a preprint, done in animal, 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