Search

Objective To provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of advanced technology in the management of persons with diabetes mellitus to clinicians, diabetes-care teams, health care professionals, and other stakeholders. Methods The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) conducted literature searches for relevant articles published from 2012 to 2021. A task force of medical experts developed evidence-based guideline recommendations based on a review of clinical evidence, expertise, and informal consensus, according to established AACE protocol for guideline development. Main Outcome Measures Primary outcomes of interest included hemoglobin A1C, rates and severity of hypoglycemia, time in range, time above range, and time below range. Results This guideline includes 37 evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for advanced diabetes technology and contains 357 citations that inform the evidence base. Recommendations Evidence-based recommendations were developed regarding the efficacy and safety of devices for the management of persons with diabetes mellitus, metrics used to aide with the assessment of advanced diabetes technology, and standards for the implementation of this technology. Conclusions Advanced diabetes technology can assist persons with diabetes to safely and effectively achieve glycemic targets, improve quality of life, add greater convenience, potentially reduce burden of care, and offer a personalized approach to self-management. Furthermore, diabetes technology can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of clinical decision-making. Successful integration of these technologies into care requires knowledge about the functionality of devices in this rapidly changing field. This information will allow health care professionals to provide necessary education and training to persons accessing these treatments and have the required expertise to interpret data and make appropriate treatment adjustments.

REDUCE-IT demonstrated that adding 4 g/day of icosapent ethyl (IPE; purified ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA]) to statins substantially reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, with few adverse effects. These data prompted numerous leading medical societies across five continents, including the American College of Cardiology, the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Circulation Society, to update their guidelines or scientific/consensus statements to recommend use of IPE for primary and secondary prevention of CVD events.This review discusses the incorporation of IPE into international guidelines and scientific statements, noting areas of consensus and distinction. As background, this review also describes the CVD benefits and risks of IPE as a statin adjunct, and outlines current data regarding the potential mechanisms of CVD risk reduction by EPA (as IPE) beyond triglyceride reduction.IPE is unique among 'triglyceride-lowering' treatments in having strong CVD outcomes data and, therefore, a broad international consensus among professional medical society guidelines and statements endorsing its use for CVD risk reduction in patients generally meeting REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria. IPE should be considered for CVD prevention as a statin adjunct in all such patients.Plain Language SummaryCardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. Statin monotherapy is conventionally used first-line to reduce the risk of CV events, such as heart attacks and strokes, in patients with elevated cholesterol. However, considerable risk remains despite appropriate control of cholesterol levels with a statin. Consequently, research has focused on treatment of additional therapeutic targets to reduce this remaining CV risk. One such target is elevated blood triglyceride levels. Unfortunately, most drugs that lower triglyceride levels, such as niacin, fibrates, and mixed omega-3 fatty acids, have not reduced the risk of cardiovascular events in clinical trials when added to statin therapy. However, the omega-3 fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid ('EPA') administered in highly purified form as icosapent ethyl (IPE) has emerged as the first omega-3 fatty acid, and the first triglyceride-lowering agent to prevent CV events when added to statins. This was demonstrated most notably in the pivotal REDUCE-IT trial, in which IPE reduced the risk of major CV events by 25% in high-risk patients with mildly to moderately elevated triglyceride levels despite statin-controlled cholesterol levels. The mechanisms responsible for this reduction in CV events appear to go far beyond lowering triglyceride levels alone. In light of the positive results from the REDUCE-IT trial, IPE was approved for CV disease risk reduction globally, including in the United States, Canada, European Union, and the United Kingdom, and its use is being increasingly endorsed in United States and international statements and guidelines for managing CV risk. Despite minor differences among guidelines, there is strong consensus that IPE should be considered for use in CVD prevention in all patients who meet the proposed criteria.

Cardiovascular (CV) disease remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and poses an ongoing challenge with the aging population. Elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is an established risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and the expert consensus is the use of statin therapy (if tolerated) as first line for LDL-C reduction. However, patients with ASCVD may experience recurrent ischemic events despite receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy, including those whose on-treatment LDL-C remains ≥70 mg/dL, patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, high-risk subgroups with comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, and those who have an intolerance to statin therapy. Optimal therapeutic strategies for this unmet need should deploy aggressive lipid lowering to minimize the contribution of dyslipidemia to their CV risk, particularly for very high-risk populations with additional risk factors beyond hypercholesterolemia and established ASCVD. To understand the current clinical climate and guidelines regarding ASCVD, we primarily searched PubMed for articles published in English regarding lipid-lowering therapies and CV risk reduction, including emerging therapies, and CV outcomes trials with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. This review discusses the findings of recent clinical trial evidence for CV risk reduction with cholesterol-lowering therapies, with a focus on CV outcomes trials with PCSK9 inhibitors, and considers the impact of the study results for secondary prevention and future strategies in patients with hypercholesterolemia and CV risk despite maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with an increased risk of heart failure (HF), with recent reports indicating that HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) may be more common than HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in patients with T2D. T2D and HF result in worse outcomes than either disease alone. Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) have significantly improved HF outcomes in patients with T2D and may represent a new therapeutic alternative for patients with T2D at risk for or with HF. Current guidelines recommend prevention of HF through risk factor management. Once developed, treatment of HFrEF should include neurohormonal and haemodynamic modulations; however, there are no specific treatments available for HFpEF. SGLT-2is are the first class of glucose-lowering therapy to prevent HF in clinical trials and real-world studies in patients with T2D (with or without established cardiovascular disease and with or without baseline HF). Mechanistic studies suggest that SGLT-2is have beneficial effects on both systolic and diastolic function and additional systemic effects that could benefit HF outcomes. In patients with HFrEF, SGLT-2i treatment as add-on to standard HF therapy has had beneficial effects on HF outcomes, irrespective of T2D status. These results and those of ongoing outcomes trials with SGLT-2is may help establish this drug class as a treatment for HF in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF, as well as HF in patients without T2D.

Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1C; AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ABCD = adiposity-based chronic disease; ACCORD = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes; AC...

