Time-dependent event accumulation in a cardiovascular outcome trial of patients with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Estimating cardiovascular (CV) event accrual is important for outcome trial planning. Limited data exist describing event accrual patterns in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). We compared apparent CV event accrual patterns with true event rates in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS). METHODS: Centrally adjudicated event dates and accrual rates for a 4-point major adverse CV event composite (MACE-4; includes CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or unstable angina hospitalization), MACE-4 components, all-cause mortality (ACM), and heart failure hospitalization were compiled. We used three graphical methods (Weibull probability plot, plot of negative log of the Kaplan-Meier survival distribution estimate, and the Epanechnikov kernel-smoothed estimate of the hazard rate) to examine hazard rate morphology over time for the 7 outcomes. RESULTS: Plots for all outcomes showed real-time constant event hazard rates for the duration of the follow-up, confirmed by Weibull shape parameters. The Weibull shape parameters for ACM (1.14, 95% CI 1.08-1.21) and CV death (1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.16) were not sufficiently > 1 as to require non-constant hazard rate models to accurately depict the data. The time lag between event occurrence and event adjudication being completed, the adjudication gap, improved over the course of the trial. CONCLUSIONS: In TECOS, the nonfatal event hazard rates were constant over time. Small increases over time in the hazard rate for fatal events would not require complex modelling to predict event accrual, providing confidence in traditional modelling methods for predicting CV outcome trial event rates in this population. The adjudication gap provides a useful metric to monitor within-trial event accrual patterns. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00790205.

Gender differences in cardiovascular risk, treatment, and outcomes: a post hoc analysis from the REWIND trial.

Objectives. To assess whether the use of cardioprotective therapies for type 2 diabetes varies by gender and whether the risk of cardiovascular events is higher in women versus men in the REWIND trial, including an international type 2 diabetes patient population with a wide range of baseline risk. Design. Gender differences in baseline characteristics, cardioprotective therapy, and the achieved clinical targets at baseline and two years were analyzed. Hazards for cardiovascular outcomes (fatal/nonfatal stroke, fatal/nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization), in women versus men were analyzed using two Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for randomized treatment and key baseline characteristics respectively. Time-to-event analyses were performed in subgroups with or without history of cardiovascular disease using Cox proportional hazards models that included gender, subgroup, randomized treatment, and gender-by-subgroup interactions. Results. Of 9901 participants, 46.3% were women. Significantly fewer women than men had a cardiovascular disease history. Although most women met treatment targets for blood pressure (96.7%) and lipids (72.8%), fewer women than men met the target for cardioprotective therapies at baseline and after two years, particularly those with prior cardiovascular disease, who used less renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, statins, and aspirin than men. Despite these differences, women had lower hazards than men for all outcomes except stroke. No significant gender and cardiovascular disease history interactions were identified for cardiovascular outcomes. Conclusions. In REWIND, most women met clinically relevant treatment targets, but in lower proportions than men. Women had a lower risk for all cardiovascular outcomes except stroke. Clinical trials.gov registration number: NCT01394952.

Exploring the Possible Impact of Unbalanced Open-Label Drop-In of Glucose-Lowering Medications on EXSCEL Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: EXSCEL (Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering) assessed the impact of once-weekly exenatide 2 mg versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, while aiming for glycemic equipoise. Consequently, greater drop-in of open-label glucose-lowering medications occurred in the placebo group. Accordingly, we explored the potential effects of their unbalanced use on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and all-cause mortality (ACM), given that some of these agents are cardioprotective. METHODS: Cox hazard models were performed by randomized treatment for drug classes where >5% open-label drop-in glucose-lowering medication occurred, and for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; 3.0%) using three methodologies: drop-in visit right censoring, inverse probability for treatment weighting (IPTW), and applying drug class risk reductions. RESULTS: Baseline glucose-lowering medications for the 14 752 EXSCEL participants (73.1% with previous cardiovascular disease) did not differ between treatment groups. During median 3.2 years follow-up, open-label drop-in occurred in 33.4% of participants, more frequently with placebo than exenatide (38.1% versus 28.8%), with metformin (6.1% versus 4.9%), sulfonylurea (8.7% versus 6.9%), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (10.6% versus 7.5%), SGLT-2i (10.3% versus 8.1%), GLP-1 RA (3.4% versus 2.4%), and insulin (13.8% versus 9.4%). The MACE effect size was not altered meaningfully by right censoring, but the favorable HR for exenatide became nominally significant in the sulfonylurea and any glucose-lowering medication groups, while the ACM HR and p-values were essentially unchanged. IPTW decreased the MACE HR from 0.91 (P=0.061) to 0.85 (P=0.008) and the ACM HR from 0.86 (P=0.016) to 0.81 (P=0.012). Application of literature-derived risk reductions showed no meaningful changes in MACE or ACM HRs or P values, although simulations of substantially greater use of drop-in cardioprotective glucose-lowering agents demonstrated blunting of signal detection. CONCLUSIONS: EXSCEL-observed HRs for MACE and ACM remained robust after right censoring or application of literature-derived risk reductions, but the exenatide versus placebo MACE effect size and statistical significance were increased by IPTW. Effects of open-label drop-in cardioprotective medications need to be considered carefully when designing, conducting, and analyzing cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering agents under the premise of glycemic equipoise. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01144338.

