Search

Aims: Large outcome trials have demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of selected glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. We examined coronary disease outcomes in the Harmony Outcomes trial of the GLP-1 receptor agonist albiglutide., Methods and Results: Harmony Outcomes was an event-driven, multicenter, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial involving 9463 patients >40 years of age with type-2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. It tested the effects of albiglutide on the occurrence of a composite primary endpoint, consisting of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Within this post-hoc analysis, the effects of albiglutide on MI subtypes and other ischaemic endpoints were analysed.During the median-follow up of 1.6 years, a total of 421 patients (4.5%) experienced at least one MI, with 72 patients having more than one event. Treatment with albiglutide reduced both first events [hazard ratio (HR) 0.75 (0.62-0.91)] and overall events [HR 0.75 (0.61-0.91)] as well as first type 1 [HR 0.73 (0.57-0.92)] and type 2 myocardial infarctions [HR 0.65 (0.46-0.92)]. The effect of albiglutide treatment was consistent for ST-segment elevation [HR 0.69 (0.38-1.26)] and non-ST elevation (HR 0.86 (0.66-1.2) MI., Conclusion: Treatment with the GLP-1 receptor agonist albiglutide resulted in a 25% relative risk reduction in MI that was consistent for type of infarction and presence or absence of ST elevation. Our findings add novel information about the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on ischaemic events in patients with type 2 diabetes., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Diabetes is a major risk factor for erectile dysfunction, however, the effect of GLP-1 receptor agonists on erectile dysfunction is unknown. We aimed to assess the incidence, prevalence, and progression of erectile dysfunction in men treated with dulaglutide compared with placebo, and to determine whether dulaglutide's effect on erectile dysfunction was consistent with its effect on other diabetes-related outcomes., Methods: The Researching Cardiovascular Events with a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial of the effect of dulaglutide on cardiovascular outcomes. REWIND was done at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women aged older than 50 years with type 2 diabetes, who had either a previous cardiovascular event or cardiovascular risk factors, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either dulaglutide or placebo. Participating men were offered the opportunity to complete the standardised International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire at baseline, 2 years, 5 years, and study end. We did an exploratory analysis, in which we included participants who completed a baseline and at least 1 follow-up IIEF questionnaire. The primary outcome for these analyses was the first occurrence of moderate or severe erectile dysfunction following randomisation, assessed by the erectile function subscores on IIEF. This analysis was part of the REWIND trial, which is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01394952., Findings: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 3725 (70·1%) of 5312 male participants with a mean age of 65·5 years (SD 6·4 years) were analysed, of whom 1487 (39·9%) had a history of cardiovascular disease, and 2104 (56·5%) had moderate or severe erectile dysfunction at baseline. The incidence of erectile dysfunction following randomisation was 21·3 per 100 person-years in the dulaglutide group and 22·0 per 100 person-years in the placebo group (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·85-0·99, p=0·021). Men in the dulaglutide group also had a lesser fall in erectile function subscore compared with the placebo group, with a least square mean difference of 0·61 (95% CI 0·18-1·05, p=0·006)., Interpretation: Long-term use of dulaglutide might reduce the incidence of moderate or severe erectile dysfunction in men with type 2 diabetes., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests HSB has received speaking honoraria from Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, and research funding paid to LMC Healthcare from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ceapro, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Tricida. HCG holds the McMaster–Sanofi Population Health Institute Chair in Diabetes Research and Care and reports research grants from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, honoraria for speaking from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, DKSH, and Zuellig, and consulting fees from Abbott, Covance, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Pfizer and Kowa. JB reports consulting fees from Medtronic and Eli Lilly, and grant support from Eli Lilly, ReCor, and Ablative Solutions. HC reports grants from the University of Edinburgh, AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, Roche, and Eli Lilly. IC reports personal fees from Medtronic, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Aventis, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Merck Sharp and Dohme. WCC reports a research grant to his institution (University of Tennessee, TN, USA) for the REWIND trial. GRD has received honoraria for lectures from Bayer and Eli Lilly. EF reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bioton, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Polfa–Tarchomin, Sanofi, and Servier. FL reports honoraria from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and research grants from the Population Health Research Institute. LAL reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, GlaxoSmithKline, and Lexicon. PL-J reports speaking honorarium from Menarini and Abbott. JP reports payment through the University of Washington (WA, USA) for the REWIND trial. JES reports grants from Eli Lilly and Astra Zeneca, and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Abbott, and Pfizer. DX reports grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Coco Cola India, the Indian Council of Medical Research, Pfizer, the UK Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust, and speaker fees from Eli Lilly and Sanofi. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

During the last decade we experienced a surge in the number of glucose lowering agents that can be used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes. Especially important are the discoveries that sodium glucose co-transporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) improve patients' cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Accordingly, various medical associations have updated their guidelines for the treatment of diabetes in this new era. Though not agreeing on every issue, these position-statements generally share a detailed and often complex workflow that may be too complicated for the busy and overworked primary care setting, where the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes are managed in many countries. Other guidelines, generally those from the cardiology associations focus primarily on the population of patients with high risk for or pre-existing cardiovascular disease, which represent only the minority of patients with type 2 diabetes. We believe that we should re-define SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA as diabetes/disease modifying drugs (DMDs) given the recent evidence of their cardiovascular and renal benefits. Based on this definition we have designed a SIMPLE approach in order to assist primary care teams in selecting the most appropriate therapy for their patients. We believe that most subjects newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes should initiate early combination therapy with metformin and a prognosis changing DMD. The decision whether to use GLP-1 RA or SGLT2i should be made based on specific patient's risk factors and preferences. Importantly, DMDs are known to have a generally safe side-effect profile, with lower risk for hypoglycemia and weight gain, further promoting their wider usage. Early combination therapy with DMDs may improve the multiple pathophysiological abnormalities responsible for type 2 diabetes and its complications, thus resulting in the greatest long term benefits.

Background: The Researching cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) double blind randomized trial demonstrated that weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide 1.5 mg, a glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist, versus matched placebo reduced the first outcome of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke (594 versus 663 events) in 9901 persons with type 2 diabetes and either chronic cardiovascular disease or risk factors, and followed during 5.4 years. These findings were based on a time-to-first-event analysis and preclude relevant information on the burden of total major events occurring during the trial. This analysis reports on the total cardiovascular or fatal events in the REWIND participants METHODS: We compared the total incidence of MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths, and the total incidence of expanded MACE (MACE, unstable angina, heart failure or revascularization) or non-cardiovascular deaths between participants randomized to dulaglutide and those randomized to placebo. Incidences were expressed as number per 1000 person-years. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using the conditional time gap and proportional means models., Results: Participants had a mean age of 66.2 years, 46.3% were women and 31% had previous cardiovascular disease. During the trial there were 1972 MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths and 3673 expanded MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths. The incidence of total MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths in the dulaglutide and placebo groups was 35.8 and 40.3 per 1000 person-years, respectively [absolute reduction = 4.5 per 1000 person-years; conditional time gap HR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.98) p = 0.020, and proportional means HR 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.98) p = 0.022]. The incidence of total expanded MACE or non-cardiovascular deaths in the dulaglutide and placebo groups was 67.1 and 74.7 per 1000 person-years, respectively [absolute reduction = 7.6 per 1000 person-years; conditional time gap HR 0.93 (95% CI, 0.87-0.99) p = 0.023, and proportional means HR 0.90 (95% CI, 0.82-0.99) p = 0.028]., Conclusions: These findings suggest that weekly subcutaneous dulaglutide reduced total cardiovascular or fatal event burden in people with type 2 diabetes at moderate cardiovascular risk., Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gouv . Unique Identifier NCT01394952).