Type 2 diabetes (T2D), chronic kidney disease (CKD), atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and heart failure (HF)-along with their associated risk factors-have overlapping etiologies, and two or more of these conditions frequently occur in the same patient. Many recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have demonstrated the benefits of agents originally developed to control T2D, ASCVD, or CKD risk factors, and these agents have transcended their primary indications to confer benefits across a range of conditions. This evolution in CVOT evidence calls for practice recommendations that are not constrained by a single discipline to help clinicians manage patients with complex conditions involving diabetes, cardiorenal, and/or metabolic (DCRM) diseases. The ultimate goal for these recommendations is to be comprehensive yet succinct and easy to follow by the nonexpert-whether a specialist or a primary care clinician. To meet this need, we formed a volunteer task force comprising leading cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists, and primary care physicians to develop the DCRM Practice Recommendations, a multispecialty consensus on the comprehensive management of the patient with complicated metabolic disease. The task force recommendations are based on strong evidence and incorporate practical guidance that is clinically relevant and simple to implement, with the aim of improving outcomes in patients with DCRM. The recommendations are presented as 18 separate graphics covering lifestyle therapy, patient self-management education, technology for DCRM management, prediabetes, cognitive dysfunction, vaccinations, clinical tests, lipids, hypertension, anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, antihyperglycemic therapy, hypoglycemia, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), ASCVD, HF, CKD, and comorbid HF and CKD, as well as a graphical summary of medications used for DCRM.

Estimates suggest that there are currently 122.8 million adults 65–99 years of age living with diabetes, of whom 90–95% are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Over the past two decades, a greater understanding of the complex and multifactorial pathogenesis of T2D has resulted in the development and introduction of new-generation classes of glucose-lowering therapies, which are now extensively endorsed by prevailing guidelines and are increasingly being used worldwide. These newer agents may further assist in the effective pharmacological management of T2D through the provision of patient-centered care that acknowledges multimorbidity and is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences and barriers. Given these considerations, the therapeutic approach in older patients with T2D is complex, particularly in those who have functional dependence, frailty, dementia, or who are at end-of-life. It is currently too early to draw conclusions on the long-term use of newer glucose-lowering agents in this population, as their efficacy and safety in older adults remains largely unknown. In this review, we will discuss considerations for the use of glucose-lowering treatments in older adults, with particular focus on the use of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and the rationale for the use of combination therapy comprising these agents. Finally, we will review clinical data from studies of the fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide in older patients with T2D. Funding: Sanofi US, Inc.

Diabetes-related complications including cardiovascular disease, heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease, retinopathy, and neuropathy are associated with a high burden of disease. Early initiation of glucose-lowering therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes to achieve glycemic control is important for reduction of not only microvascular risk but also of CV (cardiovascular) risk. Clinical studies have indicated that early achievement of glycemic targets is likely to have the greatest effect on preventing microvascular and macrovascular complications. In addition to improvements in glycemic control and CV risk factors, CV outcomes trials (CVOTs) of empagliflozin (EMPA-REG OUTCOME), canagliflozin (CANVAS), and dapagliflozin (DECLARE–TIMI 58) showed significant glucose-independent reductions in the risk of major adverse CV events and/or hospitalization for HF, as well as reductions in the risk of kidney disease progression, versus placebo. These CVOTs and a renal outcomes study of canagliflozin (CREDENCE) support the early initiation of sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors to potentially provide the most benefit toward glycemic control and CV and renal risk. Thus, current treatment recommendations include the early addition of SGLT-2 inhibitor therapy, not only in patients with established CVD, HF, and/or CKD but also in the general population of patients with T2D. Funding: AstraZeneca., Plain Language Summary People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at risk of developing complications, including macrovascular [cardiovascular disease (CVD), strokes, and heart failure (HF)] and microvascular [chronic kidney disease (CKD) and damage to the eyes and nerves] conditions. Reduction of blood sugar (glucose) levels (glycemic control) can prevent or halt these complications. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors are a class of glucose-lowering drugs that improve glycemic control, reduce CV (cardiovascular) risk factors such as being overweight and having high blood pressure, and have a low risk of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar levels). Health care providers who treat people with T2D sometimes add SGLT-2 inhibitors after initial treatment with metformin alone. Recently, clinical trials and real-world studies in patients with T2D have shown that SGLT-2 inhibitors (empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and dapagliflozin) reduced the risk of CV events, CV death, and hospitalization for HF and reduced worsening of kidney disease. Although the reduction in CV events with SGLT-2 inhibitor treatment was greatest for patients who already had CVD, the risk was also reduced in those without CVD. Reductions in death from CV causes or hospitalization for HF and kidney events were similar for patients with or without CVD. Some updated treatment guidelines for T2D, therefore, recommend early use of SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with T2D, not only those with established CVD. This review describes the reasons for starting early treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors when the potential benefit may be greatest, providing protection against CV events, hospitalization for HF, and progression of CKD.

Aims/hypothesis The study aimed to examine the efficacy of 12 weeks of monthly evolocumab or placebo in lowering LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) in individuals with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia and on a maximum-tolerated statin of at least moderate intensity. Methods For this randomised, placebo-controlled outpatient study, eligible individuals were ≥18 years old with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi (a titratable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine [iGlar] plus lixisenatide) in older patients with type 2 diabetes.This post hoc analysis used patient-level data from patients aged ≥65 years from the phase III LixiLan-O and LixiLan-L studies, which compared iGlarLixi with iGlar and lixisenatide (LixiLan-O only). Efficacy endpoints were changes in glycated hemoglobin A1C, fasting plasma glucose, postprandial glucose, weight, and achievement of A1C7.0% (53 mmol/mol). Safety measures included incidence of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (defined as typical symptoms of hypoglycemia plus self-measured plasma glucose ≤70 mg/dL [3.9 mmol/L]), severe hypoglycemia (requiring assistance of another person), and incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events. Results were compared with those from patients aged65 years.In both trials, older patients treated with iGlarLixi achieved significantly greater reductions in A1C at Week 30 than comparators. Treatment with iGlarLixi mitigated insulin-associated weight gain and lixisenatide-associated gastrointestinal events. Results were largely comparable between patients aged ≥65 versus65 years.iGlarLixi provides significant improvements in glycemic control in patients aged ≥65 years without increasing hypoglycemia risk. As a once-daily injection, it simplifies treatment regimens and may contribute to improved adherence in this patient population.