Glycaemic efficacy of an expanded dose range of dulaglutide according to baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) subgroup: Post hoc analysis of AWARD-11.

The AWARD-11 trial demonstrated the safety and efficacy of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin. This post hoc analysis examined the change from baseline in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and proportions of patients achieving HbA1c <7% at weeks 36 and 52 with dulaglutide 1.5 mg, 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg across clinically relevant baseline HbA1c subgroups (<8%; 8.0% to < 9.0%; 9.0% to < 10%; and ≥ 10%). Mean reductions in HbA1c were observed across all baseline HbA1c subgroups at 36 weeks (range of HbA1c change: 1.5 mg: -1.0% to -2.2%; 3.0 mg: -1.2% to -2.5%; and 4.5 mg: -1.2% to -3.2%). More patients randomized to 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg (vs. 1.5 mg) achieved HbA1c <7% at 36 weeks regardless of baseline HbA1c; the difference in proportions was greater at higher baseline HbA1c (P-interaction = 0.096). Similar patterns in glycaemic improvement and proportions achieving HbA1c <7% were observed at 52 weeks. Hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal adverse events were similar among the HbA1c subgroups. Glycaemic control was improved with dulaglutide dose escalation from 1.5 mg to 3.0 mg or 4.5 mg across baseline HbA1c subgroups (<8%; 8.0% to < 9.0%; 9.0% to < 10%; and ≥ 10%).

Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg in patients aged younger than 65 and 65 years or older: Post hoc analysis of the AWARD-11 trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg versus 1.5 mg when used as an add-on to metformin in subgroups defined by age (<65 and ≥65 years). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 1842 patients included in this post hoc analysis, 438 were aged 65 years or older and 1404 were younger than 65 years. The intent-to-treat (ITT) population, while on treatment without rescue medication, was used for all efficacy analyses; the ITT population without rescue medication was used for hypoglycaemia analyses; all other safety analyses used the ITT population. RESULTS: Patients aged 65 years or older and those younger than 65 years had a mean age of 69.5 and 53.2 years, respectively. In each age subgroup, the reduction from baseline in HbA1c and body weight (BW), and the proportion of patients achieving a composite endpoint of HbA1c of less than 7% (<53 mmol/mol) with no weight gain and no documented symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia, were larger for dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg, but the treatment-by-age interactions were not significant. The safety profile for the additional dulaglutide doses was consistent with that of dulaglutide 1.5 mg and was similar between the age subgroups. CONCLUSION: Dulaglutide doses of 3.0 or 4.5 mg provided clinically relevant, dose-related improvements in HbA1c and BW with no significant treatment-by-age interactions, and with a similar safety profile across age subgroups.

Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo. (Funded by Amylin Pharmaceuticals; EXSCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338 .).

Prediction and validation of exenatide risk marker effects on progression of renal disease: Insights from EXSCEL.