Background: Diabetes is an independent risk factor for cognitive impairment. We aimed to investigate the association between the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist dulaglutide and cognitive impairment as an exploratory analysis within the Researching Cardiovascular Events With a Weekly Incretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial., Methods: REWIND is a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial at 371 sites in 24 countries. We included men and women (aged ≥50 years) with either established or newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and additional cardiovascular risk factors, glycated haemoglobin of up to 9·5% (80 mmol/mol) on a maximum of two oral glucose-lowering drugs with or without basal insulin, and a body-mass index of at least 23 kg/m 2 . Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) subcutaneous injections once a week of either dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or an equal volume of matching placebo. Randomisation was done using a computer-generated code with stratification by site. Participants and all study personnel were masked to treatment allocation until the database was locked. Participants were followed up at least every 6 months for the composite primary outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. Cognitive function was assessed at baseline and during follow-up using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST). We present here the exploratory primary cognitive outcome, which was the first occurrence of a follow-up score on MoCA or DSST that was 1·5 SDs or more below the baseline mean score in the participant's country. All analyses were done using an intention-to-treat approach. The REWIND trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01394952., Findings: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 9901 participants were randomly assigned to either dulaglutide (n=4949) or placebo (n=4952). During median follow-up of 5·4 (IQR 5·1-5·9) years, 8828 participants provided a baseline and one or more follow-up MoCA or DSST scores, of whom 4456 were assigned dulaglutide and 4372 were assigned placebo. The cognitive outcome occurred in 4·05 per 100 patient-years in participants assigned dulaglutide and 4·35 per 100 patient-years in people assigned placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 95% CI 0·85-1·02; p=0·11). After post-hoc adjustment for individual standardised baseline scores, the hazard of substantive cognitive impairment was reduced by 14% in those assigned dulaglutide (HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·79-0·95; p=0·0018)., Interpretation: Long-term treatment with dulaglutide might reduce cognitive impairment in people with type 2 diabetes. Further studies of this drug focused on brain health and cognitive function are clearly indicated., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Although cardiologists have long treated patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), T2DM has traditionally been considered just a comorbidity that affected the development and progression of the disease. Over the past decade, a number of factors have shifted that have forced the cardiology community to reconsider the role of T2DM in CAD. First, in addition to being associated with increased cardiovascular risk, T2DM has the potential to affect a number of treatment choices for CAD. In this document, we discuss the role that T2DM has in the selection of testing for CAD, in medical management (both secondary prevention strategies and treatment of stable angina), and in the selection of revascularization strategy. Second, although glycemic control has been recommended as a part of comprehensive risk factor management in patients with CAD, there is mounting evidence that the mechanism by which glucose is managed can have a substantial impact on cardiovascular outcomes. In this document, we discuss the role of glycemic management (both in intensity of control and choice of medications) in cardiovascular outcomes. It is becoming clear that the cardiologist needs both to consider T2DM in cardiovascular treatment decisions and potentially to help guide the selection of glucose-lowering medications. Our statement provides a comprehensive summary of effective, patient-centered management of CAD in patients with T2DM, with emphasis on the emerging evidence. Given the increasing prevalence of T2DM and the accumulating evidence of the need to consider T2DM in treatment decisions, this knowledge will become ever more important to optimize our patients' cardiovascular outcomes.

Background: In our 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials for glucose-lowering drugs or strategies in people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes, we reported a modest reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and an increased risk of heart failure, but with heterogeneous effects by drug or intervention type. In view of the completion of many large cardiovascular outcome trials since our previous analysis, including trials of novel drugs that have shown beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes, we aimed to update our analysis to incorporate these findings., Methods: We did an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of large cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering drugs or strategies in people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for reports of trials published from Nov 15, 2013 to Nov 20, 2019. We included randomised controlled trials with a minimum of 1000 adults (aged ≥19 years) with or at risk of type 2 diabetes, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as an outcome, and with follow-up of at least 12 months. We excluded trials with patients enrolled with an acute cardiovascular event. The main outcomes of interest were MACE (generally defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and heart failure. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs with inverse-variance random-effects models, did meta-regression to analyse treatment effects per difference in bodyweight achieved, and explored results stratified by baseline subgroups., Findings: Our updated search yielded 30 eligible trials (n=225 305). The mean age of participants was 63·0 years (SD 8·4) and mean duration of diabetes was 9·4 years (6·6). After a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (1·8), 23 016 (10·2%) participants had MACE and 8169 (3·6%) had a heart failure event. Glucose-lowering drugs or strategies lowered the risk of MACE compared with standard care or placebo (RR 0·92, 95% CI 0·89-0·95, p<0·0001), with no overall effect on the risk of heart failure (0·98, 0·90-1·08, p=0·71). However, across drug classes or strategies, the magnitude and directionality of RR for heart failure varied (p interaction <0·0001), with meta-regression showing that a decrease in bodyweight of 1 kg was associated with a 5·9% (3·9-8·0) relative decrease in the risk of heart failure (p<0·0001). Among trials that assessed drug classes or strategies associated with weight loss (intensive lifestyle changes, GLP-1 receptor agonists, or SGLT2 inhibitors), the risk reduction for MACE was consistent among participants with (0·87, 0·83-0·92) and without (0·92, 0·83-1·02) established cardiovascular disease at baseline (p interaction =0·33). For heart failure, the RR for drug classes or strategies associated with weight loss was consistent among participants with (0·80, 0·73-0·89) and without (0·84, 0·74-0·95) cardiovascular disease at baseline (p interaction =0·63)., Interpretation: Glucose-lowering drugs or strategies overall reduced the risk of fatal and non-fatal atherosclerotic events. The effect on heart failure was neutral overall but varied substantially by intervention type, with interventions associated with weight loss showing a beneficial effect. The cardiovascular and heart failure benefits of interventions associated with weight loss might extend to patients without established cardiovascular disease., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Responding to concerns about the potential for increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, specifically myocardial infarction, associated with certain glucose-lowering therapies, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Glucose-lowering therapies were granted regulatory approval primarily from smaller studies that have demonstrated reductions in glycated hemoglobin concentration. Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The 2008 guidance aimed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of new glucose-lowering therapies to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This resulted in a plethora of new cardiovascular outcome trials, most designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for superiority. Several of these outcome trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents, resulting in the first-ever cardiovascular protection indications for glucose-lowering therapies. Determining whether the guidance continues to have value in its current form is critically important as we move forward after the first decade of implementation. In February 2018, a think tank comprising representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies convened to consider the guidance in light of the findings of the completed cardiovascular outcome trials. The group made several recommendations for future regulatory guidance and for cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies. These recommendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conducting trials for longer durations, considering studying glucose-lowering therapies as first-line management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, considering heart failure or kidney outcomes within the primary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients enrolled, evaluating strategies to streamline registries and the study of unselected populations, and identifying ways to improve translation of trial results to general practice.

