Search

Hypoglycaemia is common in patients with type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes and constitutes a major limiting factor in achieving glycaemic control among people with diabetes. While hypoglycaemia is defined as a blood glucose level under 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L), symptoms may occur at higher blood glucose levels in individuals with poor glycaemic control. Severe hypoglycaemia is defined as an episode requiring the assistance of another person to actively administer carbohydrate, glucagon, or take other corrective actions to assure neurologic recovery. Hypoglycaemia is the most important safety outcome in clinical studies of glucose lowering agents. The American Diabetes Association Standards of Medical Care recommends that a management protocol for hypoglycaemia should be designed and implemented by every hospital, along with a clear prevention and treatment plan. A tailored approach, using clinical and pathophysiologic disease stratification, can help individualize glycaemic goals and promote new therapies to improve quality of life of patients. Data from recent large clinical trials reported low risk of hypoglycaemic events with the use of newer anti-diabetic drugs. Increased hypoglycaemia risk is observed with the use of insulin and/or sulphonylureas. Vulnerable patients with T2D at dual risk of severe hypoglycaemia and cardiovascular outcomes show features of "frailty." Many of such patients may be better treated by the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors rather than insulin. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) should be considered for all individuals with increased risk for hypoglycaemia, impaired hypoglycaemia awareness, frequent nocturnal hypoglycaemia and with history of severe hypoglycaemia. Patients with impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia benefit from real-time CGM. The diabetes educator is an invaluable resource and can devote the time needed to thoroughly educate the individual to reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia and integrate the information within the entire construct of diabetes self-management. Conversations about hypoglycaemia facilitated by a healthcare professional may reduce the burden and fear of hypoglycaemia among patients with diabetes and their family members. Optimizing insulin doses and carbohydrate intake, in addition to a short warm up before or after the physical activity sessions may help avoiding hypoglycaemia. Several therapeutic considerations are important to reduce hypoglycaemia risk during pregnancy including administration of rapid-acting insulin analogues rather than human insulin, pre-conception initiation of insulin analogues, and immediate postpartum insulin dose reduction., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Data regarding the effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in the elderly (age ≥65 years) and very elderly (age ≥75 years) are limited., Research Design and Methods: The Dapagliflozin Effect on Cardiovascular Events (DECLARE)-TIMI 58 assessed cardiac and renal outcomes of dapagliflozin versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. Efficacy and safety outcomes were studied within age subgroups for treatment effect and age-based treatment interaction., Results: Of the 17,160 patients, 9,253 were <65 years of age, 6,811 ≥65 to <75 years, and 1,096 ≥75 years. Dapagliflozin reduced the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure consistently, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 (95% CI 0.72, 1.07), 0.77 (0.63, 0.94), and 0.94 (0.65, 1.36) in age-groups <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years, respectively (interaction P value 0.5277). Overall, dapagliflozin did not significantly decrease the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, with HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.81, 1.08), 0.97 (0.83, 1.13), and 0.84 (0.61, 1.15) in age-groups <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years, respectively (interaction P value 0.7352). The relative risk reduction for the secondary prespecified cardiorenal composite outcome ranged from 18% to 28% in the different age-groups with no heterogeneity. Major hypoglycemia was less frequent with dapagliflozin versus placebo, with HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.58, 1.64), 0.50 (0.29, 0.84), and 0.68 (0.29, 1.57) in age-groups <65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 years, respectively (interaction P value 0.2107). Safety outcomes, including fractures, volume depletion, cancer, urinary tract infections, and amputations were balanced with dapagliflozin versus placebo, and acute kidney injury was reduced, all regardless of age. Genital infections that were serious or led to discontinuation of the study drug and diabetic ketoacidosis were uncommon, yet more frequent with dapagliflozin versus placebo, without heterogeneity (interaction P values 0.1058 and 0.8433, respectively)., Conclusions: The overall efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin are consistent regardless of age., (© 2019 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: Metformin is first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus, although its effects on the cardiovascular system are unproved., Methods: In this post hoc analysis, patients in SAVOR-TIMI 53 (Saxagliptin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) with baseline biomarker samples (n=12 156) were classified as ever