AIM: To assess whether the previously developed multivariable risk prediction framework (PRE score) could predict the renal effects observed in the EXSCEL cardiovascular outcomes trial using short-term changes in cardio-renal risk markers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Changes from baseline to 6 months in HbA1c, systolic blood pressure (SBP), body mass index (BMI), haemoglobin, total cholesterol, and new micro- or macroalbuminuria were evaluated. The renal outcomes were defined as a composite of a sustained 30% or 40% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Relationships between risk markers and long-term renal outcomes were determined in patients with type 2 diabetes from the ALTITUDE study using multivariable Cox regression analysis, and then applied to short-term changes in risk markers observed in EXSCEL to predict the exenatide-induced impact on renal outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, mean HbA1c, BMI, SBP and total cholesterol were lower at 6 months with exenatide, as was the incidence of new microalbuminuria. The PRE score predicted a relative risk reduction for the 30% eGFR decline + ESRD endpoint of 11.3% (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.94), compared with 12.7% (HR 0.87; 0.77-0.99) observed risk reduction. For the 40% eGFR decline + ESRD endpoint, the predicted and observed risk reductions were 11.0% (HR 0.89; 0.82-0.97) and 13.7% (HR 0.86, 0.72-1.04), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating short-term risk marker changes into a multivariable risk score predicted the magnitude of renal risk reduction observed in EXSCEL.

Meta-analysis of the impact of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors on incident diabetes and cardiovascular outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs) have been shown to reduce incident type 2 diabetes but their impact on cardiovascular (CV) disease remains controversial. We sought to identify the overall impact of AGIs with respect to incident type 2 diabetes in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and CV outcomes in those with IGT or type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We used PubMed and SCOPUS to identify randomized controlled trials reporting the incidence of type 2 diabetes and/or CV outcomes that had compared AGIs with placebo in populations with IGT or type 2 diabetes, with or without established CV disease. Eligible studies were required to have ≥ 500 participants and/or ≥ 100 endpoints of interest. Meta-analyses of available trial data were performed using random effects models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident type 2 diabetes and CV outcomes. RESULTS: Of ten trials identified, three met our inclusion criteria for incident type 2 diabetes and four were eligible for CV outcomes. The overall HR (95% CI) comparing AGI with placebo for incident type 2 diabetes was 0.77 (0.67-0.88), p < 0.0001, and for CV outcomes was 0.98 (0.89-1.10), p = 0.85. There was little to no heterogeneity between studies, with I2 values of 0.03% (p = 0.43) and 0% (p = 0.79) for the two outcomes respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Allocation of people with IGT to an AGI significantly reduced their risk of incident type 2 diabetes by 23%, whereas in those with IGT or type 2 diabetes the impact on CV outcomes was neutral.

Comparison of nine platelet function tests used to determine responses to different aspirin dosages in people with type 2 diabetes.

The antiplatelet efficacy of aspirin (ASA) is reduced in type 2 diabetes (T2D). As the best ex vivo method of measuring ASA efficacy remains uncertain, we compared nine platelet function tests to assess responsiveness to three ASA dosing regimens in 24 T2D patients randomized in a three-treatment crossover design to ASA 100 mg/day, 200 mg/day, or 100 mg twice daily for 2-week treatment periods. Platelet function tests compared were as follows: light transmission aggregometry (LTA)-0.5 mg/mL of arachidonic acid (AA) and 10 µM adenosine diphosphate (ADP); multiplate whole blood aggregometry (WBA)-0.5 mM AA and 6.5 µM ADP; platelet function analyzer (PFA)-100™-collagen and ADP (CADP) and collagen and epinephrine (CEPI); VerifyNow™-ASA; and urinary 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2 (TxB2) and serum TxB2. All cyclo-oxygenase (COX-1)-dependent tests and some COX-1-independent tests (PFA-CEPI, LTA-ADP) demonstrated significant reductions in platelet reactivity with all ASA doses. Two COX-1-independent tests (WBA-ADP and PFA-CADP) showed no overall reduction in platelet reactivity. Overall classifications for detecting all ASA doses, compared to baseline, were as follows: very good-LTA-AA (k = 0.95) and VerifyNow™-ASA (k = 0.85); good-serum TxB2 (k = 0.79); moderate-LTA-ADP (k = 0.59), PFA-100™-CEPI (k = 0.56), urinary TxB2 (k = 0.55), WBA-AA (k = 0.47); and poor-PFA-100™-CADP (k = -0.02) and WBA-ADP (k = -0.07). No significant kappa statistic differences were seen for each test for each ASA dose. Correlations for each test with serum TxB2 measurements were as follows: very good-VerifyNow™-ASA (k = 0.81, R2 = 0.56) and LTA-AA (k = 0.85, R2 = 0.65); good-PFA-100TM-CEPI (k = 0.62, R2 = 0.30); moderate-urinary TxB2 (k = 0.57, R2 = 0.51) and LTA-ADP (k = 0.47, R2 = 0.56); fair-WBA-AA (k = 0.31, R2 = 0.31); and poor-PFA-100™-CADP (k = 0.04, R2 = 0.003) and WBA-ADP (k = -0.04, R2 = 0.0005). The platelet function tests we assessed were not equally effective in measuring the antiplatelet effect of ASA and correlated poorly amongst themselves, but COX-1-dependent tests performed better than non-COX-1-dependent tests.

Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: International Insights From the TECOS Trial (Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin).

BACKGROUND: Intensive risk factor modification significantly improves outcomes for patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease. However, the degree to which secondary prevention treatment goals are achieved in international clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: Attainment of 5 secondary prevention parameters-aspirin use, lipid control (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL or statin therapy), blood pressure control (<140 mm Hg systolic, <90 mm Hg diastolic), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker use, and nonsmoking status-was evaluated among 13 616 patients from 38 countries with diabetes mellitus and known cardiovascular disease at entry into TECOS (Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin). Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between individual and regional factors and secondary prevention achievement at baseline. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to determine the association between baseline secondary prevention achievement and cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. RESULTS: Overall, 29.9% of patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease achieved all 5 secondary prevention parameters at baseline, although 71.8% achieved at least 4 parameters. North America had the highest proportion (41.2%), whereas Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and Latin America had proportions of ≈25%. Individually, blood pressure control (57.9%) had the lowest overall attainment, whereas nonsmoking status had the highest (89%). Over a median 3.0 years of follow-up, a higher baseline secondary prevention score was associated with improved outcomes in a step-wise graded relationship (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.77 for those patients achieving all 5 measures versus those achieving ≤2). CONCLUSIONS: In an international trial population, significant opportunities exist to improve the quality of cardiovascular secondary prevention care among patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease, which in turn could lead to reduced risk of downstream cardiovascular events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00790205.

Effect of Sitagliptin on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the long-term effect on cardiovascular events of adding sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we assigned 14,671 patients to add either sitagliptin or placebo to their existing therapy. Open-label use of antihyperglycemic therapy was encouraged as required, aimed at reaching individually appropriate glycemic targets in all patients. To determine whether sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo, we used a relative risk of 1.3 as the marginal upper boundary. The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.0 years, there was a small difference in glycated hemoglobin levels (least-squares mean difference for sitagliptin vs. placebo, -0.29 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.32 to -0.27). Overall, the primary outcome occurred in 839 patients in the sitagliptin group (11.4%; 4.06 per 100 person-years) and 851 patients in the placebo group (11.6%; 4.17 per 100 person-years). Sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.09; P<0.001). Rates of hospitalization for heart failure did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.20; P=0.98). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of acute pancreatitis (P=0.07) or pancreatic cancer (P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease, adding sitagliptin to usual care did not appear to increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, or other adverse events. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; TECOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00790205.).

Baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL).

BACKGROUND: EXSCEL is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial examining the effect of exenatide once-weekly (EQW) versus placebo on time to the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and a wide range of cardiovascular (CV) risk. METHODS: Patients were enrolled at 688 sites in 35 countries. We describe their baseline characteristics according to prior CV event status and compare patients with those enrolled in prior glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) outcomes trials. RESULTS: Of a total of 14,752 participants randomized between June 2010 and September 2015, 6,788 (46.0%) patients were enrolled in Europe; 3,708 (25.1%), North America; 2,727 (18.5%), Latin America; and 1,529 (10.4%), Asia Pacific. Overall, 73% had at least one prior CV event (70% coronary artery disease, 24% peripheral arterial disease, 22% cerebrovascular disease). The median (IQR) age was 63 years (56, 69), 38% were female, median baseline HbA1c was 8.0% (7.3, 8.9) and 16% had a prior history of heart failure. Those without a prior CV event were younger with a shorter duration of diabetes and better renal function than those with at least one prior CV event. Compared with prior GLP-1RA trials, EXSCEL has a larger percentage of patients without a prior CV event and a notable percentage who were taking a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor at baseline (15%). CONCLUSIONS: EXSCEL is one of the largest global GLP-1RA trials, evaluating the safety and efficacy of EQW with a broad patient population that may extend generalizability compared to prior GLP-1RA trials (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338).