The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in older patients has not yet been reported. This analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IDegLira in patients aged ≥65 years.A post hoc analysis compared results of patients aged ≥65 versus65 years from DUAL II, III, and V. These were 26-week, phase 3, randomized, twoarm parallel, treat-to-target trials in patients already taking injectable glucose-lowering agents. We evaluated 311 patients aged65 and 87 patients aged ≥65 years from DUAL II, 326 patients65 years and 112 patients ≥65 years from DUAL III, and 412 patients65 years and 145 patients ≥65 years from DUAL V. Patients were randomized to IDegLira or insulin degludec (DUAL II), IDegLira or unchanged glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) (DUAL III), or IDegLira or IGlar U100 (DUAL V).In patients ≥65 years, hemoglobin A1C decreased to a greater extent with IDegLira than with comparators (estimated treatment differences, -1.0% [-1.5; -0.6]Patients aged ≥65 years on basal insulin or GLP-1RA can improve glycemic control with IDegLira, and it is well tolerated overall.A1C = hemoglobin A1C; AE = adverse event; CI = confidence interval; Degludec = insulin degludec; EOT = end of trial; ETD = estimated treatment difference; FPG = fasting plasma glucose; GLP-1RA = glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist; IDegLira = insulin degludec/liraglutide; IGlar U100 = insulin glargine 100 U/mL; SU = sulfonylurea; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1C; AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ACCORD = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes; ACCORD BP = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure; ACE = American College of Endocrinology; ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; AGI = alpha-glucosidase inhibitor; apo B = apolipoprotein B; ARB = angiotensin II receptor blocker; ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; BAS = bile acid sequestrant; BMI = body mass index; BP = blood pressure; CCB = calcium channel blocker; CGM = continuous glucose monitoring; CHD = coronary heart disease; CKD = chronic kidney disease; DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis; DPP4 = dipeptidyl peptidase 4; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; EPA = eicosapentaenoic acid; ER = extended release; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; GLP1 = glucagon-like peptide 1; HDL-C = high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol; HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia; LDL-C = low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-P = low-density-lipoprotein particle; Look AHEAD = Look Action for Health in Diabetes; NPH = neutral protamine Hagedorn; OSA = obstructive sleep apnea; PCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 serine protease; RCT = randomized controlled trial; SU = sulfonylurea; SGLT2 = sodium-glucose cotransporter 2; SMBG = self-monitoring of blood glucose; T2D = type 2 diabetes; TZD = thiazolidinedione

AIMS: To compare the efficacy and safety of an intensification strategy of early triple combination therapy with dapagliflozin (DAPA) plus saxagliptin (SAXA) to a dual therapy strategy with sitagliptin (SITA) in patients with type 2 diabetes who are inadequately controlled with metformin (MET) monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multinational, active-controlled, parallel-group phase 3b trial randomized 461 patients, at least 18 years of age, with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 8%-10.5% (64-91 mmol/mol), to either DAPA plus SAXA or SITA, added to MET, for a 26-week double-blind treatment period and an extension of a 26-week blinded treatment period. RESULTS: Mean (± SD) baseline HbA1c was 8.8% ± 0.9% (73.0 ± 9.3 mmol/mol). DAPA plus SAXA (n = 232) provided a greater reduction from baseline in HbA1c at Weeks 26 and 52 compared with SITA (n = 229) (adjusted mean ± SE change, Week 26: -1.41 ± 0.07% vs -1.07 ± 0.07% [-15.4 ± 0.8 mmol/mol vs 11.7 ± 0.8 mmol/mol]; P = 0.0008; Week 52: -1.29 ± 0.08% vs -0.81 ± 0.09% [14.1 ± 0.9 mmol/mol vs 8.9 ± 1.0 mmol/mol]). The between-group difference in adjusted mean (95% CI) change from baseline in HbA1c increased from -0.34 (-0.54, -0.14) at Week 26 to -0.48 (-0.71, -0.25) at Week 52. DAPA plus SAXA was generally well tolerated and the incidence of adverse events was similar in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Early intensification to triple therapy with DAPA plus SAXA results in better, more durable glycaemic control than addition of SITA only (dual therapy) in patients with high HbA1c levels who are uncontrolled with MET monotherapy. ispartof: DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM vol:21 issue:4 pages:883-892 ispartof: location:England status: published

This post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy and safety of dronedarone in atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) patients with/without diabetes.Patients were categorized according to baseline diabetes status. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard-ratios were assessed using Cox models.945/4628 (dronedarone = 482; placebo = 463) patients in ATHENA and 215/1237 (dronedarone = 148; placebo = 67) patients in EURIDIS/ADONIS studies had diabetes. In ATHENA, there were higher rates of CV hospitalization/death in patients with diabetes (39.5%) than without diabetes (34.7%). Incidence of first CV hospitalization/death was lower in patients with diabetes treated with dronedarone (35.1%) than placebo (44.1%), and time to this event was longer in those treated with dronedarone than placebo (log-rank p = 0.005). Median AF/AFL recurrence time was longer in patients treated with dronedarone than placebo in patients with diabetes (ATHENA: 722 vs 527 days, log-rank p = 0.004; EURIDIS/ADONIS: 100 vs 23 days, log-rank p = 0.15) or without diabetes (ATHENA: 741 vs 492 days, log-rank p 0.0001; EURIDIS/ADONIS: 120 vs 59 days, log-rank p = 0.0002). Occurrence of any treatment-related adverse events with dronedarone was similar for patients with/without diabetes and was comparable to placebo.Dronedarone reduced incidence of CV hospitalization/death, AF/AFL recurrence and increased time to these events in AF/AFL patients with/without diabetes.Not applicable, as it was a post hoc analysis. This article is based on previously conducted studies (ATHENA: NCT00174785, EURIDIS: NCT00259428, and ADONIS: NCT00259376).

Nearly 500 million adults worldwide currently have diabetes, a number expected to increase to 700 million over the next 25 years, largely fueled by the obesity epidemic and unhealthy lifestyles. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), including coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and peripheral arterial disease, is among the most common causes of death in persons with diabetes. However, diabetes is associated with great heterogeneity in ASCVD risks, warranting the need for cardiovascular risk assessment, including global risk scoring and consideration of risk-enhancing factors and subclinical atherosclerosis. Moreover, few persons with diabetes are at recommended targets for key ASCVD risk factors including LDL-cholesterol, blood pressure, HbA1c, nonsmoking status, and body mass index. Key treatment approaches focus on lifestyle modification, weight control, avoidance of cigarette smoking, and management of lipids, blood pressure, and blood glucose. For higher-risk patients, antiplatelet therapy is included. Blood pressure medication, statins, and, most recently, icosapent ethyl, have evidence for reducing ASCVD events in persons with diabetes. Newer medications for diabetes, including SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, also reduce cardiovascular events independent of level of HbA1c. Both classes prevent further kidney function deterioration while the SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce heart failure hospitalizations. Most importantly, a multidisciplinary team is required to address the myriad cardiovascular and other risks in persons with diabetes.

