Cardio-renal-metabolic disease in primary care setting.

In the primary care setting providers have more tools available than ever before to impact positively obesity, diabetes, and their complications, such as renal and cardiac diseases. It is important to recognise what is available for treatment taking into account diabetes heterogeneity. For those who develop type 2 diabetes (T2DM), effective treatments are available that for the first time have shown a benefit in reducing mortality and macrovascular complications, in addition to the well-established benefits of glucose control in reducing microvascular complications. Some of the newer medications for treating hyperglycaemia have also a positive impact in reducing heart failure (HF). Technological advances have also contributed to improving the quality of care in patients with diabetes. The use of technology, such as continuous glucose monitoring systems (CGM), has improved significantly glucose and glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) values, while limiting the frequency of hypoglycaemia. Other technological support derives from the use of predictive algorithms that need to be refined to help predict those subjects who are at great risk of developing the disease and/or its complications, or who may require care by other specialists. In this review we also provide recommendations for the optimal use of the new medications; sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and Glucagon-like peptide-receptor agonists 1 (GLP1RA) in the primary care setting considering the relevance of these drugs for the management of T2DM also in its early stage.

Immunogenicity, Efficacy, and Safety of Biosimilar Insulin Glargine (Gan & Lee Glargine) Compared With Originator Insulin Glargine (Lantus) in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes After 26 Weeks Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the immunogenicity, safety, and efficacy of Gan & Lee insulin glargine (GL Glargine) with that of the originator insulin glargine (Lantus) in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, open-label, equivalence study. Five hundred seventy-six subjects with T1DM were randomized 1:1 to receive either GL Glargine or Lantus treatment for 26 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage of subjects in each treatment group who developed treatment-induced anti-insulin antibody after baseline and up to visit week 26, which was evaluated using a country-adjusted logistic regression model. The study also compared the changes in glycated hemoglobin, and adverse events including hypoglycemia. RESULTS: The percentage of subjects positive for treatment-induced anti-insulin antibody by Week 26 was 25.8% in the GL Glargine treatment group and 25.3% in the Lantus treatment group, with a 90% confidence interval (-5.4, 6.5) of the difference in proportions that fell completely between the similarity margins (-11.3, 11.3). The least squares mean difference between treatment groups for changes in glycated hemoglobin was -0.08 (90% confidence interval: -0.23, 0.06), and the other immunogenicity and safety profiles were comparable. CONCLUSION: GL Glargine demonstrated similar immunogenicity, efficacy, and safety compared to Lantus over 26 weeks in patients with T1DM.

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists and Heart Failure: The Need for Further Evidence Generation and Practice Guidelines Optimization.

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.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology Clinical Practice Guideline: The Use of Advanced Technology in the Management of Persons With Diabetes Mellitus.

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.

Consensus Statement by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology on the Management of Dyslipidemia and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease Algorithm - 2020 Executive Summary.

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 <55 mg/dL, and those at very high ASCVD risk should be treated to achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL. Treatment for moderate and high ASCVD risk patients may begin with a moderate-intensity statin to achieve an LDL-C <100 mg/dL, while the LDL-C goal is <130 mg/dL for those at low risk. In all cases, treatment should be intensified, including the addition of other LDL-C-lowering agents (i.e., proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, ezetimibe, colesevelam, or bempedoic acid) as needed to achieve treatment goals. When targeting triglyceride levels, the desirable goal is <150 mg/dL. Statin therapy should be combined with a fibrate, prescription-grade omega-3 fatty acid, and/or niacin to reduce triglycerides in all patients with triglycerides ≥500 mg/dL, and icosapent ethyl should be added to a statin in any patient with established ASCVD or diabetes with ≥2 ASCVD risk factors and triglycerides between 135 and 499 mg/dL to prevent ASCVD events. Management of additional risk factors such as elevated lipoprotein(a) and statin intolerance is also described.

Efficacy and safety of evolocumab in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: primary results of the randomised controlled BANTING study.

