Evaluation of glucose-lowering medications in older people: a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasingly being diagnosed in older adults. Our objective is to assess the advantages and potential drawbacks of different glucose-lowering medications in this specific population. METHODS: A network meta-analysis was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that examined patient-centered outcomes in adults aged ≥65 years with T2DM. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase up to September 23, 2023. Quality of eligible studies were assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. RESULTS: A total of 22 trials that involved 41 654 participants were included, incorporating sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, metformin, sulfonylureas (SU) and acarbose. Our findings reveal that GLP-1RAs reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (risk ratio [RR], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.97) and body weight (mean difference [MD], -3.87 kg; 95% CI, -5.54 to -2.21). SGLT2 inhibitors prevent hospitalization for heart failure (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.77), renal composite outcome (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89), and reduce body weights (MD, -1.85 kg; 95% CI, -2.42 to -1.27). SU treatment increases the risk of any hypoglycaemia (RR, 4.19; 95% CI, 3.52 to 4.99) and severe hypoglycaemia (RR, 7.06; 95% CI, 3.03 to 16.43). GLP-1RAs, SGLT2 inhibitors, metformin, SU and DPP-4 inhibitors are effective in reducing glycaemic parameters. Notably, the number of treatments needed decreases in most cases as age increases. CONCLUSIONS: Novel glucose-lowering medications with benefits that outweigh risks should be prioritized for older patients with diabetes.

Integration of a fasting-mimicking diet programme in primary care for type 2 diabetes reduces the need for medication and improves glycaemic control: a 12-month randomised controlled trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact on metabolic control of periodic use of a 5-day fasting-mimicking diet (FMD) programme as an adjunct to usual care in people with type 2 diabetes under regular primary care surveillance. METHODS: In this randomised, controlled, assessor-blinded trial, people with type 2 diabetes using metformin as the only glucose-lowering drug and/or diet for glycaemic control were randomised to receive 5-day cycles of an FMD monthly as an adjunct to regular care by their general practitioner or to receive regular care only. The primary outcomes were changes in glucose-lowering medication (as reflected by the medication effect score) and HbA1c levels after 12 months. Moreover, changes in use of glucose-lowering medication and/or HbA1c levels in individual participants were combined to yield a clinically relevant outcome measure ('glycaemic management'), which was categorised as improved, stable or deteriorated after 1 year of follow-up. Several secondary outcome measures were also examined, including changes in body weight. RESULTS: One hundred individuals with type 2 diabetes, age 18-75 years, BMI ≥27 kg/m2, were randomised to the FMD group (n=51) or the control group (n=49). Eight FMD participants and ten control participants were lost to follow-up. Intention-to-treat analyses, using linear mixed models, revealed adjusted estimated treatment effects for the medication effect score (-0.3; 95% CI -0.4, -0.2; p<0.001), HbA1c (-3.2 mmol/mol; 95% CI -6.2, -0.2 and -0.3%; 95% CI -0.6, -0.0; p=0.04) and body weight (-3.6 kg; 95% CI -5.2, -2.1; p<0.001) at 12 months. Glycaemic management improved in 53% of participants using FMD vs 8% of control participants, remained stable in 23% vs 33%, and deteriorated in 23% vs 59% (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Integration of a monthly FMD programme in regular primary care for people with type 2 diabetes who use metformin as the only glucose-lowering drug and/or diet for glycaemic control reduces the need for glucose-lowering medication, improves HbA1c despite the reduction in medication use, and appears to be safe in routine clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03811587 FUNDING: The project was co-funded by Health~Holland, Top Sector Life Sciences & Health, the Dutch Diabetes Foundation and L-Nutra.

