Search

Drugs that inhibit the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) have been shown to reduce the risk of hospitalizations for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes. In populations that largely did not have heart failure at the time of enrolment, empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin decreased the risk of serious new-onset heart failure events by ≈30%. In addition, in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, empagliflozin reduced the risk of both pump failure and sudden deaths, the two most common modes of death among patients with heart failure. In none of the three trials could the benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure be explained by the actions of these drugs as diuretics or anti-hyperglycaemic agents. These observations raise the possibility that SGLT2 inhibitors could reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with established heart failure, including those without diabetes. The EMPEROR-Reduced trial is enrolling ≈3600 patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤ 40%), half of whom are expected not to have diabetes. Patients are being randomized to placebo or empagliflozin 10 mg daily, which is added to all appropriate treatment with inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system and neprilysin, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The primary endpoint is the time-to-first event analysis of the combined risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial will also evaluate the effects of empagliflozin on renal function, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and recurrent hospitalization events. By adjusting eligibility based on natriuretic peptide levels to the baseline ejection fraction, the trial will preferentially enrol high-risk patients. A large proportion of the participants is expected to have an ejection fraction

Aims To compare glucose control over 18 months between rosiglitazone oral combination therapy and combination metformin and sulphonylurea in people with Type 2 diabetes. Methods RECORD, a multicentre, parallel-group study of cardiovascular outcomes, enrolled people with an HbA1c of 7.1–9.0% on maximum doses of metformin or sulphonylurea. If on metformin they were randomized to add-on rosiglitazone or sulphonylurea (open label) and if on sulphonylurea to rosiglitazone or metformin. HbA1c was managed to ≤ 7.0% by dose titration. A prospectively defined analysis of glycaemic control on the first 1122 participants is reported here, with a primary outcome assessed against a non-inferiority margin for HbA1c of 0.4%. Results At 18 months, HbA1c reduction on background metformin was similar with rosiglitazone and sulphonylurea [difference 0.07 (95% CI −0.09, 0.23)%], as was the change when rosiglitazone or metformin was added to sulphonylurea [0.06 (−0.09, 0.20)%]. At 6 months, the effect on HbA1c was greater with add-on sulphonylurea, but was similar whether sulphonylurea was added to rosiglitazone or metformin. Differences in fasting plasma glucose were not statistically significant at 18 months [rosiglitazone vs. sulphonylurea −0.36 (−0.74, 0.02) mmol/l, rosiglitazone vs. metformin −0.34 (−0.73, 0.05) mmol/l]. Increased homeostasis model assessment insulin sensitivity and reduced C-reactive protein were greater with rosiglitazone than metformin or sulphonylurea (all P ≤ 0.001). Body weight was significantly increased with rosiglitazone compared with sulphonylurea [difference 1.2 (0.4, 2.0) kg, P = 0.003] and metformin [difference 4.3 (3.6, 5.1) kg, P < 0.001]. Conclusions In people with diabetes, rosiglitazone in combination with metformin or sulphonylurea was demonstrated to be non-inferior to the standard combination of metformin + sulphonylurea in lowering HbA1c over 18 months, and produces greater improvements in C-reactive protein and basal insulin sensitivity but is also associated with greater weight gain.

Udgivelsesdato: 2007-Jun AIMS: To compare glucose control over 18 months between rosiglitazone oral combination therapy and combination metformin and sulphonylurea in people with Type 2 diabetes. METHODS: RECORD, a multicentre, parallel-group study of cardiovascular outcomes, enrolled people with an HbA(1c) of 7.1-9.0% on maximum doses of metformin or sulphonylurea. If on metformin they were randomized to add-on rosiglitazone or sulphonylurea (open label) and if on sulphonylurea to rosiglitazone or metformin. HbA(1c) was managed to < or = 7.0% by dose titration. A prospectively defined analysis of glycaemic control on the first 1122 participants is reported here, with a primary outcome assessed against a non-inferiority margin for HbA(1c) of 0.4%. RESULTS: At 18 months, HbA(1c) reduction on background metformin was similar with rosiglitazone and sulphonylurea [difference 0.07 (95% CI -0.09, 0.23)%], as was the change when rosiglitazone or metformin was added to sulphonylurea [0.06 (-0.09, 0.20)%]. At 6 months, the effect on HbA(1c) was greater with add-on sulphonylurea, but was similar whether sulphonylurea was added to rosiglitazone or metformin. Differences in fasting plasma glucose were not statistically significant at 18 months [rosiglitazone vs. sulphonylurea -0.36 (-0.74, 0.02) mmol/l, rosiglitazone vs. metformin -0.34 (-0.73, 0.05) mmol/l]. Increased homeostasis model assessment insulin sensitivity and reduced C-reactive protein were greater with rosiglitazone than metformin or sulphonylurea (all P < or = 0.001). Body weight was significantly increased with rosiglitazone compared with sulphonylurea [difference 1.2 (0.4, 2.0) kg, P = 0.003] and metformin [difference 4.3 (3.6, 5.1) kg, P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: In people with diabetes, rosiglitazone in combination with metformin or sulphonylurea was demonstrated to be non-inferior to the standard combination of metformin + sulphonylurea in lowering HbA(1c) over 18 months, and produces greater improvements in C-reactive protein and basal insulin sensitivity but is also associated with greater weight gain