versus never taking metformin during the trial period. Associations between metformin exposure and outcomes were estimated with inverse probability of treatment weighting Cox modeling for the composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke, as well as cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality, with biomarkers included as covariates. Additional sensitivity analyses included propensity score matching and Cox multivariable models., Results: Of the 12 156 patients with baseline biomarker samples, 8971 (74%) had metformin exposure, 1611 (13%) had prior heart failure, and 1332 (11%) had at least moderate chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤45 mL·min -1 ·1.73 m -2 ). Metformin use was associated with no difference in risk for the composite end point (hazard ratio for inverse probability of treatment weighting, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.76-1.11]) but lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio for inverse probability of treatment weighting, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.59-0.95]). There was no significant relationship between metformin use and these end points in patients with prior heart failure or moderate to severe chronic kidney disease., Conclusions: In a cohort of 12 156 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk, metformin use was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality, including after adjustment for clinical variables and biomarkers, but not lower rates of the composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. This association was most apparent in patients without prior heart failure or moderate to severe chronic kidney disease., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01107886.

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have emerged as 2 new classes of antihyperglycemic agents that also reduce cardiovascular risk. The relative benefits in patients with and without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease for different outcomes with these classes of drugs remain undefined., Methods: We performed a systematic review and trial-level meta-analysis of GLP1-RA and SGLT2i cardiovascular outcomes trials using the PubMed and EMBASE databases (Excerpta Medica Database). The primary outcomes were the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death (MACE); hospitalization for heart failure; and progression of kidney disease., Results: In total, data from 8 trials and 77 242 patients, 42 920 (55.6%) in GLP1-RA trials, and 34 322 (44.4%) in SGLT2i trials, were included. Both drug classes reduced MACE in a similar magnitude with GLP1-RA reducing the risk by 12% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94; P<0.001) and SGLT2i by 11% (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96; P=0.001). For both drug classes, this treatment effect was restricted to a 14% reduction in those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93; P=0.002), whereas no effect was seen in patients without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.87-1.19; P=0.81; P interaction, 0.028). SGLT2i reduced hospitalization for heart failure by 31% (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61-0.79; P<0.001), whereas GLP1-RA did not have a significant effect (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.04; P=0.20). Both GLP1-RA (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.89; P<0.001) and SGLT2i (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.67; P<0.001) reduced the risk of progression of kidney disease including macroalbuminuria, but only SGLT2i reduced the risk of worsening estimated glomerular filtration rate, end-stage kidney disease, or renal death (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64; P<0.001)., Conclusions: In trials reported to date, GLP1-RA and SGLT2i reduce atherosclerotic MACE to a similar degree in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, whereas SGLT2i have a more marked effect on preventing hospitalization for heart failure and progression of kidney disease. Their distinct clinical benefit profiles should be considered in the decision-making process when treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical implications of calculating an individualized HbA 1c target using a recently published algorithm in a real-life clinical setting., Methods: General practitioners (GPs) from the Spanish Society of Family Medicine Diabetes Expert Group were invited to participate in the study. Each GP selected a random sample of patients with diabetes from his or her practice and submitted their demographic and clinical data for analysis. Individualized glycaemic targets were calculated according to the algorithm. Predictors of good glycaemic control were studied. The rate of patients attaining their individualized glycaemic target or the uniform target of HbA 1c  < 7.0% was calculated., Results: Forty GPs included 408 patients in the study. Of the 8 parameters included in the algorithm, "comorbidities," "risk of hypoglycaemia from treatment," and "diabetes duration" had the greatest impact on determining the individualized glycaemic target. Number of glucose-lowering agents and adherence were independently associated with glycaemic control. Overall, 60.5% of patients had good glycaemic control per individualized target, and 56.1% were well controlled per the uniform target of HbA 1c  < 7.0% (P = .20). However, 12.8% (23 of 246) of the patients with HbA 1c  ≥ 7.0% were adequately controlled per individualized