Search

People with diabetes compared with people without exhibit worse prognosis if affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) induced by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), particularly when compromising metabolic control and concomitant cardiovascular disorders are present. This Perspective seeks to explore newly occurring cardio-renal-pulmonary organ damage induced or aggravated by the disease process of COVID-19 and its implications for the cardiovascular risk management of people with diabetes, especially taking into account potential interactions with mechanisms of cellular intrusion of SARS-CoV-2. Severe infection with SARS-CoV-2 can precipitate myocardial infarction, myocarditis, heart failure, and arrhythmias as well as an acute respiratory distress syndrome and renal failure. They may evolve along with multiorgan failure directly due to SARS-CoV-2-infected endothelial cells and resulting endotheliitis. This complex pathology may bear challenges for the use of most diabetes medications in terms of emerging contraindications that need close monitoring of all people with diabetes diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Whenever possible, continuous glucose monitoring should be implemented to ensure stable metabolic compensation. Patients in the intensive care unit requiring therapy for glycemic control should be handled solely by intravenous insulin using exact dosing with a perfusion device. Although not only ACE inhibitors and angiotensin 2 receptor blockers but also SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, pioglitazone, and probably insulin seem to increase the number of ACE2 receptors on the cells utilized by SARS-CoV-2 for penetration, no evidence presently exists that shows this might be harmful in terms of acquiring or worsening COVID-19. In conclusion, COVID-19 and related cardio-renal-pulmonary damage can profoundly affect cardiovascular risk management of people with diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We sought to confirm a bidirectional association between severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) and cardiovascular (CV) event risk and to characterize individuals at dual risk.Research Design and Methods: In a post hoc analysis of 14,752 Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) participants, we examined time-dependent associations between SHEs and subsequent major adverse cardiac events (CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction [MI] or stroke), fatal/nonfatal MI, fatal/nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (hACS), hospitalization for heart failure (hHF), and all-cause mortality (ACM), as well as time-dependent associations between nonfatal CV events and subsequent SHEs.Results: SHEs were uncommon and not associated with once-weekly exenatide therapy (hazard ratio 1.13 [95% CI 0.94-1.36], P = 0.179). In fully adjusted models, SHEs were associated with an increased risk of subsequent ACM (1.83 [1.38-2.42], P < 0.001), CV death (1.60 [1.11-2.30], P = 0.012), and hHF (2.09 [1.37-3.17], P = 0.001), while nonfatal MI (2.02 [1.35-3.01], P = 0.001), nonfatal stroke (2.30 [1.25-4.23], P = 0.007), hACS (2.00 [1.39-2.90], P < 0.001), and hHF (3.24 [1.98-5.30], P < 0.001) were all associated with a subsequent increased risk of SHEs. The elevated bidirectional time-dependent hazards linking SHEs and a composite of all CV events were approximately constant over time, with those individuals at dual risk showing higher comorbidity scores compared with those without.Conclusions: These findings, showing greater risk of SHEs after CV events as well as greater risk of CV events after SHEs, validate a bidirectional relationship between CV events and SHEs in patients with high comorbidity scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) in type 2 diabetes are associated with subsequent cardiovascular (CV) event risk. We examined whether CV events were associated with subsequent SHE risk.Research Design and Methods: Time-dependent associations between SHEs and a composite CV end point (fatal/nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure [hHF]) were examined post hoc in 14,671 TECOS (Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin) participants with type 2 diabetes and CV disease followed for a median of 3.0 years.Results: SHEs were uncommon and unassociated with sitagliptin therapy (N = 160 [2.2%], 0.78/100 patient-years vs. N = 143 [1.9%], 0.70/100 patient-years for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.12 [95% CI 0.89, 1.40], P = 0.33). Patients with (versus without) SHEs were older with longer diabetes duration, lower body weight, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate; were more frequently women, nonwhite, and insulin treated; and more often had microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria. Analyses adjusted for clinical factors showed SHEs were associated with increased risk of the primary composite CV end point (1.55 [1.06, 2.28], P = 0.025), all-cause death (1.83 [1.22, 2.75], P = 0.004), and CV death (1.72 [1.02, 2.87], P = 0.040). Conversely, nonfatal myocardial infarction (3.02 [1.83, 4.96], P < 0.001), nonfatal stroke (2.77 [1.36, 5.63], P = 0.005), and hHF (3.68 [2.13, 6.36], P < 0.001) were associated with increased risk of SHEs. Fully adjusted models showed no association between SHEs and subsequent CV or hHF events, but the association between CV events and subsequent SHEs remained robust.Conclusions: These findings, showing greater risk of SHEs after CV events and greater risk of CV events after SHEs, suggest a common at-risk type 2 diabetes frail patient phenotype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We evaluated the specific causes of death and their associated risk factors in a contemporary cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).Research Design and Methods: We used data from the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) study (n = 14,671), a cardiovascular (CV) safety trial adding sitagliptin versus placebo to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes and ASCVD (median follow-up 3 years). An independent committee blinded to treatment assignment adjudicated each cause of death. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify risk factors associated with each outcome.Results: A total of 1,084 deaths were adjudicated as the following: 530 CV (1.2/100 patient-years [PY], 49% of deaths), 338 non-CV (0.77/100 PY, 31% of deaths), and 216 unknown (0.49/100 PY, 20% of deaths). The most common CV death was sudden death (n = 145, 27% of CV death) followed by acute myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke (n = 113 [MI n = 48, stroke n = 65], 21% of CV death) and heart failure (HF) (n = 63, 12% of CV death). The most common non-CV death was malignancy (n = 154, 46% of non-CV death). The risk of specific CV death subcategories was lower among patients with no baseline history of HF, including sudden death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.4; P = 0.0036), MI/stroke death (HR 0.47; P = 0.049), and HF death (HR 0.29; P = 0.0057).Conclusions: In this analysis of a contemporary cohort of patients with diabetes and ASCVD, sudden death was the most common subcategory of CV death. HF prevention may represent an avenue to reduce the risk of specific CV death subcategories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Limited data exist regarding safety and efficacy of antihyperglycemic drugs in older patients with type 2 diabetes. The Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the impact of sitagliptin on a primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unstable angina hospitalizations in patients with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c ≥6.5% [48 mmol/mol] and ≤8.0% [64 mmol/mol]) and cardiovascular disease. We analyzed baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes for TECOS participants aged ≥75 years.Research Design and Methods: Clinical and safety event summaries are presented for older versus younger participants and for the treatment groups within the older cohort.Results: Of 14,351 participants with age recorded, 2,004 (14%) were ≥75 years old (mean age 78.3 years [SD 3.1]), with 68% men and type 2 diabetes duration median 12.0 years (IQR 7, 21). During 2.9 years median follow-up, older participants had higher rates of the primary outcome (6.46 vs. 3.67 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio 1.72 [95% CI 1.52-1.94]), death (2.52 [2.20-2.89]), severe hypoglycemia (1.53 [1.15-2.03]), and fractures (1.84 [1.44-2.35]). In the older cohort, sitagliptin did not significantly impact the primary composite (1.10 [0.89-1.36]), death (1.05 [0.83-1.32]), heart failure hospitalization (0.99 [0.65-1.49]), severe hypoglycemia (1.03 [0.62-1.71]), rates of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer, or serious adverse events.Conclusions: Among older patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, sitagliptin had neutral effects on cardiovascular risk and raised no significant safety concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although insulin introduced nearly a century ago has saved the lives of countless people with diabetes, improvements of this therapy continue as significant unmet needs remain (1-4). Even persons with type 2 diabetes who, compared with those with type 1 diabetes, exhibit a much more stable, yet disordered, metabolic milieu only achieve an intended HbA1c target of 7% or lower without hypoglycemic events in a minority of cases (1,3,4). Hypoglycemia and weight gain represent the most important obstacles to achieving the desired glycemic control with insulin therapy, despite major advances in education and empowerment of people with diabetes, the introduction of self-monitoring of blood glucose, improvement in the technical application of insulin, and the availability of a wide array of insulin preparations including insulin analogs (1-4). Intermediate and long-acting basal insulins represent the cornerstone of any insulin therapy regimen, and human NPH insulin, insulin glargine, and insulin detemir are currently the most widely used members of this class of insulin preparations. Discernable progress has been observed with improved day-to-day variability and a lowering in the risk of hypoglycemia with the introduction of the soluble long-acting preparations insulin glargine and insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin, which requires appropriate resuspension prior to administration to reduce variability (5). Against the background of the aforementioned unmet needs, however, a new generation of long-acting basal insulins has emerged aiming at new standards in terms of pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety (Fig. 1). Modern drug development occurs in an era of increasingly strict regulations by global institutions such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) that rightly demand enhanced safety checks of new chemical entities for clinical use such as the new long-acting insulin analogs (6-8). Expensive clinical safety studies are, therefore, required, and cost has thereby become a major issue. This has direct impact on the prescribing of insulins in the emerging economies around the world and even in some developed countries where the cost of NPH insulin has increased. Furthermore, sales of one of the new-generation long-acting insulins, i.e., insulin degludec, have recently been halted by the manufacturer in a country like Germany, as no agreement could be reached with the German authorities over appropriate pricing. Hence, this article seeks to evaluate whether the clinical benefits of the new long-acting insulins indeed justify the cost. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reviews the study by Davis et al that investigated the relationship between severe hypoglycemic events (SHE) and subsequent risk of cardiovascular (CV) events or deaths observed in the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT). They claim that by not acknowledging an earlier study that investigated SHE before and after cardiovascular outcome, the present study missed the opportunity to potentially confirm the intriguing reverse scenario between non-fatal CV and subsequent risk of SHE.