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: Cardiovascular outcome trials have suggested that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists might reduce strokes. We analysed the effect of dulaglutide on stroke within the researching cardiovascular events with a weekly incretin in diabetes (REWIND) trial., Methods: REWIND was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women (aged ≥50 years) with established or newly detected type 2 diabetes whose HbA 1c was 9·5% or less (with no lower limit) on stable doses of up to two oral glucose-lowering drugs with or without basal insulin therapy were eligible if their body-mass index was at least 23 kg/m 2 . Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous injections of either masked dulaglutide 1·5 mg or the same volume of masked placebo (containing the same excipients but without dulaglutide). Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random code with an interactive web response system with stratification by site. Participants, investigators, the trial leadership, and all other personnel were masked to treatment allocation until the trial was completed and the database was locked. During the treatment period, participants in both groups were instructed to inject study drug on the same day at around the same time, each week. Strokes were categorised as fatal or non-fatal, and as either ischaemic, haemorrhagic, or undetermined. Stroke severity was assessed using the modified Rankin scale. Participants were seen at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and then every 3 months for drug dispensing and every 6 months for detailed assessments, until 1200 confirmed primary outcomes accrued. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of any component of the composite outcome, which comprised non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular or unknown causes. All analyses were done according to an intention-to-treat strategy that included all randomly assigned participants, irrespective of adherence. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01394952., Findings: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, we screened 12 133 patients, of whom 9901 with type 2 diabetes and additional cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned to either dulaglutide (n=4949) or an equal volume of placebo (n=4952). During a median follow-up of 5·4 years, cerebrovascular and other cardiovascular outcomes were ascertained and adjudicated. 158 (3·2%) of 4949 participants assigned to dulaglutide and 205 (4·1%) of 4952 participants assigned to placebo had a stroke during follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·62-0·94; p=0·010). Dulaglutide reduced ischaemic stroke (0·75, 0·59-0·94, p=0·012) but had no effect on haemorrhagic stroke (1·05, 0·55-1·99; p=0·89). Dulaglutide also reduced the composite of non-fatal stroke or all-cause death (0·88, 0·79-0·98; p=0·017) and disabling stroke (0·74, 0·56-0·99; p=0·042). The degree of disability after stroke did not differ by treatment group., Interpretation: Long-term dulaglutide use might reduce clinically relevant ischaemic stroke in people with type 2 diabetes but does not affect stroke severity., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Effective glycemic control can reduce the risk of complications and their related costs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Many patients fail to reach hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤ 6.5% or < 7.0%, often due to adverse effects of treatment, such as hypoglycemia and weight gain. Glycemic targets should be individualized and consider multiple factors, including the risk of adverse events and the patient's characteristics and comorbid conditions., Objective: To compare the odds and annual cost of achieving treatment targets, which incorporate HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%, with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal insulin and basal-bolus therapy., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VII 26-week trials, which randomized patients with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c 7%-10%) on insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) and metformin to IDegLira or continued IGlar U100 titration (DUAL V) or IGlar U100 + insulin aspart (DUAL VII), all with metformin. Proportions of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) by the end of trial were assessed via 3 outcomes: alone, without either hypoglycemia or weight gain (double composite outcome), or without a combination of hypoglycemia and weight gain (triple composite outcome). The cost per patient achieving the triple composite outcome at each HbA1c target (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) was calculated by dividing the annual cost of treatment by the proportion of patients achieving the target. This short-term (1-year) cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of a U.S. health care payer., Results: More patients achieved HbA1c < 7.5% ( P < 0.0001) and < 8.0% ( P = 0.0003), and a similar percentage achieved HbA1c ≤ 9.0% with IDegLira versus IGlar U100 (DUAL V). Similar proportions of patients achieved all 3 HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with basal-bolus therapy (DUAL VII). The odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes were significantly higher for IDegLira versus IGlar U100 or basal-bolus for all 3 HbA1c targets ( P < 0.0001 in each case) in both trials. For each $1 spent on IDegLira, the equivalent annual costs per patient to achieve HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, or ≤ 9.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain were $2.43, $2.10, and $2.05, respectively, for IGlar U100 and $6.33, $5.80, and $6.06, respectively, for basal-bolus therapy., Conclusions: Based on data from DUAL V and DUAL VII, this analysis showed that a greater or similar proportion of patients with T2D reached HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with IGlar U100/basal-bolus therapy. Odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes of HbA1c reduction without hypoglycemia and/or without weight gain were greatest for IDegLira. Short-term cost analyses based on the triple composite outcomes suggest that IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the United States compared with either uptitration of IGlar U100 or basal-bolus therapy., Disclosures: This study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S. The analysis was based on the DUAL V (NCT01952145) and DUAL VII (NCT02420262) trials, which were funded and conducted by Novo Nordisk. This post hoc analysis was conceived and interpreted by the authors and drafted with medical writing support that was funded by Novo Nordisk. Novo Nordisk also reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy. Hunt and Malkin are employees of Ossian Health Economics and Communications, which received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of this study and has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, unrelated to this study. Mocarski, Ranthe, and Schiffman are employees of Novo Nordisk and Novo Nordisk A/S. Cannon has received speaker fees/honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, and Janssen; speaker fees from Novo Nordisk; and has stock ownership in Novo Nordisk. Bargiota has received speaker fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Billings has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Dexcom, unrelated to this study. Leiter reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and GSK, unrelated to this study. Doshi has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Parts of this study were presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Objectives: To describe the clinical histories and management of adults with type 2 diabetes who were not reaching their target glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels and to identify barriers to achieving therapeutic goals., Methods: Practice assessment surveys and practice audits were completed by 88 primary care physicians (PCPs) in the Diabetes Mellitus Assessment of Clinical managemenT In ONtario (DM-ACTION) program and by 56 diabetes specialists in the Diabetes Mellitus IMproving PAtient Care in our communiTies (DM-IMPACT) program. The DM-ACTION audit analyzed data from 1,173 adults with A1C levels ≥7.3% who were not prescribed insulin; the DM-IMPACT audit included 135 individuals with similar characteristics., Results: Most PCPs (92%) and specialists (88%) stated that they typically recommend A1C levels of ≤7.0%; more than 90% indicated that they adjusted antihyperglycemic therapy within 3 months if suboptimal A1C targets endured. Among the DM-ACTION patients, the median A1C level was 7.8%; the median time between the last 2 A1C tests was 5 months; 58% were taking ≤2 noninsulin antihyperglycemic agents; and adjustment of glucose-lowering therapy was noted for only 56%. The corresponding values for the DM-IMPACT patients were 8.0%, 4 months, 43% and 68%, respectively. PCPs and specialists attributed patients' factors and patients' adherence as primary causes of poor achievement of guideline-recommended targets. PCPs perceived patients' factors as the predominant barrier to optimizing care, but the specialists believed that therapeutic inertia stems from a wide range and a varied combination of patient-centric factors., Conclusions: Type 2 diabetes remains a health-care challenge in Canada and globally. Primary care physicians and specialists attributed patients' factors as principal obstacles to optimal diabetes management. However, physician-associated therapeutic inertia may also be an important barrier to unmet therapeutic goals., (Copyright © 2018 Canadian Diabetes Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Two glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists reduced renal outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes at risk for cardiovascular disease. We assessed the long-term effect of the GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide on renal outcomes in an exploratory analysis of the REWIND trial of the effect of dulaglutide on cardiovascular disease., Methods: REWIND was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women aged at least 50 years with type 2 diabetes who had either a previous cardiovascular event or cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned (1:1) to either weekly subcutaneous injection of dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or placebo and followed up at least every 6 months for outcomes. Urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratios (UACRs) and estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) were estimated from urine and serum values measured in local laboratories every 12 months. The primary outcome (first occurrence of the composite endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes), secondary outcomes (including a composite microvascular outcome), and safety outcomes of this trial have been reported elsewhere. In this exploratory analysis, we investigate the renal component of the composite microvascular outcome, defined as the first occurrence of new macroalbuminuria (UACR >33·9 mg/mmol), a sustained decline in eGFR of 30% or more from baseline, or chronic renal replacement therapy. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01394952., Findings: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 9901 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dulaglutide (n=4949) or placebo (n=4952). At baseline, 791 (7·9%) had macroalbuminuria and mean eGFR was 76·9 mL/min per 1·73 m 2 (SD 22·7). During a median follow-up of 5·4 years (IQR 5·1-5·9) comprising 51 820 person-years, the renal outcome developed in 848 (17·1%) participants at an incidence rate of 3·5 per 100 person-years in the dulaglutide group and in 970 (19·6%) participants at an incidence rate of 4·1 per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·77-0·93; p=0·0004). The clearest effect was for new macroalbuminuria (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·68-0·87; p<0·0001), with HRs of 0·89 (0·78-1·01; p=0·066) for sustained decline in eGFR of 30% or more and 0·75 (0·39-1·44; p=0·39) for chronic renal replacement therapy., Interpretation: Long-term use of dulaglutide was associated with reduced composite renal outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Three different glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists reduce cardiovascular outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk with high glycated haemoglobin A 1c (HbA 1c ) concentrations. We assessed the effect of the GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events when added to the existing antihyperglycaemic regimens of individuals with type 2 diabetes with and without previous cardiovascular disease and a wide range of glycaemic control., Methods: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was done at 371 sites in 24 countries. Men and women aged at least 50 years with type 2 diabetes who had either a previous cardiovascular event or cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned (1:1) to either weekly subcutaneous injection of dulaglutide (1·5 mg) or placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random code with stratification by site. All investigators and participants were masked to treatment assignment. Participants were followed up at least every 6 months for incident cardiovascular and other serious clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of the composite endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes (including unknown causes), which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01394952., Findings: Between Aug 18, 2011, and Aug 14, 2013, 9901 participants (mean age 66·2 years [SD 6·5], median HbA 1c 7·2% [IQR 6·6-8·1], 4589 [46·3%] women) were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive dulaglutide (n=4949) or placebo (n=4952). During a median follow-up of 5·4 years (IQR 5·1-5·9), the primary composite outcome occurred in 594 (12·0%) participants at an incidence rate of 2·4 per 100 person-years in the dulaglutide group and in 663 (13·4%) participants at an incidence rate of 2·7 per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99; p=0·026). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (536 [10·8%] in the dulaglutide group vs 592 [12·0%] in the placebo group; HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·80-1·01; p=0·067). 2347 (47·4%) participants assigned to dulaglutide reported a gastrointestinal adverse event during follow-up compared with 1687 (34·1%) participants assigned to placebo (p<0·0001)., Interpretation: Dulaglutide could be considered for the management of glycaemic control in middle-aged and older people with type 2 diabetes with either previous cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The SUSTAIN 6 trial demonstrated that once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 and 1.0 mg) significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events (MACE) vs placebo in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and high CV risk. The effects of gender, age and baseline CV risk on outcomes are important considerations for further study., Methods: Subjects were grouped according to gender, age (50-65 years and > 65 years), and CV risk profile at baseline (prior myocardial infarction [MI] or stroke vs no prior MI or stroke, and established CV disease [CVD] vs CV risk factors alone, including subjects with chronic kidney disease). Time to MACE and its individual components (CV death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke), hospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure, and revascularization (coronary and peripheral) were analyzed for all subgroups. Additional analyses were performed for gender and age to investigate change from baseline in HbA 1c and body weight, as well as tolerability., Results: A total of 3297 subjects were included. The majority of subjects (60.7%) were male; 43% were > 65 years of age; 41.5% had a history of MI or stroke; and 76.8% had established CVD. Compared with placebo, semaglutide reduced the risk of the first occurrence of MACE and each MACE component consistently across all subgroups (gender, age, and baseline CV risk profile). Revascularizations, HbA 1c and body weight were also reduced consistently across all subgroups compared with placebo. Gastrointestinal adverse events in all treatment groups were more common among women than men, but rates of premature treatment discontinuation were similar for both genders., Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis of SUSTAIN 6, once-weekly semaglutide vs placebo reduced the risk of MACE in all subjects included in the trial, regardless of gender, age, or baseline CV risk profile. Trial registry Clinicaltrials.gov, Identifying number: NCT01720446, Date of registration: October 29, 2012.