target, and 2.6% (6 of 162) of the patients with HbA 1c  < 7.0% were uncontrolled since their individualized target was lower., Conclusions: In a real-life clinical setting, applying individualized targets did not change the overall rate of patients with good glycaemic control yet led to reclassification of 7.1% (29 of 408) of the patients. More studies are needed to validate these results in different populations., (Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Many patients with type 2 diabetes fail to achieve adequate glucose control despite escalation of treatment and combinations of multiple therapies including insulin. Patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes often suffer from the combination of severe insulin deficiency in addition to insulin resistance, thereby requiring high doses of insulin delivered in multiple injections to attain adequate glycemic control. Insulin-pump therapy was first introduced in the 1970s as an approach to mimic physiological insulin delivery and attain normal glucose in patients with type 1 diabetes. The recent years have seen an increase in the use of this technology for patients with type 2 diabetes. This article summarizes the clinical studies evaluating insulin pump use in patients with type 2 diabetes and discusses the benefits and shortcomings of pump therapy in this population. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Introduction: DPP-4 inhibitors are a class of compounds used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The drugs inhibit the degradation of GLP-1, thus amplifying the incretin effect. They have moderate glycemic efficacy, a low propensity of causing hypoglycaemia and are weight neutral. The drugs are often used as second line therapy after metformin. Areas covered: This review summarizes the available compounds in the market and discusses the novel compounds that are currently under development. Several large cardiovascular outcome trials with some of the compounds have been completed, and their results and implications are considered. Fixed dose combination pills are currently the main focus of research and the contribution of these to the care of patients with diabetes is further discussed. Expert opinion: The DPP-4 inhibitors have been a successful class in drug development for diabetes. Taken orally and available as fixed dose combinations with metformin or with SGLT-2 inhibitors, they have reached a large market share of over 7 billion dollars. Other than retagliptin, it does not appear that any additional compound will be launched soon. Currently, the main focus is on the development of additional fixed dose combinations with SGLT-2 inhibitors, but the success of these combinations remains to be seen.

Background: Currently available short-acting insulin analogs have slower absorption compared with endogenous insulin occasionally resulting in immediate postprandial hyperglycemia. Intradermal (ID) injection facilitates faster drug absorption and may result in improved insulin pharmacokinetics., Methods: Seventeen patients with type 2 diabetes were included in this single-center, pilot, open-label crossover study. Patients received 0.2 U/kg Insulin aspart ID injections using a MicronJet (MJ) needle and subcutaneous (SC) injections, using a conventional needle in a crossover design. Thirteen patients were studied under fasting conditions and four before a standard meal test. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profile, as well as the safety and tolerability of injections, was compared., Results: Fourteen patients completed the study per-protocol. ID versus SC injection demonstrated significantly shorter Tmax (median 35 vs. 87.5 min [P < 0.001]), while the Cmax did not significantly differ (median 80 vs. 55 μU/mL [P = 0.085]). Median insulin area under the curve (AUC; 360 min) did not differ between the groups (9914 vs. 10,936 μU/mL/min [p = 0.077]), yet 0-60 min insulin AUC was higher with ID versus SC injection (mean ± SD 3821 ± 1429 vs. 2534 ± 737 μU/mL/min [p = 0.01]) and 4-6 h AUC was lower with ID versus SC injection (mean ± SD 2054 ± 858 vs. 2929 ± 1412 μU/mL/min [p = 0.02]). The relative bioavailability of the ID versus the SC insulin (AUCID/AUCSC) was similar (median 0.91 [95% confidence interval 0.73-1.27])., Conclusions: ID insulin injection delivered through an MJ needle demonstrated superior PK profile compared with conventional SC administration, including shorter Tmax and higher early and lower late exposure in patients with type 2 diabetes. This may help achieve better insulin coverage of meals and lower postprandial glucose excursions., Competing Interests: Statement I.R. reports the following: Advisory Board: AstraZeneca/Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Medscape LLC, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Novo Nordisk, Inc., Sanofi, Orgenesis, SmartZyme Innovation Ltd, and Labstyle Innovations Ltd; Consultant: AstraZeneca/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Insuline Medical, Gili Medical, Kamada Ltd., and FuturRx Ltd.; Speaker's Bureau: AstraZeneca/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Novartis Pharma AG, Novo Nordisk, Inc., Sanofi, and Teva; Stock/Shareholder: Insuline Medical, Labstyle Innovations SmartZyme Innovation Ltd., Orgenesis, and Glucome Ltd. A.C. reports receipt of consulting fees and payment for lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Elli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. E.K. and Y.L. are employed by NanoPass Technologies.