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research., In this explanatory and elaboration document Mattias Egger and colleagues provide the meaning and rationale of each checklist item on the STROBE Statement.

OBJECTIVES: To address issues about data monitoring committees (DMCs) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Handsearching of selected books. Personal contacts with experts in the field. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic literature reviews of DMCs and small group processes in decision-making; sample surveys of: reports of RCTs, recently completed and ongoing RCTs and policies of major organisations involved in RCTs; case studies of four DMCs; and interviews with experienced DMC members. All focused on 23 prestated questions. RESULTS: Although still a minority, RCTs increasingly have DMCs. There is wide agreement that nearly all trials need some form of data monitoring. Central to the role of the DMC is monitoring accumulating evidence related to benefit and toxicity; variation in emphasis has been reflected in the plethora of names. DMCs for trials performed for regulatory purposes should be aware of any special requirements and regulatory consequences. Advantages were identified for both larger and smaller DMCs. There is general agreement that a DMC should be independent and multidisciplinary. Consumer and ethicist membership is controversial. The chair is recognised as being particularly influential, and likely to be most effective if he or she is experienced, understands both statistical and clinical issues, and is facilitating in style and impartial. There is no evidence available to judge suggested approaches to training. The review suggested that costs should be covered, but other rewards must be so minimal as to not affect decision-making. It is usual to have a minimum frequency of DMC meetings, with evidence that face-to-face meetings are preferable. It is common to have open sessions and a closed session. A report to a DMC should cover benefits and risks in a balanced way, summarised in an accessible style, avoiding excessive detail, and be as current as possible. Disadvantages of blinded analyses seem to outweigh advantages. Information about comparable studies should be included, although interaction with the DMCs of similar ongoing trials is controversial. A range of formal statistical approaches can be used, although this is only one of a number of considerations. DMCs usually reach decisions by consensus, but other approaches are sometimes used. The general, but not unanimous, view is that DMCs should be advisory rather than executive on the basis that it is the trial organisers who are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Some form of data monitoring should be considered for all RCTs, with reasons given where there is no DMC or when any member is not independent. An early DMC meeting is helpful, determining roles and responsibilities; planned operations can be agreed with investigators and sponsors/funders. A template for a DMC charter is suggested. Competing interests should be declared. DMC size (commonly three to eight people) is chosen to optimise performance. Members are usually independent and drawn from appropriate backgrounds, and some, particularly the chair, are experienced. A minimum frequency of meetings is usually agreed, with flexibility for more if needed. The DMC should understand and agree the statistical approach (and guidelines) chosen, with both the DMC statistician and analysis statistician competent to apply the method. A DMC's primary purpose is to ensure that continuing a trial according to its protocol is ethical, taking account of both individual and collective ethics. A broader remit in respect of wider ethical issues is controversial; arguably, these are primarily the responsibility of research ethics committees, trial steering committees and investigators. The DMC should know the range of recommendations or decisions open to it, in advance. A record should be kept describing the key issues discussed and the rationale for decisions taken. Errors are likely to be reduced if a DMC makes a thorough review of the evidence and has a clear understanding of how it should function, there is active participation by all members, differences are resolved through discussion and there is systematic consideration of the various decision options. DMCs should be encouraged to comment on draft final trial reports. These should include information about the data monitoring process and detail the DMC membership. It is recommended that groups responsible for data monitoring be given the standard name 'Data Monitoring Committee' (DMC). Areas for further research include: widening DMC membership beyond clinicians, trialists and statisticians; initiatives to train DMC members; methods of DMC decision-making; 'open' data monitoring; DMCs covering a portfolio of trials rather than single trials; DMC size and membership, incorporating issues of group dynamics; empirical study of the workings of DMCs and their decision-making, and which trials should or should not have a DMC.