In this post hoc analysis we investigated the effects of insulin degludec/liraglutide fixed-ratio combination (IDegLira) versus comparators on cardiovascular (CV) risk markers in participants in the DUAL II (vs. insulin degludec), DUAL V (vs. insulin glargine 100 units/mL) and DUAL VII (vs. basal-bolus therapy) trials, grouped by sex, age (<65 years, ≥65 years) and diabetes duration (<10 years, ≥10 years). Treatment contrasts were in favour of IDegLira in many subgroups for changes from baseline in glycated haemoblogin (DUAL II, DUAL V), body weight (all three trials), systolic blood pressure (BP; all three trials), HDL cholesterol (DUAL VII) and LDL cholesterol (DUAL II, DUAL V). Higher heart rates were seen with IDegLira versus comparators (all three trials) plus significantly higher diastolic BP in men (DUAL V). Differences in treatment effect were seen between sexes in waist circumference (DUAL II), systolic BP (DUAL II, DUAL V) and triglycerides (DUAL VII), and between diabetes durations in LDL cholesterol (DUAL V). In conclusion, IDegLira is associated with a general improvement in CV risk markers compared with basal insulin or basal-bolus therapy after 26 weeks of treatment., (© 2019 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In the setting of prior myocardial infarction, the oral antiplatelet ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced the risk of recurrent ischemic events, especially, in those with diabetes mellitus. Patients with stable coronary disease and diabetes are also at elevated risk and might benefit from dual antiplatelet therapy. The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS, NCT01991795) is a Phase 3b randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of ticagrelor vs placebo, on top of low dose aspirin. Patients ≥50 years with type 2 diabetes receiving anti-diabetic medications for at least 6 months with stable coronary artery disease as determined by a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention, bypass grafting, or angiographic stenosis of ≥50% of at least one coronary artery were enrolled. Patients with known prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke were excluded. The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety endpoint is Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding. A total of 19 220 patients worldwide have been randomized and at least 1385 adjudicated primary efficacy endpoint events are expected to be available for analysis, with an expected average follow-up of 40 months (maximum 58 months). Most of the exposure is on a 60 mg twice daily dose, as the dose was lowered from 90 mg twice daily partway into the study. The results may revise the boundaries of efficacy for dual antiplatelet therapy and whether it has a role outside acute coronary syndromes, prior myocardial infarction, or percutaneous coronary intervention., (© 2019 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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 glucagon-like peptide-1 analog liraglutide reduced cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the LEADER trial (Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes). In a post hoc analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of liraglutide in those with and without a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and/or stroke., Methods: LEADER was a randomized trial of liraglutide (1.8 mg or maximum tolerated dose) versus placebo in 9340 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk, with a median follow-up of 3.8 years. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events). Risk groups in this post hoc analysis were defined by history of MI/stroke, established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke, or cardiovascular risk factors alone., Results: Of the 9340 patients, 3692 (39.5%) had a history of MI/stroke, 3083 (33.0%) had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke, and 2565 (27.5%) had risk factors alone. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 18.8% of patients with a history of MI/stroke (incidence rate, 5.0 per 100 patient-years), 11.6% of patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke (incidence rate, 3.0 per 100 patient-years), and 9.8% of patients with cardiovascular risk factors alone (incidence rate, 2.6 per 100 patient-years). Liraglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with a history of MI/stroke (322 of 1865 [17.3%] versus 372 of 1827 patients [20.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.99) and in those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke (158 of 1538 [10.3%] versus 199 of 1545 patients [12.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94) compared with placebo. In patients with risk factors alone, the hazard ratio for liraglutide versus placebo was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84-1.38, P interaction =0.11). Similar results were seen for secondary outcomes across risk groups., Conclusions: In this post hoc analysis of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and high cardiovascular risk, liraglutide reduced cardiovascular outcomes both in patients with a history of MI/stroke and in those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease without MI/stroke. The cardiovascular effect appeared neutral in patients with cardiovascular risk factors alone., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01179048.