Type 2 diabetes is a progressive disorder characterized by increasing hyperglycemia and the need to gradually intensify therapy in order to achieve and maintain glycemic control. Early initiation of combination therapy has been proposed as an approach to achieve glycemic goals earlier and delay the deterioration of glycemic control and with possible better preservation of β-cell function. We discuss in this article the pros and cons of this approach, focusing on individuals with HbA1c at diagnosis of 7.5-9.0%, where difference of opinion still exists on management. Initial combination therapy is proposed to lead to better and faster achievement of glycemic targets versus monotherapy and to impede clinical inertia and may possibly slow the deterioration of β-cell function. However, treating patients with sequential therapy is proposed to allow one to fully assess the efficacy and risk-to-benefit ratio of each drug as it is added. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support that rapid addition and titration of medications according to the glycemic profile achieved are inferior to initial combination therapy if glycemic targets are attained in a timely manner. Initial combination therapy is argued to postpone clinical inertia to the next decision point but does not eliminate it. Additionally, it may have been the agents chosen and not the timing of their initiation that led to improved β-cell function in the studies of initial combination therapy, and there are no data currently comparing use of the same drugs initiated simultaneously or sequentially. Heightened awareness of providers, individualization of therapy and setting, and reaching glycemic targets remain the mainstays of care., (© 2016 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality in patients with diabetes. Over the past 20 years multiple CV outcome studies have been conducted assessing the cardiovascular benefits of tight glycemic control or of particular glucose lowering agents. Improved glycemic control per-se failed to significantly reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in the short term, and it is only after >15 years that a reduction in adverse CV outcomes with tight glycemic control was perceived. Moreover tight glycemic control and increased attendant hypoglycemia led to increased mortality observed in the ACCORD trial. These data highlighted the importance of setting individualized glycemic targets and assessing the CV safety of the individual glucose lowering agents. Three DPP-4 inhibitors have presented CV outcome data to date demonstrating overall CV safety yet the question of increased hospitalization for heart failure with saxagliptin remains unexplained. Lixisenatide was the first GLP-1 receptor agonist to publish CV outcome data which demonstrated overall safety. The SGLT-2 inhibitor empagliflozin demonstrated CV superiority and a reduction in all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure vs. placebo via mechanisms which remain to be fully elucidated. The outcome studies, though large and costly, have had a considerable effect on diabetes guidelines, these now emphasizing the importance of individualization of care. The outcome studies will presumably influence the new guidelines and dictate better tailoring of the drug regimen to the individual patient, matching patient comorbidities to the accumulating data regarding the safety and efficacy of each drug and class.