Real-World Use of Oral Semaglutide in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: The PIONEER REAL Switzerland Multicentre, Prospective, Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world data provide insight into how medications perform in clinical practice. The PIONEER REAL Switzerland study aimed to understand clinical outcomes with oral semaglutide in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: PIONEER REAL Switzerland was a 34-44-week, multicentre, prospective, non-interventional, single-arm study of adults with T2D naïve to injectable glucose-lowering medication who were initiated on oral semaglutide in routine clinical practice. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline (BL) to end of study (EOS); secondary endpoints included change in body weight (BW) from BL to EOS and the proportion of participants achieving HbA1c < 7.0% and the composite endpoints HbA1c reduction ≥ 1%-points with BW reduction ≥ 3% or ≥ 5% at EOS. Safety was assessed in participants who received ≥ 1 dose of oral semaglutide. RESULTS: Of the 185 participants (female/male, n = 67/118) initiating oral semaglutide, 168 (90.8%) completed the study and 143 (77.3%) remained on treatment with oral semaglutide at EOS. At BL, participants had a mean age of 62 years, diabetes duration of 6.4 years, HbA1c of 7.7%, BW of 95.6 kg and body mass index of 33.2 kg/m2; 56.2% of participants were receiving glucose-lowering medications. Significant reductions were observed for HbA1c (estimated change - 0.91%; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.10, - 0.71; p < 0.0001) and BW (estimated change - 4.85%; 95% CI - 5.70, - 4.00; p < 0.0001). In total, 139 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 65 (35.1%) participants; most were mild or moderate. The most frequent AEs were gastrointestinal disorders (27.0%); 31 AEs in 20 (10.8%) participants led to discontinuation of oral semaglutide. Six serious AEs were reported; all were considered unlikely to be related to oral semaglutide. CONCLUSION: People living with T2D treated with oral semaglutide in Switzerland achieved clinically significant reductions in HbA1c and BW, with no new safety signals. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04537624. A graphical abstract is available for this article.

The impact of type 2 diabetes and glycaemic control on mortality and clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the capital region of Denmark.

AIM: To explore the impact of type 2 diabetes (T2D), glycaemic control and use of glucose-lowering medication on clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For all patients admitted to a hospital in the Capital Region of Denmark (1 March 2020 to 1 December 2021) with confirmed COVID-19, we extracted data on mortality, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), demographics, comorbidities, medication use and laboratory tests from the electronic health record system. We compared patients with T2D to patients without diabetes using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for available confounding variables. Outcomes were 30-day mortality and admission to an ICU. For patients with T2D, we also analysed the association of baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels and use of specific glucose-lowering medications with the outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 4430 patients were analysed, 1236 with T2D and 2194 without diabetes. The overall 30-day mortality was 19% (n = 850) and 10% (n = 421) were admitted to an ICU. Crude analyses showed that patients with T2D both had increased mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.37; 95% CI 1.19-1.58] and increased risk of ICU admission (HR 1.28; 95% CI 1.04-1.57). When adjusted for available confounders, this discrepancy was attenuated for both mortality (adjusted HR 1.13; 95% CI 0.95-1.33) and risk of ICU admission (adjusted HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.79-1.29). Neither baseline haemoglobin A1c nor specific glucose-lowering medication use were significantly associated with the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Among those hospitalized for COVID-19, patients with T2D did not have a higher risk of death and ICU admission, when adjusting for confounders.

Overtreatment and associated risk factors among multimorbid older patients with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In multimorbid older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the intensity of glucose-lowering medication (GLM) should be focused on attaining a suitable level of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c ) while avoiding side effects. We aimed at identifying patients with overtreatment of T2DM as well as associated risk factors. METHODS: In a secondary analysis of a multicenter study of multimorbid older patients, we evaluated HbA1c levels among patients with T2DM. Patients were aged ≥70 years, with multimorbidity (≥3 chronic diagnoses) and polypharmacy (≥5 chronic medications), enrolled in four university medical centers across Europe (Belgium, Ireland, Netherlands, and Switzerland). We defined overtreatment as HbA1c < 7.5% with ≥1 GLM other than metformin, as suggested by Choosing Wisely and used prevalence ratios (PRs) to evaluate risk factors of overtreatment in age- and sex-adjusted analyses. RESULTS: Among the 564 patients with T2DM (median age 78 years, 39% women), mean ± standard deviation HbA1c was 7.2 ± 1.2%. Metformin (prevalence 51%) was the most frequently prescribed GLM and 199 (35%) patients were overtreated. The presence of severe renal impairment (PR 1.36, 1.21-1.53) and outpatient physician (other than general practitioner [GP], i.e. specialist) or emergency department visits (PR 1.22, 1.03-1.46 for 1-2 visits, and PR 1.35, 1.19-1.54 for ≥3 visits versus no visits) were associated with overtreatment. These factors remained associated with overtreatment in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicountry study of multimorbid older patients with T2DM, more than one third were overtreated, highlighting the high prevalence of this problem. Careful balancing of benefits and risks in the choice of GLM may improve patient care, especially in the context of comorbidities such as severe renal impairment, and frequent non-GP healthcare contacts.