Background: There is a direct relationship between bodyweight and risk of diabetes. Lorcaserin, a selective serotonin 2C receptor agonist that suppresses appetite, has been shown to facilitate sustained weight loss in obese or overweight patients. We aimed to evaluate the long-term effects of lorcaserin on diabetes prevention and remission., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in eight countries, we recruited overweight or obese patients (body-mass index ≥27 kg/m 2 ) with or at high risk for atherosclerotic vascular disease. Eligible patients were aged 40 years or older; patients at high risk for atherosclerotic vascular disease had to be aged 50 years or older with diabetes and at least one other risk factor. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either lorcaserin (10 mg twice daily) or matching placebo. Additionally, all patients had access to a standardised weight management programme based on lifestyle modification. The prespecified primary metabolic efficacy endpoint of time to incident diabetes was assessed in patients with prediabetes at baseline. The prespecified secondary outcomes for efficacy were incident diabetes in all patients without diabetes, achievement of normoglycaemia in patients with prediabetes, and change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ) in patients with diabetes. Hypoglycaemia was a prespecified safety outcome. Analysis was by intention to treat, using Cox proportional hazard models for time-to-event analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02019264., Findings: Between Feb 7, 2014, and Nov 20, 2015, 12 000 patients were randomly assigned to lorcaserin or placebo (6000 patients in each group) and followed up for a median of 3·3 years (IQR 3·0-3·5). At baseline, 6816 patients (56·8%) had diabetes, 3991 (33·3%) prediabetes, and 1193 (9·9%) normoglycaemia. At 1 year, patients treated with lorcaserin had a net weight loss beyond placebo of 2·6 kg (95% CI 2·3-2·9) for those with diabetes, 2·8 kg (2·5-3·2) for those with prediabetes, and 3·3 kg (2·6-4·0) for those with normoglycaemia (p<0·0001 for all analyses). Lorcaserin reduced the risk of incident diabetes by 19% in patients with prediabetes (172 [8·5%] of 2015 vs 204 [10·3%] of 1976; hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·66-0·99; p=0·038) and by 23% in patients without diabetes (174 [6·7%] of 2615 vs 215 [8·4%] of 2569; 0·77, 0·63-0·94; p=0·012). Lorcaserin resulted in a non-significant increase in the rate of achievement of normoglycaemia in patients with prediabetes (185 [9·2%] vs 151 [7·6%]; 1·20, 0·97-1·49; p=0·093). In patients with diabetes, lorcaserin resulted in a reduction of 0·33% (95% CI 0·29-0·38; p<0·0001) in HbA 1c compared with placebo at 1 year from a mean baseline of 53 mmol/mol (7·0%). In patients with diabetes at baseline, severe hypoglycaemia with serious complications was rare, but more common with lorcaserin (12 [0·4%] vs four [0·1%] events; p=0·054)., Interpretation: Lorcaserin decreases risk for incident diabetes, induces remission of hyperglycaemia, and reduces the risk of microvascular complications in obese and overweight patients, supporting the role of lorcaserin as an adjunct to lifestyle modification for chronic management of weight and metabolic health., Funding: Eisai., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action, and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of albiglutide in preventing cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke., Methods: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 610 sites across 28 countries. We randomly assigned patients aged 40 years and older with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease (at a 1:1 ratio) to groups that either received a subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30-50 mg, based on glycaemic response and tolerability) or of a matched volume of placebo once a week, in addition to their standard care. Investigators used an interactive voice or web response system to obtain treatment assignment, and patients and all study investigators were masked to their treatment allocation. We hypothesised that albiglutide would be non-inferior to placebo for the primary outcome of the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. If non-inferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% CI for a hazard ratio of less than 1·30, closed testing for superiority was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02465515., Findings: Patients were screened between July 1, 2015, and Nov 24, 2016. 10 793 patients were screened and 9463 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to groups: 4731 patients were assigned to receive albiglutide and 4732 patients to receive placebo. On Nov 8, 2017, it was determined that 611 primary endpoints and a median follow-up of at least 1·5 years had accrued, and participants returned for a final visit and discontinuation from study treatment; the last patient visit was on March 12, 2018. These 9463 patients, the intention-to-treat population, were evaluated for a median duration of 1·6 years and were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 (7%) of 4731 patients at an incidence rate of 4·6 events per 100 person-years in the albiglutide group and in 428 (9%) of 4732 patients at an incidence rate of 5·9 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·78, 95% CI 0·68-0·90), which indicated that albiglutide was superior to placebo (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority; p=0·0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (ten patients in the albiglutide group and seven patients in the placebo group), pancreatic cancer (six patients in the albiglutide group and five patients in the placebo group), medullary thyroid carcinoma (zero patients in both groups), and other serious adverse events did not differ between the two groups. There were three (<1%) deaths in the placebo group that were assessed by investigators, who were masked to study drug assignment, to be treatment-related and two (<1%) deaths in the albiglutide group., Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. Evidence-based glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists should therefore be considered as part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes., Funding: GlaxoSmithKline., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A sea change in the management of diabetes is occurring with the publication of clinical trials showing unequivocal cardiovascular (CV) protection through the use of certain antihyperglycemic agents. This change is similar to the change that occurred when lipid lowering with statins was first shown to have CV benefits, an event necessitating changes in training and the proactive treatment of lipids by CV specialists. As was the case then, many CV specialists currently feel poorly equipped to address diabetes with this new information even though diabetes is common in CV practice. The purpose of this overview is to provide an updated, comprehensive, and evidence-based CV protection plan for patients with type 2 diabetes, intended specifically for cardiologists and vascular medicine specialists. We attempt to elucidate a set of "CardioDiabetes" core competencies by merging the CV-relevant elements of the Diabetes Canada 2018 guidelines within a framework of comprehensive vascular protection as supported by other CV guidelines. We review the rationale for measuring hemoglobin A1C, understanding its use for establishing a diagnosis and for monitoring treatment. We also provide a brief review of the medications most important for a CV specialist to know. We provide useful memory aids and a succinct set of reminders and tips ("ABCDEFR'S") that can serve as a comprehensive checklist in the clinic and help to motivate trainees and clinicians to consult the original guideline source documents to enrich their knowledge and improve treatment in this rapidly changing arena., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To assess the effect of baseline body mass index (BMI) and the occurrence of nausea and/or vomiting on weight loss induced by semalgutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Semaglutide demonstrated superior reductions in HbA1c and superior weight loss (by 2.3-6.3 kg) versus different comparators across the SUSTAIN 1 to 5 trials; the contributing factors to weight loss are not established., Materials and Methods: Subjects with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (drug-naïve or on background treatment) were randomized to subcutaneous semaglutide 0.5 mg (excluding SUSTAIN 3), 1.0 mg (all trials), or comparator (placebo, sitagliptin, exenatide extended release or insulin glargine). Subjects were subdivided by baseline BMI and reporting (yes/no) of any nausea and/or vomiting. Change from baseline in body weight was assessed within each trial and subgroup. A mediation analysis separated weight loss into direct or indirect (mediated by nausea or vomiting) effects., Results: Clinically relevant weight-loss differences were observed across all BMI subgroups, with a trend towards higher absolute weight loss with higher baseline BMI. Overall, 15.2% to 24.0% and 21.5% to 27.2% of subjects experienced nausea or vomiting with semaglutide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, respectively, versus 6.0% to 14.1% with comparators. Only 0.07 to 0.5 kg of the treatment difference between semaglutide and comparators was mediated by nausea or vomiting (indirect effects)., Conclusions: In SUSTAIN 1 to 5, semaglutide-induced weight loss was consistently greater versus comparators, regardless of baseline BMI. The contribution of nausea or vomiting to this weight loss was minor., (© 2018 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The sulfonylureas are effective oral glucose-lowering agents with a long history of clinical use. While all have the same general mechanism of action, their pharmacokinetic properties are influenced by factors such as dosage, rate of absorption, duration of action, route of elimination, tissue specificity, and binding affinity for pancreatic β-cell receptor. The result is a class of agents with similar HbA1c-lowering efficacy, but well-documented differences in terms of effects on hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and renal safety. This review examines the differences between currently available sulfonylureas with a focus on how gliclazide modified release (MR) differs from other members of this class and from newer oral antihyperglycemic agents in the form of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) and sodium- glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The first part focuses on major outcome trials that have been conducted with the sulfonylureas and new oral agents. Consideration is then given to factors important for day-to-day prescribing including efficacy and durability, weight changes, hypoglycemia, renal effects and cost. Based on current evidence, third-generation sulfonylureas such as gliclazide MR possess many of the properties desired of a type 2 diabetes drug including high glucose-lowering efficacy, once-daily oral administration, few side effects other than mild hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular safety., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Type 2 diabetes and obesity are pro-inflammatory states associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Canagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, demonstrated superiority in lowering HbA1c versus glimepiride with less hypoglycemia and greater weight reduction via loss of fat mass in a 52-week trial of type 2 diabetes patients. This post hoc, exploratory analysis assessed the effects of canagliflozin versus glimepiride on select adipokines, inflammatory biomarkers, and chemokines., Methods: Changes from baseline to Week 52 in serum leptin, adiponectin, IL-6, TNFα, CRP, PAI-1, VCAM-1, and MCP-1 were measured in a randomly selected subset of type 2 diabetes patients on metformin receiving canagliflozin 300 mg (n = 100) or glimepiride (n = 100) in the overall study. Correlations between change in biomarkers and change in select metabolic and anthropometric variables were assessed., Results: At Week 52, canagliflozin decreased median serum leptin by 25% (95% CI: -34%, -15%) and increased median serum adiponectin by 17% (95% CI: 11%, 23%) compared with glimepiride. There was a 22% reduction in median serum IL-6 (95% CI: -34%, -10%) and a 7% increase in median serum TNFα (95% CI: 1%, 12%) with canagliflozin versus glimepiride. No between-group differences were observed with the other biomarkers. The decrease in serum leptin with canagliflozin was correlated with change in weight (r ≥ 0.3) only; the increase in adiponectin and decrease in IL-6 with canagliflozin occurred independently of changes in HbA1c, weight, or lipids., Conclusions: These results indicate that canagliflozin may improve adipose tissue function and induce changes in serum leptin, adiponectin, and IL-6 that favorably impact insulin sensitivity and cardiovascular disease risk., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To compare alirocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitor, with usual care (UC) in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and mixed dyslipidaemia not optimally managed by maximally tolerated statins in the ODYSSEY DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA trial (NCT02642159)., Materials and Methods: The UC options (no additional lipid-lowering therapy; fenofibrate; ezetimibe; omega-3 fatty acid; nicotinic acid) were selected prior to stratified randomization to open-label alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks (with increase to 150 mg every 2 weeks at week 12 if week 8 non-HDL cholesterol concentration was ≥2.59 mmol/L [100 mg/dL]) or UC for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change in non-HDL cholesterol from baseline to week 24., Results: The randomized population comprised 413 individuals (intention-to-treat population, n = 409; safety population, n = 412). At week 24, the mean non-HDL cholesterol reductions were superior with alirocumab (-32.5% difference vs UC, 97.5% confidence interval -38.1 to -27.0; P < .0001). Overall, 63.6% of alirocumab-treated individuals were maintained on 75 mg every 2 weeks. Alirocumab also reduced LDL cholesterol (-43.0%), apolipoprotein B (-32.3%), total cholesterol (-24.6%) and LDL particle number (-37.8%) at week 24 vs UC (all P < .0001). Consistent with the overall trial comparison, alirocumab reduced non-HDL cholesterol to a greater degree within each UC stratum at week 24. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 68.4% (alirocumab) and 66.4% (UC). No clinically meaningful effect on glycated haemoglobin, or change in number of glucose-lowering agents, was seen., Conclusions: In individuals with T2DM and mixed dyslipidaemia on maximally tolerated statin, alirocumab showed superiority to UC in non-HDL cholesterol reduction and was generally well tolerated., (© 2018 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: The Goal Oriented controL of Diabetes in the Elderly populatioN (GOLDEN) Program assessed the management of older persons with type 2 diabetes in Canadian primary care., Methods: Data were extracted from the records of 833 consecutively identified persons 65 years of age or older who had type 2 diabetes and were taking 1 antihyperglycemic agent or more; they were managed by 64 physicians from 36 Ontario clinics., Results: More than half (53%) had glycated hemoglobin (A1C) levels of 7.0% or lower, 41% had blood pressure levels below 130/80 mm Hg, and 73% had low-density lipoprotein levels of 2.0 mmol/L or lower; 19% met all 3 criteria. Over the past year, 11% had been assessed for frailty, 16% for cognitive dysfunction and 19% for depression; 88% were referred for eye checkups, and 83% had undergone foot examinations. One-tenth were taking 4 or more antihyperglycemic agents, 87% statins and 52% an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. More than half of those with high clinical complexity had A1C levels of 7.0% or lower; of these, one-third were taking a sulfonylurea, and one-fifth were taking insulin. In the patients with A1C levels of 7.0% or above and low clinical complexity, there was often no up-titration or initiation of additional antihyperglycemic agents., Conclusions: Older persons with type 2 diabetes often have multiple comorbidities. Unlike eye and foot examinations, there was less emphasis on evaluating for frailty, cognitive dysfunction and depression. The GOLDEN patients had generally well-controlled glycemic, blood pressure and cholesterol profiles, but whether these would be reflected in a "sicker" population is not known. Personalized strategies are necessary to avoid undertreatment of "healthy" older patients and overtreatment of the frail elderly., (Copyright © 2017 Diabetes Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The aim was to determine the effects of dulaglutide, a synthetic once-weekly, injectable human glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue that lowers blood glucose, body weight, appetite and blood pressure, on cardiovascular outcomes. People with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥50 years, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤9.5%, and either a previous cardiovascular event, evidence of cardiovascular disease or ≥2 cardiovascular risk factors were randomly allocated to a weekly subcutaneous injection of either dulaglutide (1.5 mg) or placebo and followed within the ongoing Researching cardiovascular Events with a Weekly INcretin in Diabetes (REWIND) trial every 3 to 6 months. The primary cardiovascular outcome is the first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke. Secondary outcomes include each component of the primary composite cardiovascular outcome, a composite clinical microvascular outcome comprising retinal or renal disease, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure requiring hospitalization or an urgent heart failure visit, and all-cause mortality. Follow-up will continue until the accrual of 1200 confirmed primary outcomes. Recruitment of 9901 participants (mean age 66 years, 46% women) occurred in 370 sites located in 24 countries over a period of 2 years. The mean duration of diabetes was 10 years, mean baseline HbA1c was 7.3%, and 31% had prior cardiovascular disease. The REWIND trial's international scope, high proportion of women, high proportion of people without prior cardiovascular disease and inclusion of participants whose mean baseline HbA1c was 7.3% suggests that its cardiovascular and safety findings will be directly relevant to the typical middle-aged patient seen in general practice throughout the world., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aims: To investigate the efficacy and safety of alirocumab in participants with type 2 (T2D) or type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with insulin who have elevated LDL cholesterol levels despite maximally tolerated statin therapy., Methods: Participants at high cardiovascular risk with T2D (n = 441) or T1D (n = 76) and LDL cholesterol levels ≥1.8 mmol/L (≥70 mg/dL) were randomized 2:1 to alirocumab:placebo administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, for 24 weeks' double-blind treatment. Alirocumab-treated participants received 75 mg every 2 weeks, with blinded dose increase to 150 mg every 2 weeks at week 12 if week 8 LDL cholesterol levels were ≥1.8 mmol/L. Primary endpoints were percentage change in calculated LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 24, and safety assessments., Results: Alirocumab reduced LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 24 by a mean ± standard error of 49.0% ± 2.7% and 47.8% ± 6.5% vs placebo (both P < .0001) in participants with T2D and T1D, respectively. Significant reductions were observed in non-HDL cholesterol (P < .0001), apolipoprotein B (P < .0001) and lipoprotein (a) (P ≤ .0039). At week 24, 76.4% and 70.2% of the alirocumab group achieved LDL cholesterol <1.8 mmol/L in the T2D and T1D populations (P < .0001), respectively. Glycated haemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose levels remained stable for the study duration. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 64.5% of alirocumab- vs 64.1% of placebo-treated individuals (overall population)., Conclusions: Alirocumab produced significant LDL cholesterol reductions in participants with insulin-treated diabetes regardless of diabetes type, and was generally well tolerated. Concomitant administration of alirocumab and insulin did not raise any safety concerns (NCT02585778)., (© 2017 The Authors. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: A clinical appraisal of existing scientific literature sought to assess the need for long-term prospective epidemiological studies to investigate an increased cancer risk of anti-hyperglycemic medication in type 2 diabetes., Method: A focus statement was formulated as: "With a higher risk of cancers in patients with type 2 diabetes, all anti-hyperglycemic drugs should undergo long-term, prospective epidemiological studies for cancer risks." Field surveys were sent to practicing physicians and endocrinologists to identify the currently prevalent level of acceptance of this statement. Subsequently, a meeting with a six-member panel of key opinion leaders was held to discuss published evidence in support and against the statement. This publication reviews the publications and discussion points brought forth in this meeting and their effect on statement acceptance by the panel., Results: Whereas the majority of field survey responders primarily agreed with the statement, panel members were divided in their statement support. This division remained intact after review of the literature., Conclusions: While there was evidence that type 2 diabetes is associated with an increased risk of cancer, existing studies seemed insufficient to definitively demonstrate a link between cancer risk and use of specific anti-hyperglycemic therapies., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We have previously reported that once-weekly albiglutide was noninferior to thrice-daily lispro for glycemic lowering, with decreased weight and risk of hypoglycemia, in patients inadequately controlled on basal insulin over 26 weeks. Findings after 52 weeks reveal similar responses to albiglutide as an add-on to insulin glargine., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

For patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) generally exert robust glucose-lowering effects that are at least as effective as insulin. As monotherapies, changes from baseline in HbA 1c with GLP-1RAs ranged from -1.9 to -0.7% in phase 3 trials. In addition, GLP-1RAs confer a low risk of hypoglycaemia and have a body-weight advantage (changes from baseline ranging from -4.0 to -0.4 kg). There is also evidence of significant reductions in risk for cardiovascular events with some of these agents, with a number of other trials underway. Gastrointestinal adverse events typically increase with GLP-1RAs, although these are generally mild to moderate in intensity and rarely require treatment discontinuation. The GLP-1RAs that are commercially available or in development vary in structure and pharmacokinetics. These differences affect the frequency of administration and can also affect their relative efficacy and safety. This review summarizes the findings of phase 3 glycaemic control trials of available GLP-1RAs and considers them in the context of the distinct clinical needs of individual patients., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: LAL has received research funding from, has provided CME on behalf of, and/or has acted as an advisor to AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, and Takeda. MAN has participated in advisory boards or was invited as a speaker by Amylin Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Diartis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly & Co, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Janssen Global Services, MannKind Corp., Merck Sharp & Dohme GmbH, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda, Versartis, and Wyeth Research. He has received research support from AstraZeneca, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly & Co., GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, MetaCure, Inc., Novartis, Roche Pharma, Novo Nordisk, and Tolerx, Inc., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Patients with type 2 diabetes continue to have a high residual risk for cardiovascular events despite intensive risk factor modification. Recent clinical trials have shown that the antihyperglycemic agents empagliflozin and liraglutide reduce cardiovascular events. Other drugs have been shown to have cardiovascular safety. With glucose-lowering agents proven to reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes, many cardiologists have begun to prescribe or recommend glucose-lowering agents. Other cardiologists are not yet comfortable with this role because they are not accustomed to initiating these drugs. This document provides updated details of glucose-lowering agents associated with either proven cardiovascular benefit or safety, to help cardiologists to safely prescribe and monitor their patients with diabetes., (Copyright © 2017 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Glycaemic control is suboptimal in a large proportion of people with type 2 diabetes who are consequently at an increased and avoidable risk of potentially severe complications. We sought to explore attitudes and practices among healthcare professionals that may contribute to suboptimal glycaemic control through a review of recent relevant publications in the scientific literature., Methods: An electronic search of the PubMed database was performed to identify relevant publications from January 2011 to July 2015. The electronic search was complemented by a manual search of abstracts from key diabetes conferences in 2014/2015 available online., Results: Recently published data indicate that glycaemic control is suboptimal in a substantial proportion (typically 40%-60%) of people with diabetes. This is the case across geographic regions and in both low- and higher-income countries. Therapeutic inertia appears to be an important contributor to poor glycaemic control in up to half of people with type 2 diabetes. In particular, prescribers are often willing to tolerate extended periods of 'mild' hyperglycaemia as well as having low expectations for their patients. There are often delays of 3 years or longer in initiating or intensifying glucose-lowering therapy when needed., Conclusion: Many people with type 2 diabetes are failed by current management, with approximately half not achieving or maintaining appropriate target blood glucose levels, leaving these patients at increased and avoidable risk of serious complications. Review criteria: The methodology of this review article is detailed in the 'Methods' section.

Objective: As glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists lower blood pressure (BP) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), we examined BP control in relation to targets set by international bodies prior to randomization in the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of cardiovascular outcome Results (LEADER) trial., Methods: We analyzed baseline data from LEADER (NCT01179048), an ongoing phase 3B, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcomes trial examining the cardiovascular safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide in 9340 people with T2DM from 32 countries [age (all mean ± SD) 64 ± 7.2 years, BMI 32.5 ± 6.3 kg/m, duration of diabetes 12.7 ± 8.0 years], all of whom were at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD)., Results: A total of 81% (n = 7592) of participants had prior CVD and 90% (n = 8408) had a prior history of hypertension. Despite prescription of multiple antihypertensive agents at baseline, only 51% were treated to a target BP of less than 140/85 mmHg and only 26% to the recommended baseline BP target of less than 130/80 mmHg. In univariate analyses, those with prior CVD were prescribed more agents (P < 0.001) and had lower BP than those without (137 ± 18.8/78 ± 10.6 mmHg versus 140 ± 17.7/80 ± 9.9 mmHg; P < 0.001). In logistic regression analyses, residency in North America (64% treated to <140/85 mmHg; 38% treated to <130/80 mmHg) was the strongest predictor of BP control., Conclusion: These contemporary data confirm that BP remains insufficiently controlled in a large proportion of individuals with T2DM at high cardiovascular risk, particularly outside North America. Longitudinal data from the LEADER trial may provide further insights into BP control in relation to cardiovascular outcomes in this condition.