Effect of valsartan on kidney outcomes in people with impaired glucose tolerance.

AIMS: To examine the effect of valsartan on kidney outcomes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). METHODS: In a double-blind randomized trial, 9306 patients with IGT were assigned to valsartan (160 mg daily) or placebo. The co-primary endpoints were the development of diabetes and two composite cardiovascular outcomes. Prespecified renal endpoints included: the composite of renal death, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or doubling of serum creatinine; estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2 ; hospitalization for renal failure; and progression from normoalbuminuria to microalbuminuria, microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria, and normoalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria. The median follow-up was 6.2 years. RESULTS: Valsartan reduced the incidence of diabetes but not cardiovascular events. In the valsartan group, 25/4631 patients (0.5%), vs 26/4675 (0.6%) patients in the placebo group, developed ESRD or experienced doubling of serum creatinine (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-1.66; P = .87). Few patients in either group developed an eGFR of ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2 or had a renal hospitalization. Fewer patients on valsartan (237/4084 [5.8%]) than on placebo (342/4092 [8.4%]) developed microalbuminuria (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.57-0.80; P < .0001), and fewer valsartan-treated patients developed macroalbuminuria. Overall, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) was 11% lower with valsartan (95% CI 8-13; P < .0001) and 9% lower (95% CI 6-11; P < .0001) after adjusting for both glucose and blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of valsartan on UACR was not wholly explained by change in blood pressure or glucose. Valsartan reduced the incidence of microalbuminuria in IGT without increasing the incidence of hyperkalaemia or renal dysfunction compared with placebo.

Sitagliptin and risk of fractures in type 2 diabetes: Results from the TECOS trial.

AIM: To examine fracture incidence among participants in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used data from 14 671 participants in the TECOS study who were randomized double-blind to sitagliptin (n = 7332) or placebo (n = 7339). Cumulative fracture incidence rates were calculated and their association with study treatment assignment was examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The baseline mean (standard deviation) participant age was 65.5 (8.0) years, diabetes duration was 11.6 (8.1) years and glycated haemoglobin level was 7.2 (0.5)% [55.2 (5.5) mmol/mol], and 29.3% of participants were women and 32.1% were non-white. During 43 222 person-years' follow-up, 375 (2.6%; 8.7 per 1000 person-years) had a fracture; 146 were major osteoporotic fractures (hip, n = 34; upper extremity, n = 81; and clinical spine, n = 31). Adjusted analyses showed fracture risk increased independently with older age (P < .001), female sex (P < .001), white race (P < .001), lower diastolic blood pressure (P < .001) and diabetic neuropathy (P = .003). Sitagliptin, compared with placebo, was not associated with a higher fracture risk [189 vs 186 incident fractures: unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.23, P = .944; adjusted HR 1.03, P = .745], major osteoporotic fractures (P = .673) or hip fractures (P = .761). Insulin therapy was associated with a higher fracture risk (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02-1.91; P = .035), and metformin with a lower risk (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.98; P = .035). CONCLUSION: Fractures were common among people with diabetes in the TECOS study, but were not related to sitagliptin therapy. Insulin and metformin treatment were associated with higher and lower fracture risks, respectively.