Medication Prescribing for Type 2 Diabetes in the US Long-Term Care Setting: Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize prescribing of glucose-lowering medication annually and to quantify the annual frequency of hypoglycemia among residents in long-term care (LTC) facilities with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional study using a deidentified real-world database comprising electronic health records from LTC facilities. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Individuals eligible for this study were ≥65 years old with T2DM and recorded stay of ≥100 days at an LTC facility in the United States in any of 5 study years (2016-2020), excluding individuals receiving palliative or hospice care. METHODS: Drug orders (prescriptions) for glucose-lowering medications for each LTC resident with T2DM in each calendar year were summarized by administration route (oral or injectable) and by drug class as ever-prescribed (ie, multiple prescriptions were included once), overall and stratified by age subgroup, <3 vs ≥3 comorbidities, and obesity status. We calculated the annual percentage of patients ever prescribed glucose-lowering medication each year, overall and by medication category, who experienced ≥1 hypoglycemic events. RESULTS: Among 71,200 to 120,861 LTC residents with T2DM included each year from 2016 to 2020, 68% to 73% (depending on the year) were prescribed ≥1 glucose-lowering medications, among them oral agents for 59% to 62% and injectable agents for 70% to 71%. Metformin was the most commonly prescribed oral agent, followed by sulfonylureas and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors; basal plus prandial insulin was the most commonly prescribed injectable regimen. Prescribing patterns remained relatively consistent from 2016 to 2020, both overall and by patient subgroup. During each study year, 35% of LTC residents with T2DM experienced level 1 hypoglycemia (glucose ≥54 to <70 mg/dL), including 10% to 12% of those prescribed only oral agents and ≥44% of those prescribed injectable agents. Overall, 24% to 25% experienced level 2 hypoglycemia (glucose concentration <54 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Study findings suggest that opportunities exist for improving diabetes management for LTC residents with T2DM.

Changes in the use of glucose-lowering drugs: A Danish nationwide study.

AIM: To investigate changes in the pattern of drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes in Denmark from 2005 to 2021. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nationwide, population-based drug utilization study based on medical databases covering the Danish population was conducted. We assessed incident and prevalent use patterns among all 441 205 individuals initiating at least one non-insulin, glucose-lowering drug. RESULTS: The rate of new users of non-insulin, glucose-lowering drugs increased from 2005, peaked in 2011, decreased to stable levels during 2013 to 2019, then increased dramatically during 2020-2021. The prevalence of use increased from 2.1% (in 2005) to 5.0% (in 2021) of the entire adult population. In 2021, metformin comprised 39% of all glucose-lowering drug consumption, followed by insulin (17%), sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) (17%), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) (16%) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (7.5%). Overall, 56% of users were on monotherapy, 28% used dual therapy, while 13% and 2.8% used three and four drug classes, respectively. Both the intensity and diversity of therapies increased substantially over time, with 15 different treatment regimens each covering more than 1% of users in 2021. General practitioners prescribed 88% of all glucose-lowering drugs. Marked shifts towards GLP-1RA initiation by general practitioners and SGLT-2i initiation by specialists were observed, and changing user profiles suggested increasing use for non-diabetes indications. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of new users of non-insulin, glucose-lowering drugs has increased in recent years and the prevalence of glucose-lowering drug use increases steadily. Glucose-lowering drugs are mainly prescribed by general practitioners, and the intensity, diversity and indications of glucose-lowering treatment are increasing.

Modern glucose-lowering drugs in liver transplant recipients: improvement in weight, glycemic control, and potentially allograft steatosis.