Effective glycemic control reduces the risk for diabetes-related complications. However, the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes still do not achieve glycemic targets. Beyond metformin therapy, current practice guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes recommend individualized treatment based on patient and agent characteristics. The sodium glucose cotransporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors represent a novel treatment strategy, independent of impaired beta-cell function and insulin resistance. SGLT2 inhibitors decrease renal glucose reabsorption, thereby increasing urinary glucose excretion with subsequent reduction in plasma glucose levels and glycosylated hemoglobin concentrations. Current evidence suggests that they are effective as monotherapy or as add-ons to metformin either alone, or in combination with other oral glucose-lowering agents or insulin. They are generally well tolerated, though rates of lower urinary tract and genital mycotic infections are slightly increased. The advantages of this class include modest reductions in body weight and blood pressure, and low risk for hypoglycemia. Long-term safety data and results of ongoing cardiovascular outcome studies are awaited so we can fully understand the role that SGLT2 inhibitors will play in the comprehensive management of type 2 diabetes., (Copyright © 2015 Canadian Diabetes Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin, a selective sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), documented pre-existing cardiovascular disease (CVD), and a history of hypertension., Research Design and Methods: Patients (N = 922) were randomized to receive 10 mg dapagliflozin or placebo in a double-blind trial for 24 weeks, followed by a 28-week extension period. In patients receiving insulin, the insulin dose was reduced by 25% at randomization. Patients were stratified by age, insulin use, and time from the most recent qualifying cardiovascular (CV) event. Co-primary end points were a change from baseline in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and the proportion of patients achieving a combined reduction in HbA1c of ≥0.5% (5.5 mmol/mol), body weight (BW) of ≥3%, and systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≥3 mmHg., Results: At 24 weeks, dapagliflozin significantly reduced HbA1c (-0.38% [-4.2 mmol/mol]) from baseline (8.18%) compared with a slight increase with placebo from baseline (8.08%) (0.08% [0.9 mmol/mol]). Significantly more patients met the three-item end point with treatment with dapagliflozin than with placebo (11.7% vs. 0.9%, respectively). Changes were maintained over 52 weeks. Although ∼42% of patients were ≥65 years old, similar results were observed in both age-stratified groups. Serious adverse events, hypoglycemia, urinary tract infections, and cardiac disorders were similar between groups. Adverse events of hypotension, dehydration, hypovolemia, genital infection, and renal failure or impairment occurred more often with dapagliflozin treatment., Conclusions: In this study that evaluated T2D patients who were at high risk for future CVD events, dapagliflozin administration had significantly greater effects in reducing HbA1c, BW, and SBP, without adversely impacting CV safety when compared with placebo treatment., (© 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.)

Aims: Canagliflozin, a sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, has demonstrated glycemic improvements across studies of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The impact of canagliflozin on HbA1c lowering was assessed by baseline HbA1c and known duration of T2DM., Methods: This post hoc analysis pooled data from patients with T2DM enrolled in four 26-week, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 studies of canagliflozin (N=2313). Change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 was assessed in the overall population and in subgroups by baseline HbA1c (<8.0%, 8.0%-<9.0%, and ≥9.0%) and known duration of T2DM (<5 years, 5-<10 years, and ≥10 years)., Results: Relative to placebo, canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg provided greater HbA1c reductions in the overall population. Progressively larger placebo-subtracted reductions in HbA1c with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg were seen with increasing baseline HbA1c. HbA1c reductions were similar across subgroups based on known duration of T2DM. Both canagliflozin doses were generally well tolerated across subgroups, with a safety and tolerability profile consistent with that seen in Phase 3 studies., Conclusions: Canagliflozin provided glycemic improvements in patients with T2DM across a range of baseline HbA1c and known duration of T2DM., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the efficacy/safety of canagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, compared with glimepiride over 104 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin., Research Design and Methods: In this randomized, double-blind study, patients (N = 1,450) received canagliflozin 100 or 300 mg or glimepiride (titrated up to 6 or 8 mg/day) during a 52-week core period followed by a 52-week extension., Results: At week 104, reductions from baseline in A1C were -0.65%, -0.74%, and -0.55% (-7.1, -8.1, and -6.0 mmol/mol) with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg and glimepiride, respectively. Durability analyses showed sustained A1C lowering with both canagliflozin doses versus glimepiride. Reductions in body weight (-4.1%, -4.2%, and 0.9%, respectively) and systolic blood pressure (-2.0, -3.1, and 1.7 mmHg, respectively) were seen with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg compared with glimepiride at week 104. The overall adverse event (AE) incidence was 73.3%, 77.9%, and 78.4% with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg and glimepiride; the incidence of AE-related discontinuations was low across groups (6.2%, 9.5%, and 7.3%, respectively). Incidences of genital mycotic infections, urinary tract infections, and osmotic diuresis-related AEs were higher with canagliflozin than glimepiride; these were generally mild to moderate in intensity and led to few discontinuations. Fewer patients had hypoglycemia episodes with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg than glimepiride (6.8%, 8.2%, and 40.9%). Mild decreases in estimated glomerular filtration rate occurred initially with canagliflozin; these attenuated over 104 weeks., Conclusions: Canagliflozin provided durable glycemic improvements compared with glimepiride and was generally well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving background treatment with metformin over 104 weeks., (© 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.)

Objective: To evaluate weekly subcutaneous albiglutide versus daily sitagliptin in renally impaired patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequately controlled glycemia on a regimen of diet and exercise and/or oral antihyperglycemic medications., Research Design and Methods: In this phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, 52-week study, the primary study end point was HbA1c change from baseline at week 26 in patients with renal impairment, as assessed with estimated glomerular filtration rate and categorized as mild, moderate, or severe (≥60 to ≤89, ≥30 to ≤59, and ≥15 to ≤29 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively). Secondary end points included fasting plasma glucose (FPG), weight, achievement of treatment targets, hyperglycemic rescue, and safety., Results: Baseline demographics were similar across treatment and renal impairment groups with overall mean age of 63.3 years, BMI of 30.4 kg/m(2), HbA1c of 8.2% (66 mmol/mol), and diabetes disease duration of 11.2 years. HbA1c change from baseline at week 26 was significantly greater for albiglutide than sitagliptin (-0.83% vs. -0.52%, P = 0.0003). Decreases in HbA1c, FPG, and weight were seen through week 52. Time to hyperglycemic rescue through week 52 was significantly longer for albiglutide than sitagliptin (P = 0.0017). Results of safety assessments were similar between groups, and most adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate. The incidences of gastrointestinal AEs for albiglutide and sitagliptin were as follows: overall, 31.7%, 25.2%; diarrhea, 10.0%, 6.5%; nausea, 4.8%, 3.3%; and vomiting, 1.6%, 1.2%, respectively., Conclusions: Once-weekly albiglutide therapy in renally impaired patients with type 2 diabetes provided statistically superior glycemic improvement with almost similar tolerability compared with daily sitagliptin therapy., (© 2014 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.)

Objective: GLP-1 receptor agonists may provide an alternative to prandial insulin for advancing basal insulin therapy. Harmony 6 was a randomized, open-label, active-controlled trial testing once-weekly albiglutide vs. thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro as an add-on to titrated once-daily insulin glargine., Research Design and Methods: Patients taking basal insulin (with or without oral agents) with HbA1c 7-10.5% (53-91 mmol/mol) entered a glargine standardization period, followed by randomization to albiglutide, 30 mg weekly (n = 282), subsequently uptitrated to 50 mg, if necessary, or thrice-daily prandial lispro (n = 281) while continuing metformin and/or pioglitazone. Glargine was titrated to fasting plasma glucose of <5.6 mmol/L, and lispro was adjusted based on glucose monitoring. The primary end point was the difference in the HbA1c change from baseline at week 26., Results: At week 26, HbA1c decreased from baseline by -0.82 ± SE 0.06% (9.0 mmol/mol) with albiglutide and -0.66 ± 0.06% (7.2 mmol/mol) with lispro; treatment difference, -0.16% (95% CI -0.32 to 0.00; 1.8 mmol/mol; P < 0.0001), meeting the noninferiority end point (margin, 0.4%). Weight decreased with albiglutide but increased with lispro (-0.73 ± 0.19 kg vs. +0.81 ± 0.19 kg). The mean glargine dose increased from 47 to 53 IU (albiglutide) and from 44 to 51 IU (lispro). Adverse events for albiglutide versus lispro included severe hypoglycemia (0 vs. 2 events), documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (15.8% vs. 29.9%), nausea (11.2% vs. 1.4%), vomiting (6.7% vs. 1.4%), and injection site reactions (9.5% vs. 5.3%)., Conclusions: Weekly albiglutide is a simpler therapeutic option than thrice-daily lispro for advancing basal insulin glargine therapy, resulting in comparable HbA1c reduction with weight loss and lower hypoglycemia risk., (© 2014 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.)

