Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2) in frail or older people with type 2 diabetes and heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is) reduce cardio-metabolic and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) but their efficacy and safety in older or frail individuals remains unclear. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRA and Google Scholar and selected randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing SGLT2Is versus placebo/other glucose-lowering agent for people with frailty or older individuals (>65 years) with T2D and heart failure (HF). Extracted data on the change in HbA1c % and safety outcomes were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis model. RESULTS: We included data from 20 studies (22 reports; N = 77,083 patients). SGLT2Is did not significantly reduce HbA1c level (mean difference -0.13, 95%CI: -0.41 to 0.14). SGLT2Is were associated with a significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95%CI: -0.69 to 0.95), cardiac death (RR 0.80, 95%CI: -0.94 to 0.69) and hospitalisation for heart failure (HHF) (RR 0.69, 95%CI: 0.59-0.81). However, SGLT2Is did not demonstrate significant effect in reducing in the risk of macrovascular events (acute coronary syndrome or cerebral vascular occlusion), renal progression/composite renal endpoint, acute kidney injury, worsening HF, atrial fibrillation or diabetic ketoacidosis. CONCLUSIONS: In older or frail patients with T2D and HF, SGLT2Is are consistently linked with a decrease in total mortality and the overall burden of cardiovascular (CV) events, including HHF events and cardiac death, but not protective for macrovascular death or renal events. Adverse events were more difficult to quantify but the risk of diabetic ketoacidosis or acute kidney injury was not significantly increase.

The Effects of Preoperative Glycaemic Control (HbA1c) on Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery Outcomes: Data from a Tertiary-Referral Bariatric Centre in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Current recommendations advocate the achievement of an optimal glucose control (HbA1c < 69 mmol/mol) prior to elective surgery to reduce risks of peri- and post-operative complications, but the relevance for this glycaemic threshold prior to Bariatric Metabolic Surgery (BMS) following a specialist weight management programme remains unclear. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who underwent BMS over a 6-year period (2016-2022) at a regional tertiary referral following completion of a specialist multidisciplinary weight management. Post-operative outcomes of interest included 30-day mortality, readmission rates, need for Intensive Care Unit (ICU) care and hospital length of stay (LOS) and were assessed according to HbA1c cut-off values of < 69 (N = 202) and > 69 mmol/mol (N = 67) as well as a continuous variable. RESULTS: A total of 269 patients with T2D were included in this study. Patients underwent primary Roux en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB, n = 136), Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG, n = 124), insertion of gastric band (n = 4) or one-anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB, n = 4). No significant differences in the rates of complications were observed between the two groups of pre-operative HbA1c cut-off values. No HbA1c threshold was observed for glycaemic control that would affect the peri- and post-operative complications following BMS. CONCLUSIONS: We observed no associations between pre-operative HbA1C values and the risk of peri- and post-operative complications. In the context of a specialist multidisciplinary weight management programme, optimising pre-operative HbA1C to a recommended target value prior to BMS may not translate into reduced risks of peri- and post-operative complications.

Efficacy and safety of intensive versus conventional glucose targets in people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of study is to re-evaluate the risk-benefits of intensive glycemic control in the context of multi-factorial intervention in adults with T2D. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and CINHAL for randomized control trials comparing standard glucose targets to intensive glucose targets with pre-specified HbA1clevels. Subgroup analysis was also performed to account for the inclusion of glucose only versus multi-factorial intervention trials. Results are reported as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Fifty-seven publications including 19 trials were included. Compared to conventional glycemic control, intensive glycemic control decreased the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.8, 0.7-0.91), macroalbuminuria (0.72, 0.5--0.87), microalbuminuria (0.67, 0.52-0.85), major amputation (0.6, 0.38-0.96), retinopathy (0.75 ,0.63-0.9), and nephropathy (0.78, 0.63-0.97). The risk of hypoglycemia increased with intensive glycemic control than conventional treatment (2.04, 1.34-3.1). No reduction in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality was observed. However, in the context of multifactorial intervention, intensive glucose control was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (0.74, 0.57-0.95). CONCLUSION: Targeting HbA1c levels should be individualized based on the clinical status, balancing risks and benefits and potential risk for developing these complications among people with T2D.