Association between change in daily ambulatory activity and cardiovascular events in people with impaired glucose tolerance (NAVIGATOR trial): a cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which change in physical activity can modify the risk of cardiovascular disease in individuals at high cardiovascular risk is uncertain. We investigated whether baseline and change in objectively-assessed ambulatory activity is associated with the risk of a cardiovascular event in individuals at high cardiovascular risk with impaired glucose tolerance. METHODS: We assessed prospective data from the NAVIGATOR trial involving 9306 individuals with impaired glucose tolerance who were recruited in 40 countries between January, 2002, and January, 2004. Participants also either had existing cardiovascular disease (if age ≥50 years) or at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor (if age ≥55 years). Participants were followed-up for cardiovascular events (defined as cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal stroke, or myocardial infarction) for 6 years on average and had ambulatory activity assessed by pedometer at baseline and 12 months. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models quantified the association of baseline and change in ambulatory activity (from baseline to 12 months) with the risk of a subsequent cardiovascular event, after adjustment for each other and potential confounding variables. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.govNCT00097786. FINDINGS: During 45,211 person-years follow-up, 531 cardiovascular events occurred. Baseline ambulatory activity (hazard ratio [HR] per 2000 steps per day 0·90, 95% CI 0·84-0·96) and change in ambulatory activity (0·92, 0·86-0·99) were inversely associated with the risk of a cardiovascular event. Results for change in ambulatory activity were unaffected when also adjusted for changes in body-mass index and other potential confounding variables at 12 months. INTERPRETATION: In individuals at high cardiovascular risk with impaired glucose tolerance, both baseline levels of daily ambulatory activity and change in ambulatory activity display a graded inverse association with the subsequent risk of a cardiovascular event. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Effect of nateglinide on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: The ability of short-acting insulin secretagogues to reduce the risk of diabetes or cardiovascular events in people with impaired glucose tolerance is unknown. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized clinical trial, we assigned 9306 participants with impaired glucose tolerance and either cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors to receive nateglinide (up to 60 mg three times daily) or placebo, in a 2-by-2 factorial design with valsartan or placebo, in addition to participation in a lifestyle modification program. We followed the participants for a median of 5.0 years for incident diabetes (and a median of 6.5 years for vital status). We evaluated the effect of nateglinide on the occurrence of three coprimary outcomes: the development of diabetes; a core cardiovascular outcome that was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure; and an extended cardiovascular outcome that was a composite of the individual components of the core composite cardiovascular outcome, hospitalization for unstable angina, or arterial revascularization. RESULTS: After adjustment for multiple testing, nateglinide, as compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the cumulative incidence of diabetes (36% and 34%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.15; P=0.05), the core composite cardiovascular outcome (7.9% and 8.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.09; P=0.43), or the extended composite cardiovascular outcome (14.2% and 15.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.93, 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.03; P=0.16). Nateglinide did, however, increase the risk of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: Among persons with impaired glucose tolerance and established cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors, assignment to nateglinide for 5 years did not reduce the incidence of diabetes or the coprimary composite cardiovascular outcomes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097786.)

Effect of valsartan on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system reduce the risk of diabetes and cardiovascular events in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized clinical trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we assigned 9306 patients with impaired glucose tolerance and established cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors to receive valsartan (up to 160 mg daily) or placebo (and nateglinide or placebo) in addition to lifestyle modification. We then followed the patients for a median of 5.0 years for the development of diabetes (6.5 years for vital status). We studied the effects of valsartan on the occurrence of three coprimary outcomes: the development of diabetes; an extended composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, arterial revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina; and a core composite outcome that excluded unstable angina and revascularization. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of diabetes was 33.1% in the valsartan group, as compared with 36.8% in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.92; P<0.001). Valsartan, as compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the incidence of either the extended cardiovascular outcome (14.5% vs. 14.8%; hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.07; P=0.43) or the core cardiovascular outcome (8.1% vs. 8.1%; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.14; P=0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with impaired glucose tolerance and cardiovascular disease or risk factors, the use of valsartan for 5 years, along with lifestyle modification, led to a relative reduction of 14% in the incidence of diabetes but did not reduce the rate of cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097786.)

Rationale, design, and organization of a randomized, controlled Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS) in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease.

Sitagliptin, an oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, lowers blood glucose when administered as monotherapy or in combination with other antihyperglycemic agents. TECOS will evaluate the effects of adding sitagliptin to usual diabetes care on cardiovascular outcomes and clinical safety. TECOS is a pragmatic, academically run, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial recruiting approximately 14,000 patients in 38 countries who have type 2 diabetes (T2DM), are at least 50 years old, have cardiovascular disease, and have an hemoglobin A1c value between 6.5% and 8.0%. Eligible participants will be receiving stable mono- or dual therapy with metformin, sulfonylurea, or pioglitazone, or insulin alone or in combination with metformin. Randomization is 1:1 to double-blind sitagliptin or matching placebo, in addition to existing therapy in a usual care setting. Follow-up occurs at 4-month intervals in year 1 and then twice yearly until 1300 confirmed primary end points have occurred. Glycemic equipoise between randomized groups is a desired aim. The primary composite cardiovascular endpoint is time to the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina, with cardiovascular events adjudicated by an independent committee blinded to study therapy. TECOS is a pragmatic-design cardiovascular outcome trial assessing the cardiovascular effects of sitagliptin when added to usual T2DM management.