Objective: Despite their independent cardiovascular disease (CVD) advantages, effects of α-linolenic acid (ALA), monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA), and low-glycemic-load (GL) diets have not been assessed in combination. We therefore determined the combined effect of ALA, MUFA, and low GL on glycemic control and CVD risk factors in type 2 diabetes., Research Design and Methods: The study was a parallel design, randomized trial wherein each 3-month treatment was conducted in a Canadian academic center between March 2011 and September 2012 and involved 141 participants with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 6.5%-8.5% [48-69 mmol/mol]) treated with oral antihyperglycemic agents. Participants were provided with dietary advice on either a low-GL diet with ALA and MUFA given as a canola oil-enriched bread supplement (31 g canola oil per 2,000 kcal) (test) or a whole-grain diet with a whole-wheat bread supplement (control). The primary outcome was HbA1c change. Secondary outcomes included calculated Framingham CVD risk score and reactive hyperemia index (RHI) ratio., Results: Seventy-nine percent of the test group and 90% of the control group completed the trial. The test diet reduction in HbA1c units of -0.47% (-5.15 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.54% to -0.40% [-5.92 to -4.38 mmol/mol]) was greater than that for the control diet (-0.31% [-3.44 mmol/mol] [95% CI -0.38% to -0.25% (-4.17 to -2.71 mmol/mol)], P = 0.002), with the greatest benefit observed in those with higher systolic blood pressure (SBP). Greater reductions were seen in CVD risk score for the test diet, whereas the RHI ratio increased for the control diet., Conclusions: A canola oil-enriched low-GL diet improved glycemic control in type 2 diabetes, particularly in participants with raised SBP, whereas whole grains improved vascular reactivity., (© 2014 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Objective: Despite their importance in achieving good glycemic control, few real-world data on insulin dosing irregularities and hypoglycemia are available. The multinational, online Global Attitude of Patients and Physicians (GAPP2) survey was conducted to address this situation., Methods: Insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes and healthcare professionals (HCPs) who treat such patients were surveyed in an online cross-sectional study. This article summarizes findings from a sample of the online population in a Canadian cohort of 156 patients and 202 HCPs., Results: A total of 156 patients completed the questionnaires; 26% reported experiencing a dosing irregularity (missed, mistimed or reduced a basal insulin dose) in the previous 30 days. Up to 60% reported risk for hypoglycemia as the reason for intentional dosing irregularities. Of all patients, 80% reported experiencing a self-treated hypoglycemic event, and 33% recalled having at least 1 event in the previous month. HCPs recorded similar levels of patient-reported dosing irregularities. Over 90% indicated they recommended patients to temporarily reduce their insulin doses to deal with hypoglycemia., Conclusions: A sizeable minority of patients experienced dosing irregularities and self-treated hypoglycemia in this Canadian cohort. The data suggest that HCPs who completed the survey are aware of this and of the need to provide education and support for patients who regularly miss, mistime or reduce insulin doses. Although the desire to prevent hypoglycemic events is understandable and important, HCPs need to ensure fear of hypoglycemia does not compromise optimal diabetes management., (Copyright © 2014 Canadian Diabetes Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the occurrence of extremely low HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) among participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Lipid Trial and to examine the relationship of this finding with treatment with fenofibrate and thiazolidinedione (TZD)., Research Design and Methods: The ACCORD Lipid Trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes at 77 clinical centers across the U.S. and Canada in a 5,518-patient subset of the larger 10,251 ACCORD Glycemia Trial. Patients were enrolled from 11 January 2001 to 29 October 2005 and followed until the end of study visits between 1 March and 30 June 2009. Follow-up in the ACCORD Lipid Trial was 4-8 years (mean 4.7 years). Patients were treated with blinded fenofibrate or placebo on a background of simvastatin therapy. The main outcome measures for these descriptive, post hoc analyses was the occurrence of extremely low HDL-C (defined as <25 mg/dL [0.647 mmol/L]) during the trial., Results: Among ACCORD Lipid Trial participants, the occurrence of extremely low HDL-C ever during study follow-up was 106% higher among those randomized to fenofibrate (10.1% fenofibrate vs. 4.9% placebo, P < 0.001). The occurrence of low HDL-C was associated with concurrent treatment with fenofibrate and TZD (7.0% for both vs. 2.2% for neither at 48 months postrandomization)., Conclusions: Idiosyncratic and marked reduction in HDL-C can occur in some patients treated with both fenofibrate and TZD. Practitioners should recognize this important potential idiosyncratic reaction and take appropriate corrective action.

Background: The cardiovascular safety and efficacy of many current antihyperglycemic agents, including saxagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, are unclear., Methods: We randomly assigned 16,492 patients with type 2 diabetes who had a history of, or were at risk for, cardiovascular events to receive saxagliptin or placebo and followed them for a median of 2.1 years. Physicians were permitted to adjust other medications, including antihyperglycemic agents. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke., Results: A primary end-point event occurred in 613 patients in the saxagliptin group and in 609 patients in the placebo group (7.3% and 7.2%, respectively, according to 2-year Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratio with saxagliptin, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.12; P=0.99 for superiority; P<0.001 for noninferiority); the results were similar in the "on-treatment" analysis (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.17). The major secondary end point of a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, coronary revascularization, or heart failure occurred in 1059 patients in the saxagliptin group and in 1034 patients in the placebo group (12.8% and 12.4%, respectively, according to 2-year Kaplan-Meier estimates; hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.11; P=0.66). More patients in the saxagliptin group than in the placebo group were hospitalized for heart failure (3.5% vs. 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.51; P=0.007). Rates of adjudicated cases of acute and chronic pancreatitis were similar in the two groups (acute pancreatitis, 0.3% in the saxagliptin group and 0.2% in the placebo group; chronic pancreatitis, <0.1% and 0.1% in the two groups, respectively)., Conclusions: DPP-4 inhibition with saxagliptin did not increase or decrease the rate of ischemic events, though the rate of hospitalization for heart failure was increased. Although saxagliptin improves glycemic control, other approaches are necessary to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with diabetes. (Funded by AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb; SAVOR-TIMI 53 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01107886.).

Background: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors improve glycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes by enhancing urinary glucose excretion. We compared the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, with glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin., Methods: We undertook this 52 week, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial at 157 centres in 19 countries between Aug 28, 2009, and Dec 21, 2011. Patients aged 18-80 years with type 2 diabetes and glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7·0-9·5% on stable metformin were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by computer-generated random sequence via an interactive voice or web response system to receive canagliflozin 100 mg or 300 mg, or glimepiride (up-titrated to 6 mg or 8 mg per day) orally once daily. Patients, study investigators, and local sponsor personnel were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 52, with a non-inferiority margin of 0·3% for the comparison of each canagliflozin dose with glimepiride. If non-inferiority was shown, we assessed superiority on the basis of an upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference of each canagliflozin dose versus glimepiride of less than 0·0%. Analysis was done in a modified intention-to-treat population, including all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00968812., Findings: 1450 of 1452 randomised patients received at least one dose of glimepiride (n=482), canagliflozin 100 mg (n=483), or canagliflozin 300 mg (n=485). For lowering of HbA1c at 52 weeks, canagliflozin 100 mg was non-inferior to glimepiride (least-squares mean difference -0·01% [95% CI -0·11 to 0·09]), and canagliflozin 300 mg was superior to glimepiride (-0·12% [-0·22 to -0·02]). 39 (8%) patients had serious adverse events in the glimepiride group versus 24 (5%) in the canagliflozin 100 mg group and 26 (5%) in the 300 mg group. In the canagliflozin 100 mg and 300 mg groups versus the glimepiride group, we recorded a greater number of genital mycotic infections (women: 26 [11%] and 34 [14%] vs five [2%]; men: 17 [7%] and 20 [8%] vs three [1%]), urinary tract infections (31 [6%] for both canagliflozin doses vs 22 [5%]), and osmotic diuresis-related events (pollakiuria: 12 [3%] for both doses vs one [<1%]; polyuria: four [<1%] for both doses vs two [<1%])., Interpretation: Canagliflozin provides greater HbA1c reduction than does glimepiride, and is well tolerated in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving metformin. These findings support the use of canagliflozin as a viable treatment option for patients who do not achieve sufficient glycaemic control with metformin therapy., Funding: Janssen Research & Development, LLC., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Impaired glucose tolerance and metabolic syndrome are associated with increased risk of heart failure (HF). However, predictors associated with the increased risk of incident HF have not been well characterized. We aimed to identify independent predictors of incident HF hospitalization among patients with impaired glucose tolerance., Methods and Results: In Nateglinide and Valsartan in Impaired Glucose Tolerance Outcomes Research (NAVIGATOR), 9306 research participants with impaired glucose tolerance and ≥1 cardiovascular risk factors were randomized to valsartan versus placebo and nateglinide versus placebo in a 2×2 factorial manner, with a median follow-up of 6.5 years. Using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, we analyzed the relationships among baseline clinical factors and the outcome of incident HF hospitalization in patients without history of HF. Significant predictors were identified by forward selection. Increasing age, history of coronary heart disease, and atrial fibrillation or flutter were among several known independent predictors of incident HF hospitalization. Increased waist circumference (hazard ratio per 10 cm, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.55; P<0.001) and increased urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (P<0.001) were identified as novel predictors. The predictive model for incident HF hospitalization showed good discrimination, with an optimism-corrected C-index of 0.79., Conclusions: Among research participants with impaired glucose tolerance, there are several easily identifiable predictors of incident HF hospitalization, including traditional risk factors and novel indices of central adiposity and increased urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, which enable further risk stratification and help distinguish patients who could benefit from more aggressive risk factor management.

For the reduction of microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes, glycemic control has been shown to be an important and effective intervention. However, considering the findings from several recent, large, randomized controlled trials, the utility of very tight glycemic control in all those with type 2 diabetes, for the reduction of cardiovascular disease remains controversial. The decision to aim for very tight glycemic control must be individualized and the potential benefit of reduced risk of nephropathy must be weighed against the increased risk for hypoglycemia. The results of the 10-year post-trial monitoring of the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) demonstrated macrovascular benefits of glycemic control in newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes but lengthy follow-up was required to demonstrate the effect. This raises the possibility that benefits of glucose lowering to reduce cardiovascular risk is more evident in those with a shorter duration of diabetes and requires many years to manifest. For the time being, there remains good evidence for targeting A1c <7% for microvascular protection but attempts to lower A1c beyond this must be considered on an individual basis.