With worsening epidemiological trends for both the incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and heart failure (HF) worldwide, it is critical to implement optimal prevention and treatment strategies for patients with these comorbidities, either alone or concomitantly. Several guidelines and consensus statements have recommended glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors as add-ons to lifestyle interventions with or without metformin in those at high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. However, these recommendations are either silent about HF or fail to differentiate between the prevention of HF in those at risk versus the treatment of individuals with manifest HF. Furthermore, these documents do not differentiate among those with different HF phenotypes. This distinction, even though important, may not be critical for sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors in view of the consistent data for benefit for both atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease– and HF-related outcomes that have emerged from the regulatory-mandated cardiovascular outcome trials for all sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitors and the recent DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction)demonstrating the benefit of dapagliflozin on HF-related outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction with or without T2DM. However, the distinction may be crucial for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and other antihyperglycemic agents. Indeed, in several of the new statements, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are suggested treatment not only for patients with T2DM and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, but also in those with manifest HF, despite a lack of evidence for the latter recommendation. Although glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists may be appropriate to use in patients at risk for HF, mechanistic insights and observations from randomized trials suggest no clear benefit on HF-related outcomes and even uncertainty regarding the safety in those with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Conversely, theoretical rationales suggest that these agents may benefit patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. Considering that millions of patients with T2DM have HF, these concerns have public health implications that necessitate the thoughtful use of these therapies. Achieving this aim will require dedicated trials with these drugs in both patients who have HF with reduced ejection fraction and HF with preserved ejection fraction with T2DM to assess their efficacy, safety, and risk-benefit profile.

The treatment of lipid disorders begins with lifestyle therapy to improve nutrition, physical activity, weight, and other factors that affect lipids. Secondary causes of lipid disorders should be addressed, and pharmacologic therapy initiated based on a patient's risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Patients at extreme ASCVD risk should be treated with high-intensity statin therapy to achieve a goal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of

Background: Collaborations between cardiologists (C) and diabetes care clinicians (D/PCP) for patients with T2DM is low, despite availability of antidiabetes drugs possessing CV benefit (SGLT2i and GLP-1RA). Methods: To address gaps in collaborations between C and D/PCP, a 2x60 min, case-based CME series entitled “Diabetes from the Perspective of the Cardiologist: An Evolving Paradigm?” was launched live, online in July 2019 and remained on-demand for 6 months. The format was an interactive discussion among members of each specialty, exploring how they interact with each other on care decisions. The sessions incorporated audience polling and live questions and answers. Educational evaluation included pre/post/2-mos. follow-up surveys targeting attitude, knowledge, competence, and self-reported clinical impact. Results: As of 12/2019, 934 learners (L) participated (including 152 C, 344 D/PCP) and 67 L completed the follow-up survey. At 2-mos. post, 81% L reported the education had a positive impact on their clinical practice, including “more collaboration/communication among specialties”, and “more appropriate use of new agents.” While L reported increased confidence about the CV benefit of diabetes medications (95% vs. 84%), the proportion of correct responses to post-activity case-based questions was similar in pre and post activity evaluations, ranging from 20% to 55%. After the activity, the proportion of L who believed that C and D/PCP should independently prescribe GLP-1RA was the same as before (73% to 78%), but that proportion decreased for SGLT2 i (95% to 82%). Conclusions: CME successfully enhanced C and D/PCP’s appreciation of the importance of the role of each other in CV protection efforts for T2DM people. C and D/PCP grew a greater understanding of the place of SGLT2i and GLP-1RA in CV protection, but their responses to case-based questions, which may reflect their low experience with the agents, justify the need for practical, continuous education. Disclosure C. Drexel: None. W. Turell: None. Y. Handelsman: Advisory Panel; Self; Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca. Consultant; Self; Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Research Support; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Amarin Corporation, Amgen, AstraZeneca. S. Baum: Consultant; Self; Akcea Therapeutics, Amgen, Gerson Lehman Group, Guidepoint Global, Novo Nordisk Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi US. Research Support; Self; Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Akcea, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Axcella Health, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., cirius, CymBay Ther, Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Gemphire Therapeutics Inc., genfit, high tide, ingredion inc, interhealth nutraceuticals, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., isis, kemin foods, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis AG, Novo Nordisk Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, regenxbio, the medicine comp, Theracos, Inc. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Akcea Therapeutics, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Other Relationship; Spouse/Partner; vital therapy. Funding AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly and Company; Novo Nordisk

Many adults with T1D are not at glycemic goal and are overweight or obese and this trend appears to be worsening. SGLT inhibitors have been shown to improve metabolic outcomes in T1D. However, the glycemic efficacy of selective SGLT2 inhibitors depends on the amount of glucose filtered in the glomerulus and as such efficacy attenuates as renal function declines. The mechanism of action of sotagliflozin (SOTA) involves inhibition of SGLT2 in the kidney and SGLT1 in the gastrointestinal tract. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of SOTA by baseline eGFR (45- Disclosure Y. Handelsman: Advisory Panel; Self; Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca. Consultant; Self; Applied Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Research Support; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Amarin Corporation, Amgen, AstraZeneca. A. Giaccari: Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis. S. Sawhney: None. P.L. Banks: Employee; Self; Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. M.J. Davies: Employee; Self; Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. P. Lapuerta: Employee; Self; Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular (ASCVD) disease, which is the largest contributor to the economic burden of diabetes. Minimization of disease morbidity through comprehensive management of ASCVD risk factors, including but not limited to hyperglycemia, is a key goal of T2DM therapy. Emerging evidence with some glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) points to beneficial effects across a range of atherosclerotic risk factors and possible improvement of some cardiovascular outcomes independent of these effects. Given these benefits, there has been substantial interest in evaluating the cardiovascular safety of GLP-1 RAs as well as their potential to reduce the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Following the superior clinical outcome with the once-daily GLP-1 RA liraglutide (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of cardiovascular outcome Results [LEADER]), this review examines and summarizes the effects of once-weekly GLP-1 RAs, including exenatide extended release (ER), dulaglutide, and semaglutide, on reducing cardiovascular events in patients with T2DM. A phase 3 cardiovascular outcomes trial (EXSCEL) of exenatide ER found no significant difference between exenatide ER and placebo in reducing MACE in patients with T2DM. In a phase 3 premarketing trial in T2DM patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (SUSTAIN-6), semaglutide significantly reduced the risks of MACE and non-fatal stroke compared with placebo. A phase 3 study (REWIND) is underway to evaluate the effects of dulaglutide on MACE. Considering the substantial costs of cardiovascular disease in patients with T2DM, it will be of interest to assess the impact of treatment with once-weekly GLP-1 RAs on cardiovascular disease-related costs among patients with T2DM.This supplement was funded by Novo Nordisk. Heile reports speaker fees from and has served as advisor to Novo Nordisk. Billings reports personal fees from Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Cannon reports speaker fees and owns stock in Novo Nordisk. Handelsman reports research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi; speaker fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi; and has served in advisory capacity to Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Intarcia, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Shannon reports consultant and speaker fees from Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly Alliance. Wyne has nothing to disclose.