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 <10% (86 mmol/mol), had been on stable pharmacological therapy for diabetes for ≥6 months and were taking a maximum-tolerated statin dose of at least moderate intensity. Lipid eligibility criteria varied by history of clinical cardiovascular disease. Participants were randomised 2:1 to evolocumab 420 mg s.c. or placebo. Randomisation was performed centrally via an interactive web-based or voice recognition system. Allocation was concealed using the centralised randomisation process. Treatment assignment was blinded to the sponsor study team, investigators, site staff and patients throughout the study. Co-primary endpoints were mean percentage change in LDL-C from baseline to week 12 and to the mean of weeks 10 and 12. Additional endpoints included LDL-C <1.81 mmol/l, LDL-C reduction ≥50% and other lipids. Exploratory analyses included percentage changes in fasting and post mixed-meal tolerance test (MMTT) lipoproteins and lipids, glucose metabolism variables and inflammatory biomarkers. RESULTS: In total, 421 individuals were randomised and analysed, having received evolocumab (280 participants) or placebo (141 participants) (mean [SD] age 62 [8] years; 44% women; 77% white). Evolocumab decreased LDL-C by 54.3% (1.4%) at week 12 (vs 1.1% [1.9%] decrease with placebo; p < 0.0001) and by 65.0% (1.3%) at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 (vs 0.8% [1.8%] decrease with placebo; p < 0.0001); it also decreased non-HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) by 46.9% (1.3%) at week 12 (vs 0.6% [1.8%] decrease with placebo) and by 56.6% (1.2%) at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 (vs 0.1% [1.6%] decrease with placebo). Evolocumab significantly improved levels of other lipids and allowed more participants to reach LDL-C <1.81 mmol/l or a reduction in LDL-C levels ≥50%. After an MMTT (120 min), there were favourable changes (p < 0.05; nominal, post hoc, no multiplicity adjustment) in chylomicron triacylglycerol (triglycerides), chylomicron cholesterol, VLDL-C and LDL-C. Evolocumab had no effect on glycaemic variables and was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In statin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia, evolocumab significantly reduced LDL-C and non-HDL-C. Favourable changes (p < 0.05) were observed in postprandial levels of chylomicrons, VLDL-C and LDL-C. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02739984 FUNDING: This study was funded by Amgen Inc. DATA AVAILABILITY: Qualified researchers may request data from Amgen clinical studies. Complete details are available at www.amgen.com/datasharing .

Sustained 52-week efficacy and safety of triple therapy with dapagliflozin plus saxagliptin versus dual therapy with sitagliptin added to metformin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

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.

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF IDEGLIRA IN OLDER PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES.

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: A post hoc analysis compared results of patients aged ≥65 versus <65 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 aged <65 and 87 patients aged ≥65 years from DUAL II, 326 patients <65 years and 112 patients ≥65 years from DUAL III, and 412 patients <65 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). RESULTS: 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]95% confidence interval [CI], -0.8% [-1.0; -0.5]95% CI, and -0.9% [-1.3; -0.6]95%CI) for DUAL II, V, and III, respectively; all P<.001). These mirrored results of patients <65 years of age. Hypoglycemia rates were lower with IDegLira versus basal insulin and higher versus unchanged GLP-1RA (estimated rate ratios, 0.5 [0.2; 1.6]95% CI [ P = .242]; 0.3 [0.1; 0.5]95% CI [ P<.001], and 11.8 [3.3; 42.8]95% CI [ P<.001] for DUAL II, V, and III, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients aged ≥65 years on basal insulin or GLP-1RA can improve glycemic control with IDegLira, and it is well tolerated overall. ABBREVIATIONS: 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.

Propensity-score-matched comparative analyses of simultaneously administered fixed-ratio insulin glargine 100 U and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) vs sequential administration of insulin glargine and lixisenatide in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes.