Objective: Patients with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of bone fractures, the predisposing factors for which are unknown. Treatment with thiazolidinediones (TZDs) further increases the incidence of osteoporotic fractures. In the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53 (SAVOR-TIMI 53) trial, fractures were considered an adverse event of special interest, and information regarding fractures was collected., Research Design and Methods: We compared the incidence of fractures among the 8,280 patients who were assigned to treatment with saxagliptin with that in the 8,212 patients who were assigned to placebo. We further analyzed the participants' baseline characteristics and fracture risk., Results: During a median follow-up of 2.1 years, 241 patients (2.9%) in the saxagliptin group and 240 (2.9%) in the placebo group experienced a fracture (hazard ratio [HR] 1.00 [95% CI 0.83-1.19]). Event rates for fractures were the same in both treatment arms: 14.7 per 1,000 patient-years in the entire population and 14.0 in the on-treatment population (first event only). Fracture risk was similar in patients treated with saxagliptin or placebo across different subgroups defined by race, cardiovascular risk, and renal function. A multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that risk of fracture was associated with female sex (P < 0.0001), longer diabetes duration (P < 0.0001), older age (P = 0.002), major hypoglycemic events (P = 0.01), noncompliance with study drug (P = 0.01), and treatment with TZDs (P = 0.03)., Conclusions: In a large population of older patients with type 2 diabetes, treatment with saxagliptin was not associated with an increased risk of fractures. The association between longer diabetes duration and increased risk of bone fracture is an intriguing finding., (© 2015 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered.)

Insulin is a common treatment option for many patients with type 2 diabetes, and is generally used late in the natural history of the disease. Its injectable delivery mode, propensity for weight gain and hypoglycaemia, and the paucity of trials assessing the risk-to-safety ratio of early insulin use are major shortcomings associated with its use in patients with type 2 diabetes. Development of new insulins-such as insulin analogues, including long-acting and short-acting insulins-now provide alternative treatment options to human insulin. These novel insulin formulations and innovative insulin delivery methods, such as oral or inhaled insulin, have been developed with the aim to reduce insulin-associated hypoglycaemia, lower intraindividual pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability, and improve imitation of physiological insulin release. Availability of newer glucose-lowering drugs (such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors) also offers the opportunity for combination treatment; the results of the first trials in this area of research suggest that such treatment might lead to use of reduced insulin doses, less weight gain, and fewer hypoglycaemic episodes than insulin treatment alone. These and future developments will hopefully offer better opportunities for individualisation of insulin treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To analyze the impact of adding saxagliptin versus placebo on the risk for hypoglycemia and to identify predictors of any and major hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes included in the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53 (SAVOR-TIMI 53) study.Research Design and Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 16,492) were randomized to saxagliptin or placebo and followed for a median of 2.1 years. Associations between any hypoglycemia (symptomatic or glucose measurement <54 mg/dL) or major hypoglycemia (requiring extended assistance) and patient characteristics overall and by treatment allocation were studied.Results: At least one hypoglycemic event was reported in 16.6% of patients, and 1.9% reported at least one major event. Patients allocated to saxagliptin versus placebo experienced higher rates of any (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16 [95% CI 1.08, 1.25]; P < 0.001) or major (HR 1.26 [1.01, 1.58]; P = 0.038) hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia rates (any or major) were increased with saxagliptin in patients taking sulfonylureas (SURs) but not in those taking insulin. Rates were increased with saxagliptin in those with baseline HbA1c ≤7.0% and not in those with baseline HbA1c >7.0%. Multivariate analysis of the overall population revealed that independent predictors of any hypoglycemia were as follows: allocation to saxagliptin, long duration of diabetes, increased updated HbA1c, macroalbuminuria, moderate renal failure, SUR use, and insulin use. Predictors of major hypoglycemia were allocation to saxagliptin, advanced age, black race, reduced BMI, long duration of diabetes, declining renal function, microalbuminuria, and use of short-acting insulin. Among SURs, glibenclamide was associated with increased risk of major but not any hypoglycemia.Conclusions: The identification of patients at risk for hypoglycemia can guide physicians to better tailor antidiabetic therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]