Aim To conduct two exploratory analyses to compare indirectly the efficacy and safety of simultaneous administration of insulin glargine 100 U (iGlar) and the glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist (GLP‐1RA) lixisenatide (Lixi) as a single‐pen, titratable, fixed‐ratio combination (iGlarLixi [LixiLan trials]) vs sequential administration of iGlar + Lixi (GetGoal Duo trials) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Materials and Methods Propensity‐score matching based on baseline covariates was used to compare simultaneous iGlarLixi vs sequential combination of iGlar + Lixi with the addition of Lixi in patients who did not reach the glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) goal of

Summary Background The proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor evolocumab reduced LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular events in the FOURIER trial. In this prespecified analysis of FOURIER, we investigated the efficacy and safety of evolocumab by diabetes status and the effect of evolocumab on glycaemia and risk of developing diabetes. Methods FOURIER was a randomised trial of evolocumab (140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg once per month) versus placebo in 27 564 patients with atherosclerotic disease who were on statin therapy, followed up for a median of 2·2 years. In this prespecified analysis, we investigated the effect of evolocumab on cardiovascular events by diabetes status at baseline, defined on the basis of patient history, clinical events committee review of medical records, or baseline HbA 1c of 6·5% (48 mmol/mol) or greater or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) of 7·0 mmol/L or greater. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospital admission for unstable angina, or coronary revascularisation. The key secondary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We also assessed the effect of evolocumab on glycaemia, and on the risk of new-onset diabetes among patients without diabetes at baseline. HbA 1c was measured at baseline then every 24 weeks and FPG was measured at baseline, week 12, week 24, and every 24 weeks thereafter, and potential cases of new-onset diabetes were adjudicated centrally. In a post-hoc analysis, we also investigated the effects on glycaemia and diabetes risk in patients with prediabetes (HbA 1c 5·7–6·4% [39–46 mmol/mol] or FPG 5·6–6·9 mmol/L) at baseline. FOURIER is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01764633. Findings At study baseline, 11 031 patients (40%) had diabetes and 16 533 (60%) did not have diabetes (of whom 10 344 had prediabetes and 6189 had normoglycaemia). Evolocumab significantly reduced cardiovascular outcomes consistently in patients with and without diabetes at baseline. For the primary composite endpoint, the hazard ratios (HRs) were 0·83 (95% CI 0·75–0·93; p=0·0008) for patients with diabetes and 0·87 (0·79–0·96; p=0·0052) for patients without diabetes (p interaction =0·60). For the key secondary endpoint, the HRs were 0·82 (0·72–0·93; p=0·0021) for those with diabetes and 0·78 (0·69–0·89; p=0·0002) for those without diabetes (p interaction =0·65). Evolocumab did not increase the risk of new-onset diabetes in patients without diabetes at baseline (HR 1·05, 0·94–1·17), including in those with prediabetes (HR 1·00, 0·89–1·13). Levels of HbA 1c and FPG were similar between the evolocumab and placebo groups over time in patients with diabetes, prediabetes, or normoglycaemia. Among patients with diabetes at baseline, the proportions of patients with adverse events were 78·5% (4327 of 5513 patients) in the evolocumab group and 78·3% (4307 of 5502 patients) in the placebo group; among patients without diabetes at baseline, the proportions with adverse events were 76·8% (6337 of 8256 patients) in the evolocumab group and 76·8% (6337 of 8254 patients) in the placebo group. Interpretation PCSK9 inhibition with evolocumab significantly reduced cardiovascular risk in patients with and without diabetes. Evolocumab did not increase the risk of new-onset diabetes, nor did it worsen glycaemia. These data suggest evolocumab use in patients with atherosclerotic disease is efficacious and safe in patients with and without diabetes. Funding Amgen.

This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology. Where there were no randomized controlled trials or specific U.S. FDA labeling for issues in clinical practice, the participating clinical experts utilized their judgment and experience. Every effort was made to achieve consensus among the committee members. Position statements are meant to provide guidance, but they are not to be considered prescriptive for any individual patient and cannot replace the judgment of a clinician.

Background Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin as an add-on to adjustable insulin in patients with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. Methods DEPICT-1 was a double-blind, randomised, parallel-controlled, three-arm, phase 3, multicentre study done at 143 sites in 17 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18–75 years and had inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes (HbA1c between ≥7·7% and ≤11·0% [≥61·0 mmol/mol and ≤97·0 mmol/mol]) and had been prescribed insulin for at least 12 months before enrolment. After an 8 week lead-in period to optimise diabetes management, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using an interactive voice response system to dapagliflozin 5 mg or 10 mg once daily, given orally, or matched placebo. Randomisation was stratified by current use of continuous glucose monitoring, method of insulin administration, and baseline HbA1c. The primary efficacy outcome was the change from baseline in HbA1c after 24 weeks of treatment in the full analysis set, which consisted of all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. An additional 55 patients who were incorrectly and non-randomly allocated to only dapagliflozin treatment groups were included in the safety analysis set. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02268214; data collection for the present analysis was completed on Jan 4, 2017, and a 28 week extension phase is ongoing. Findings Between Nov 11, 2014, and April 16, 2016, 833 patients were assigned to treatment groups and included in safety analyses (dapagliflozin 5 mg [n=277] vs dapagliflozin 10 mg [n=296] vs placebo [n=260]; 778 of these patients were randomly assigned and included in the full analysis set for efficacy analyses (259 vs 259 vs 260; difference due to randomisation error affecting 55 patients). Mean baseline HbA1c was 8·53% (70 mmol/mol; SD 0·67% [7·3 mmol/mol]). At week 24, both doses of dapagliflozin significantly reduced HbA1c compared with placebo (mean difference from baseline to week 24 for dapagliflozin 5 mg vs placebo was −0·42% [95% CI −0·56 to −0·28; p