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 <53 mmol/mol (<7%) after short-term use of iGlar alone (LixiLan-O vs GetGoal Duo-1 comparison) and vs sequential addition of Lixi in uncontrolled patients after long-term use of iGlar alone (LixiLan-L vs GetGoal Duo-2 comparison). RESULTS: In both analyses, compared with sequential iGlar + Lixi, iGlarLixi led to significantly greater HbA1c reductions with associated weight loss and significantly more patients reaching target HbA1c <53 mmol/mol despite lower insulin doses. Symptomatic hypoglycaemia rates were similar, despite greater HbA1c reductions with iGlarLixi. Lower rates of gastrointestinal adverse events were observed with iGlarLixi, probably as a result of the more gradual titration of Lixi with iGlarLixi. CONCLUSIONS: Indirect propensity-score-matched exploratory comparisons suggest that early treatment with a simultaneous, titratable, fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and a GLP-1RA (iGlarLixi) may be more effective and possess better gastrointestinal tolerability than a sequential approach of adding a GLP-1RA in patients with uncontrolled T2D initiating or intensifying basal insulin therapy.

DYSGLYCEMIA-BASED CHRONIC DISEASE: AN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS POSITION STATEMENT.

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.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY 2018 POSITION STATEMENT ON INTEGRATION OF INSULIN PUMPS AND CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETES MELLITUS.

This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology. Where there are 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. AACE/ACE Task Force on Integration of Insulin Pumps and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Management of Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Chair George Grunberger, MD, FACP, FACE Task Force Members Yehuda Handelsman, MD, FACP, FNLA, MACE Zachary T. Bloomgarden, MD, MACE Vivian A. Fonseca, MD, FACE Alan J. Garber, MD, PhD, FACE Richard A. Haas, MD, FACE Victor L. Roberts, MD, MBA, FACP, FACE Guillermo E. Umpierrez, MD, CDE, FACP, FACE Abbreviations: AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists ACE = American College of Endocrinology A1C = glycated hemoglobin BGM = blood glucose monitoring CGM = continuous glucose monitoring CSII = continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion DM = diabetes mellitus FDA = Food & Drug Administration MDI = multiple daily injections T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus SAP = sensor-augmented pump SMBG = self-monitoring of blood glucose STAR 3 = Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy for A1C Reduction phase 3 trial.

Lipid-lowering efficacy and safety of alirocumab in patients with or without diabetes: A sub-analysis of ODYSSEY COMBO II.

AIM: This sub-analysis of the ODYSSEY COMBO II study compared the effects of alirocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, in high cardiovascular risk patients with or without diabetes mellitus (DM) receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy. METHODS: COMBO II was a 104-week, double-blind study (n = 720) enrolling patients with documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L), and patients without documented ASCVD at high cardiovascular risk with LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L). Patients receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy were randomized (2:1) to alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W; 1 mL subcutaneous injection) or oral ezetimibe 10 mg daily. Alirocumab dose was increased to 150 mg Q2W (also 1 mL) at Week 12 if Week 8 LDL-C was ≥70 mg/dL. RESULTS: History of DM was reported in 31% (n = 148) of patients on alirocumab and 32% (n = 77) of patients on ezetimibe. At Week 24, alirocumab consistently reduced LDL-C from baseline in patients with (-49.1%) or without DM (-51.2%) to a significantly greater extent than ezetimibe (-18.4% and -21.8%, respectively). Occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar between groups. Efficacy results at 104 weeks were similar to those at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 104-week double-blind study period, alirocumab provided consistently greater LDL-C reductions than ezetimibe, with similar LDL-C results in patients with or without DM. Safety of alirocumab was similar regardless of baseline DM status.

TRIGLYCERIDES, ATHEROSCLEROSIS, AND CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOME STUDIES: FOCUS ON OMEGA-3 FATTY ACIDS.

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.

AACE/ACE POSITION STATEMENT ON THE USE OF FOLLOW-ON BIOLOGICS AND BIOSIMILARS FOR ENDOCRINE DISEASES.

This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and 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 and consensus 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. ABBREVIATIONS: BPCIA = Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act; FDA = Food and Drug Administration; FFDC = Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act; PHS = Public Health Services Act; TE = therapeutic equivalence.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY POSITION STATEMENT ON TESTING FOR AUTONOMIC AND SOMATIC NERVE DYSFUNCTION.

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.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF DYSLIPIDEMIA AND PREVENTION OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE.

OBJECTIVE: The development of these guidelines is mandated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: Recommendations are based on diligent reviews of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors, according to established AACE/ACE guidelines for guidelines protocols. RESULTS: The Executive Summary of this document contains 87 recommendations of which 45 are Grade A (51.7%), 18 are Grade B (20.7%), 15 are Grade C (17.2%), and 9 (10.3%) are Grade D. These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision-making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world medical care. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for Executive Summary Recommendations. This update contains 695 citations of which 203 (29.2 %) are EL 1 (strong), 137 (19.7%) are EL 2 (intermediate), 119 (17.1%) are EL 3 (weak), and 236 (34.0%) are EL 4 (no clinical evidence). CONCLUSION: This CPG is a practical tool that endocrinologists, other health care professionals, health-related organizations, and regulatory bodies can use to reduce the risks and consequences of dyslipidemia. It provides guidance on screening, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations for a range of individuals with various lipid disorders. The recommendations emphasize the importance of treating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in some individuals to lower goals than previously endorsed and support the measurement of coronary artery calcium scores and inflammatory markers to help stratify risk. Special consideration is given to individuals with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, women, and youth with dyslipidemia. Both clinical and cost-effectiveness data are provided to support treatment decisions. ABBREVIATIONS: 4S = Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study A1C = glycated hemoglobin AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists AAP = American Academy of Pediatrics ACC = American College of Cardiology ACE = American College of Endocrinology ACS = acute coronary syndrome ADMIT = Arterial Disease Multiple Intervention Trial ADVENT = Assessment of Diabetes Control and Evaluation of the Efficacy of Niaspan Trial AFCAPS/TexCAPS = Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study AHA = American Heart Association AHRQ = Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AIM-HIGH = Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides trial ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ATP = Adult Treatment Panel apo = apolipoprotein BEL = best evidence level BIP = Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention trial BMI = body mass index CABG = coronary artery bypass graft CAC = coronary artery calcification CARDS = Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study CDP = Coronary Drug Project trial CI = confidence interval CIMT = carotid intimal media thickness CKD = chronic kidney disease CPG(s) = clinical practice guideline(s) CRP = C-reactive protein CTT = Cholesterol Treatment Trialists CV = cerebrovascular CVA = cerebrovascular accident EL = evidence level FH = familial hypercholesterolemia FIELD = Secondary Endpoints from the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes trial FOURIER = Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk trial HATS = HDL-Atherosclerosis Treatment Study HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HHS = Helsinki Heart Study HIV = human immunodeficiency virus HoFH = homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HPS = Heart Protection Study HPS2-THRIVE = Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events trial HR = hazard ratio HRT = hormone replacement therapy hsCRP = high-sensitivity CRP IMPROVE-IT = Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial IRAS = Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study JUPITER = Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol Lp-PLA2 = lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 MACE = major cardiovascular events MESA = Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis MetS = metabolic syndrome MI = myocardial infarction MRFIT = Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial NCEP = National Cholesterol Education Program NHLBI = National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PCOS = polycystic ovary syndrome PCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 Post CABG = Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft trial PROSPER = Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk trial QALY = quality-adjusted life-year ROC = receiver-operator characteristic SOC = standard of care SHARP = Study of Heart and Renal Protection T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus TG = triglycerides TNT = Treating to New Targets trial VA-HIT = Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Intervention Trial VLDL-C = very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol WHI = Women's Health Initiative.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF DYSLIPIDEMIA AND PREVENTION OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE - EXECUTIVE SUMMARYComplete Appendix to Guidelines available at http://journals.aace.com.