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding the once-weekly DPP-4 inhibitor omarigliptin or the sulfonylurea glimepiride to the treatment regimen of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy. Methods: Patients with T2DM and HbA1c ≥6.5% to ≤9.0% while on a stable dose of metformin (≥1500 mg/day) were randomized to omarigliptin 25 mg once-weekly (N = 376) or glimepiride up to 6 mg once-daily (N = 375) for 54 weeks. The primary hypothesis was that omarigliptin is non-inferior to glimepiride in reducing HbA1c at Week 54. Results: The mean baseline HbA1c was 7.5% in the omarigliptin group and 7.4% in the glimepiride group. After 54 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in HbA1c was -0.30% in the omarigliptin group and -0.48% in the glimepiride group, with a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.18% (0.06, 0.30), which met the prespecified criterion for declaring non-inferiority. The incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia was 5.3% in the omarigliptin group and 26.7% in the glimepiride group. With the exception of hypoglycemia, the incidences of adverse events and discontinuations were similar between treatment groups. Relative to baseline, omarigliptin was associated with a mean weight loss (−0.4 kg) and glimepiride a mean weight gain (+1.5 kg). Conclusions: After 54 weeks, as add-on therapy to metformin, once-weekly omarigliptin was generally well tolerated and non-inferior to glimepiride in improving glycemic control, with a lower incidence of hypoglycemia and with weight loss versus weight gain.

The measurement of cholesterol and triglycerides as indicators of metabolic disorders and most particularly of vascular disease risk has been of growing importance to physicians and epidemiologists over the past century. This was refocused on the lipoproteins, the specific packages in blood that carry these lipids, by John Gofman, MD, PhD, and Don Fredrickson, MD, more than 50 years ago. We continue to learn about the metabolism of these large molecular structures and their relationship to arteriosclerosis as new genetic and interventional studies are published. The clinical laboratory has evolved to provide more focused information with measures that can help us assess risk and target our therapy more effectively. In this roundtable discussion, I had the opportunity to talk with physicians who consider lipoprotein management to be central features of their practice every day. They personally care for patients with metabolic disorders in which the lipoproteins have caused disease or are predicted to do so. They are well-versed on the way that science is leading us in our field. I believe that you will learn from their view of current needs regarding lipoprotein measures and the changes that may derive from ongoing scientific studies in our field.

Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1C AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists ACCORD = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes ACCORD BP = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure ACEI = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ADVANCE = Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation AGI = alpha-glucosidase inhibitor apo B = apolipoprotein B ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease BAS = bile acid sequestrant BMI = body mass index BP = blood pressure CHD = coronary heart disease CKD = chronic kidney disease CVD = cardiovascular disease DASH = Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase 4 eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate FDA = Food and Drug Administration GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1 HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol IMPROVE-IT = Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol LDL-P = low-density li...