OBJECTIVE: The development of these guidelines is mandated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: Each Recommendation is based on a diligent review of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors. RESULTS: The Executive Summary of this document contains 87 Recommendations of which 45 are Grade A (51.7%), 18 are Grade B (20.7%), 15 are Grade C (17.2%), and 9 (10.3%) are Grade D. These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world medical care. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for Executive Summary Recommendations. This update contains 695 citations of which 202 (29.1 %) are evidence level (EL) 1 (strong), 137 (19.7%) are EL 2 (intermediate), 119 (17.1%) are EL 3 (weak), and 237 (34.1%) are EL 4 (no clinical evidence). CONCLUSION: This CPG is a practical tool that endocrinologists, other healthcare professionals, regulatory bodies and health-related organizations can use to reduce the risks and consequences of dyslipidemia. It provides guidance on screening, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations for a range of patients with various lipid disorders. These recommendations emphasize the importance of treating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in some individuals to lower goals than previously recommended and support the measurement of coronary artery calcium scores and inflammatory markers to help stratify risk. Special consideration is given to patients with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, women, and pediatric patients with dyslipidemia. Both clinical and cost-effectiveness data are provided to support treatment decisions. ABBREVIATIONS: A1C = hemoglobin A1C ACE = American College of Endocrinology ACS = acute coronary syndrome AHA = American Heart Association ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ATP = Adult Treatment Panel apo = apolipoprotein BEL = best evidence level CKD = chronic kidney disease CPG = clinical practice guidelines CVA = cerebrovascular accident EL = evidence level FH = familial hypercholesterolemia HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HIV = human immunodeficiency virus HoFH = homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia hsCRP = high-sensitivity C-reactive protein LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol Lp-PLA2 = lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 MESA = Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis MetS = metabolic syndrome MI = myocardial infarction NCEP = National Cholesterol Education Program PCOS = polycystic ovary syndrome PCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus TG = triglycerides VLDL-C = very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Effect of Insulin Degludec vs Insulin Glargine U100 on Hypoglycemia in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The SWITCH 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Hypoglycemia, a serious risk for insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes, negatively affects glycemic control. OBJECTIVE: To test whether treatment with basal insulin degludec is associated with a lower rate of hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, double-blind, treat-to-target crossover trial including two 32-week treatment periods, each with a 16-week titration period and a 16-week maintenance period. The trial was conducted at 152 US centers between January 2014 and December 2015 in 721 adults with type 2 diabetes and at least 1 hypoglycemia risk factor who were previously treated with basal insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily insulin degludec followed by insulin glargine U100 (n = 361) or to receive insulin glargine U100 followed by insulin degludec (n = 360) and randomized 1:1 to morning or evening dosing within each treatment sequence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes (severe or blood glucose confirmed [<56 mg/dL]) during the maintenance period. Secondary end points were the rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemic episodes (severe or blood glucose confirmed, occurring between 12:01 am and 5:59 am) and the proportion of patients with severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period. RESULTS: Of the 721 patients randomized (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [10.5] years; 53.1% male), 580 (80.4%) completed the trial. During the maintenance period, the rates of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia for insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were 185.6 vs 265.4 episodes per 100 patient-years of exposure (PYE) (rate ratio = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.61-0.80]; P < .001; difference, -23.66 episodes/100 PYE [95% CI, -33.98 to -13.33]), and the proportions of patients with hypoglycemic episodes were 22.5% vs 31.6% (difference, -9.1% [95% CI, -13.1% to -5.0%]). The rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were 55.2 vs 93.6 episodes/100 PYE (rate ratio = 0.58 [95% CI, 0.46-0.74]; P < .001; difference, -7.41 episodes/100 PYE [95% CI, -11.98 to -2.85]), and the proportions of patients with hypoglycemic episodes were 9.7% vs 14.7% (difference, -5.1% [95% CI, -8.1% to -2.0%]). The proportions of patients experiencing severe hypoglycemia during the maintenance period were 1.6% (95% CI, 0.6%-2.7%) for insulin degludec vs 2.4% (95% CI, 1.1%-3.7%) for insulin glargine U100 (McNemar P = .35; risk difference, -0.8% [95% CI, -2.2% to 0.5%]). Statistically significant reductions in overall and nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycemia for insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 were also seen for the full treatment period. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin and with at least 1 hypoglycemia risk factor, 32 weeks' treatment with insulin degludec vs insulin glargine U100 resulted in a reduced rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02030600.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY 2016 OUTPATIENT GLUCOSE MONITORING CONSENSUS STATEMENT.

This document represents the official position of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and 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.