Objective: To provide an overview of the roles of triglycerides and triglyceride-lowering agents in atherosclerosis in the context of cardiovascular outcomes studies. Methods: We reviewed the published literature as well as ClinicalTrials.gov entries for ongoing studies. Results: Despite improved atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) outcomes with statin therapy, residual risk remains. Epidemiologic data and recent genetic insights provide compelling evidence that triglycerides are in the causal pathway for the development of atherosclerosis, thereby renewing interest in targeting triglycerides to improve ASCVD outcomes. Fibrates, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acids (OM3FAs) are three classes of triglyceride-lowering drugs. Outcome studies with triglyceride-lowering agents have been inconsistent. With regard to OM3FAs, the JELIS study showed that eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) significantly reduced major coronary events in statin-treated hypercholesterolemic patients. Regarding other agents, extended-release niacin and fenofibrate are no longer recommended as statin add-on therapy (by some guidelines, though not all) because of the lack of convincing evidence from outcome studies. Notably, subgroup analyses from the outcome studies have generated the hypothesis that triglyceride lowering may provide benefit in statin-treated patients with persistent hypertriglyceridemia. Two ongoing OM3FA outcome studies (REDUCE-IT and STRENGTH) are testing this hypothesis in high-risk, statin-treated patients with triglyceride levels of 200 to 500 mg/dL. Conclusion: There is consistent evidence that triglycerides are in the causal pathway of atherosclerosis but inconsistent evidence from cardiovascular outcomes studies as to whether triglyceride-lowering agents reduce cardiovascular risk. Ongoing outcomes studies will determine the role of triglyceride lowering in statin-treated patients with high-dose prescription OM3FAs in terms of improved ASCVD outcomes. Abbreviations: AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ACCORD = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes; AIM-HIGH = Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome with Low HDL/High Triglycerides: Impact on Global Health Outcomes; apo = apolipoprotein; ASCEND = A Study of Cardiovascular Events in Diabetes; ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; BIP = Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention; CHD = coronary heart disease; CI = confidence interval; CV = cardiovascular; CVD = cardiovascular disease; DHA = docosahexaenoic acid; DO-IT = Diet and Omega-3 Intervention Trial; EPA = eicosapentaenoic acid; FIELD = Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes; GISSI-HF = GISSI-Heart Failure; HDL-C = high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol; HPS2-THRIVE = Heart Protection Study 2–Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events; HR = hazard ratio; JELIS = Japan Eicosapentaenoic Acid Lipid Intervention Study; LDL = low-density lipoprotein; LDL-C = low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol; MI = myocardial infarction; OM3FAs = omega-3 fatty acids; VITAL = Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) has created a dysglycemia-based chronic disease (DBCD) multimorbidity care model consisting of four distinct stages along the insulin resistance-prediabetes-type 2 diabetes (T2D) spectrum that are actionable in a preventive care paradigm to reduce the potential impact of T2D, cardiometabolic risk, and cardiovascular events. The controversy of whether there is value, cost-effectiveness, or clinical benefit of diagnosing and/or managing the prediabetes state is resolved by regarding the problem, not in isolation, but as an intermediate stage in the continuum of a progressive chronic disease with opportunities for multiple concurrent prevention strategies. In this context, stage 1 represents "insulin resistance," stage 2 "prediabetes," stage 3 "type 2 diabetes," and stage 4 "vascular complications." This model encourages earliest intervention focusing on structured lifestyle change. Further scientific research may eventually reclassify stage 2 DBCD prediabetes from a predisease to a true disease state. This position statement is consistent with a portfolio of AACE endocrine disease care models, including adiposity-based chronic disease, that prioritize patient-centered care, evidence-based medicine, complexity, multimorbid chronic disease, the current health care environment, and a societal mandate for a higher value attributed to good health. Ultimately, transformative changes in diagnostic coding and reimbursement structures for prediabetes and T2D can provide improvements in population-based endocrine health care. Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1c; AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists; ABCD = adiposity-based chronic disease; CVD = cardiovascular disease; DBCD = dysglycemia-based chronic disease; FPG = fasting plasma glucose; GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide-1; MetS = metabolic syndrome; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Contains fulltext : 215333.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) BACKGROUND: Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly those with previous stenting, are at high risk of ischaemic events. These patients are generally treated with aspirin. In this trial, we aimed to investigate if these patients would benefit from treatment with aspirin plus ticagrelor. METHODS: The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) was a phase 3 randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, done in 1315 sites in 42 countries. Patients were eligible if 50 years or older, with type 2 diabetes, receiving anti-hyperglycaemic drugs for at least 6 months, with stable coronary artery disease, and one of three other mutually non-exclusive criteria: a history of previous PCI or of coronary artery bypass grafting, or documentation of angiographic stenosis of 50% or more in at least one coronary artery. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor or placebo, by use of an interactive voice-response or web-response system. The THEMIS-PCI trial comprised a prespecified subgroup of patients with previous PCI. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (measured in the intention-to-treat population). FINDINGS: Between Feb 17, 2014, and May 24, 2016, 11 154 patients (58% of the overall THEMIS trial) with a history of previous PCI were enrolled in the THEMIS-PCI trial. Median follow-up was 3.3 years (IQR 2.8-3.8). In the previous PCI group, fewer patients receiving ticagrelor had a primary efficacy outcome event than in the placebo group (404 [7.3%] of 5558 vs 480 [8.6%] of 5596; HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.74-0.97], p=0.013). The same effect was not observed in patients without PCI (p=0.76, pinteraction=0.16). The proportion of patients with cardiovascular death was similar in both treatment groups (174 [3.1%] with ticagrelor vs 183 (3.3%) with placebo; HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.78-1.18], p=0.68), as well as all-cause death (282 [5.1%] vs 323 [5.8%]; 0.88 [0.75-1.03], p=0.11). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 111 (2.0%) of 5536 patients receiving ticagrelor and 62 (1.1%) of 5564 patients receiving placebo (HR 2.03 [95% CI 1.48-2.76], p

IN BRIEF Congenital lipodystrophy is a rare genetic disorder characterized by a near-complete absence of fat cells, hypoleptinemia leading to a voracious appetite, and marked insulin resistance. This article focuses on the known cardiovascular manifestations of patients with congenital lipodystrophy, including cardiomyopathy, cardiac arrhythmias, and accelerated atherosclerosis arising from a markedly deranged metabolic milieu. Future research that targets leptin deficiency (metreleptin) and apoC3 mRNA (antisense oligonucleotide) could open a window for potential pharmacological treatment of this challenging disorder.

AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists ACE = American College of Endocrinology DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis EMA = European Medicines Agency FDA = U.S. Food and Drug Administration SGLT-2 = sodium glucosecotransporter 2 T1D = type 1 diabetes T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1C AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists ACCORD = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes ACCORD BP = Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Blood Pressure ACEI = angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor AGI = alpha-glucosidase inhibitor apo B = apolipoprotein B ARB = angiotensin II receptor blocker ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease BAS = bile acid sequestrant BMI = body mass index BP = blood pressure CHD = coronary heart disease CKD = chronic kidney disease CVD = cardiovascular disease DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis DPP-4 = dipeptidyl peptidase 4 EPA = eicosapentaenoic acid FDA = Food and Drug Administration GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide 1 HDL-C = high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol LDL-C = low-densitylipoprotein cholesterol LDL-P = low-density-lipoprotein particle Look AHEAD = Look Action for Health in Diabetes NPH = neutral protamine Hagedorn OSA = obstructive sleep apnea SFU = sulfonylurea SGLT-2 = sodium glucose cotransporter-2 SMBG = self-monitoring of blood glucose T2D = type 2 diabetes TZD = thiazolidinedione

In this issue of Diabetes Care , Pogach et al. (1) raise reasonable concepts of the dangers of hypoglycemia as a criterion for assessing glycemic control, but the authors suggest a performance measure pertaining to glycemic control of persons with diabetes with which we disagree. They propose an out-of-range measure of having either HbA1c 9.0%, “for patients aged ≥65 years with diabetes and significant comorbid conditions taking antihyperglycemic agents other than metformin alone.” The presence of a “significant comorbid condition” was primarily driven by cardiovascular disease but also included persons with serum creatinine >1.7 mg/dL, cognitive impairment, diabetic retinopathy, major depression, and/or substance abuse. This out-of-range concept certainly merits discussion. Indeed, the notion has recently been put forward that HbA1c 9%, but 35.7% had HbA1c

Kenneth J Tomaszewski,1 Amy Allen,1 Michelle Mocarski,2 Alisa Schiffman,2 Davida Kruger,3 Yehuda Handelsman,4 Michael Heile,5 Meryl Brod61KJT Group, Inc., Honeoye Falls, NY, USA; 2Novo Nordisk Inc., Plainsboro, NJ, USA; 3Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA; 4Metabolic Institute of America, Tarzana, CA, USA; 5TriHealth, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 6The Brod Group, Mill Valley, CA, USABackground: Approximately 60% of the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) on basal insulin have an HbA1c ≥7%. This analysis of the US Perceptions of Control (POC-US) study aimed to understand US patient and health care professional (HCP) views of diabetes “control,” which may play a role in whether patients reduce their HbA1c or achieve HbA1c

Background Survivors of myocardial infarction (MI) or ischemic stroke (IS) are at high risk for subsequent cardiovascular events. Hypothesis Older patients with prior MI or IS are at risk for recurrent cardiovascular events, and comorbidities such as diabetes may increase this risk. Methods Two cohorts were studied in a retrospective Medicare 20% random sample-a 2008 cohort with up to 6 years of follow-up (MI, N = 26 460; IS, N = 17 566) and a 2012 cohort with 1 year of follow-up (MI, N = 26 548; IS, N = 17 728). Results In older patients who survived an event of MI or IS (2012 cohort), 7.2% had a recurrent MI and 6.7% had a recurrent IS in the first year; 32% died. Accounting for multiple recurrent events (2012 cohort), the event rates per 100 patient-years were 11.6 and 10.2 for the MI and IS cohorts, respectively. Cumulative incidence of recurrence (2008 cohort) increased from 7.7% at 1 year to 14.3% at 6 years for recurrent MI and from 6.7% at 1 year to 13.4% at 6 years for recurrent IS. Comorbid diabetes (2012 cohort) was significantly associated (adjusted risk ratio) with MI recurrence (1.44) and risk of coronary revascularization (1.23) in the MI cohort and with IS recurrence (1.26) in the IS cohort. Conclusion In this older population with prior MI or IS, high rates of recurrent cardiovascular events and multiple recurrent events were observed. These findings highlight the need for aggressive intervention for secondary prevention and management of comorbidities in high-risk patients, particularly those with diabetes.

Estimates suggest that there are currently 122.8 million adults 65-99 years of age living with diabetes, of whom 90-95% are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Over the past two decades, a greater understanding of the complex and multifactorial pathogenesis of T2D has resulted in the development and introduction of new-generation classes of glucose-lowering therapies, which are now extensively endorsed by prevailing guidelines and are increasingly being used worldwide. These newer agents may further assist in the effective pharmacological management of T2D through the provision of patient-centered care that acknowledges multimorbidity and is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences and barriers. Given these considerations, the therapeutic approach in older patients with T2D is complex, particularly in those who have functional dependence, frailty, dementia, or who are at end-of-life. It is currently too early to draw conclusions on the long-term use of newer glucose-lowering agents in this population, as their efficacy and safety in older adults remains largely unknown. In this review, we will discuss considerations for the use of glucose-lowering treatments in older adults, with particular focus on the use of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and the rationale for the use of combination therapy comprising these agents. Finally, we will review clinical data from studies of the fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide in older patients with T2D. FUNDING: Sanofi US, Inc.

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is associated with significant impairment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). A patient-centered collaborative approach is recommended to optimize clinical outcomes, including HRQoL, in this patient population. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) provide effective glycemic control and have demonstrated beneficial effects on HRQoL and treatment satisfaction. Available once-weekly GLP-1 RAs may offer enhanced convenience compared with daily GLP-1 RAs and include exenatide extended-release (ER), dulaglutide, and semaglutide. This article reviews the impact of once-weekly GLP-1 RAs on HRQoL and treatment satisfaction in patients with T2DM. Compared with oral antihyperglycemic drugs, insulin, and daily GLP-1 RAs, once-weekly GLP-1 RAs offer benefits with regard to HRQoL and treatment satisfaction. These benefits appear to be largely mediated by relative drug effects on glycemic control, weight, and hypoglycemia. While there was not an overall class benefit of once-weekly GLP-1 RAs compared with daily GLP-1 RAs on HRQoL and treatment satisfaction, results suggested that once-weekly GLP-1 RAs may enhance certain elements of treatment satisfaction and increase willingness to continue treatment. In 2 studies comparing once-weekly GLP-1 RAs with each other, semaglutide produced significantly greater improvement in overall treatment satisfaction compared with exenatide ER but not dulaglutide. Once-weekly GLP-1 RAs represent an effective and convenient treatment option that may potentially increase treatment satisfaction and enhance adherence, contributing to improved health outcomes.This supplement was funded by Novo Nordisk. Billings reports personal fees from Dexcom, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Handelsman reports research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi; speaker fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi; and has served in advisory capacity to Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Intarcia, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Heile reports speaker fees from and has served as advisor to Novo Nordisk. Schneider reports advisory board fees from Intarcia, Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Wyne has nothing to disclose.

This article provides an overview of the efficacy and safety of once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). GLP-1 RAs stimulate pancreatic GLP-1 receptors, which increases insulin secretion, delays gastric emptying, and increases satiety. As a class, GLP-1 RAs lower A1c levels and have been associated with reductions in weight and blood pressure and reduced fluctuations in glucose levels, and they have a low risk of hypoglycemia. Exenatide extended release (ER) and dulaglutide monotherapy have shown similar or superior reductions in A1c and weight compared with various oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Semaglutide has been shown to reduce both A1c and body weight compared with placebo and, in head-to-head studies versus both exenatide ER and dulaglutide, showed greater reductions in A1c and body weight. Once-weekly GLP-1 RAs have also been evaluated as add-on therapy in the continuum of care for the treatment of T2DM in combination with a variety of background medications, including 1 or more OADs (metformin, sulfonylureas, and/or thiazolidinediones), basal insulin, and prandial insulin. Gastrointestinal adverse events (e.g., nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea) are the most common side effects with once-weekly GLP-1 RAs. Rates of hypoglycemia, and especially major/severe hypoglycemia, are low with once-weekly GLP-1 RAs but, as expected, are higher when used in combination with sulfonylureas or insulin. These once-weekly GLP-1 RAs provide a safe and effective treatment option for patients with T2DM and may offer improved convenience and possibly greater adherence compared with daily GLP-1 RAs.This supplement was funded by Novo Nordisk. Handelsman reports research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grifols, Janssen, Lexicon, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi; speaker fees from Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi; and has served in advisory capacity to Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Intarcia, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Cannon reports speaker fees and owns stock in Novo Nordisk. Shannon reports consultant and speaker fees from Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim-Lilly Alliance. Schneider reports advisory board fees from Intarcia, Lilly, and Novo Nordisk. Wyne has nothing to disclose.