Introduction: Recurrent allograft steatosis occurs in one-third of transplanted livers. Antidiabetic agents like glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter type-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are effective in the management of obesity and hepatic steatosis in the general population; however, there is limited evidence supporting their use in allograft steatosis. We aimed to evaluate their effects on steatosis, body weight, and glycemic control in liver transplant recipients at our institution. Methods: In this single-center retrospective cohort study of liver transplant recipients currently on a GLP1RA or SGLT2 inhibitor (transplanted 2015-2022), we compared clinical and radiological data before medication use and at follow-up. Differences were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Thirty-seven liver transplant recipients were taking the agents. Diabetes was the most common indication (n = 33) followed by obesity (n = 4). Median follow up was 427 days (301,798). Among those with documented steatosis (n = 21), steatosis improved in 5, worsened in 4, remained unchanged in 1, and change could not be evaluated in 11 due to lack of comparable pre and post imaging. Average weight loss was 3.2 kg (p < 0.001) and BMI decreased by 1.2 kg/m2 (p < 0.001). Hemoglobin A1c decreased by 0.6 mmol/mol (p = 0.0014), insulin requirement reduced by 7 units/day (p = 0.02), and there was no change in additional antidiabetic medications. Discussion: GLP1RA and SGLT-2 inhibitors are tolerated in transplant patients and result in weight loss and better glycemic control. They are promising agents to treat recurrent or de-novo liver allograft steatosis, but further research is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes in liver transplant recipients.

Fracture Patterns in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Narrative Review of Recent Literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this narrative review, we have summarized the literature on fracture risk in T1DM and T2DM with a special focus on fracture site, time patterns, glucose-lowering drugs, and micro- and macrovascular complications. RECENT FINDINGS: T1DM and T2DM were associated with an overall increased fracture risk, with preferent locations at the hip, vertebrae, humerus, and ankle in T1DM and at the hip, vertebrae, and likely humerus, distal forearm, and foot in T2DM. Fracture risk was higher with longer diabetes duration and the presence of micro- and macrovascular complications. In T2DM, fracture risk was higher with use of insulin, sulfonylurea, and thiazolidinediones and lower with metformin use. The increased fracture risk in T1DM and T2DM concerns specific fracture sites, and is higher in subjects with longer diabetes duration, vascular complications, and in T2DM with the use of specific glucose-lowering medication.

Risk of Endometrial Cancer in Women with Diabetes: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study.

The aim of this study was to examine the association between type 2 diabetes (T2DM), use of glucose-lowering medications and endometrial cancer (EC) risk. METHODS: The risk of EC incidence among women with T2DM in Lithuania was assessed using a retrospective cohort study design. Female patients who were registered with T2DM between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2012 were identified in the National Health Insurance Fund database. EC cases (ICD-10 code C54) were identified from the Lithuanian Cancer Registry. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated by dividing the observed numbers of EC among patients with T2DM by the expected number of EC, calculated using national rates. RESULTS: A total of 77,708 diabetic women were included in the analysis, and 995 cases of EC were identified. A significantly increased EC risk in diabetic women was found as compared to the general population (SIR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.59-1.80). The greatest EC risk was found among younger patients at T2DM diagnosis, and the risk declined gradually with increasing age but persisted in being significantly increased among all age groups. The risk for EC increased with increasing duration of diabetes, and the highest EC risk was observed more than 10 years after T2DM diagnosis. A significantly higher EC risk than expected from the general population was found in all patient groups by glucose-lowering medication combinations. The lowest EC risk was observed in diabetic women who were users of "oral only" (without metformin) (SIR = 1.42, 95% CI 1.10-1.83) and "metformin only" (SIR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.49-1.92) medications. A two times greater EC risk was observed among the remaining glucose-lowering medication categories. In contrast, use of insulin only was not related to a higher EC incidence risk (SIR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.86); however, the risk estimation was based on nine cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows a significantly increased EC risk in diabetic women as compared to the general population. In this study, a significantly higher EC risk was found in all patient groups by glucose-lowering medication combinations, except for insulin only users.

Fingerstick Glucose Monitoring in Veterans Affairs Nursing Home Residents with Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend less intensive glycemic treatment and less frequent glucose monitoring for nursing home (NH) residents. However, little is known about the frequency of fingerstick (FS) glucose monitoring in this population. Our objective was to examine the frequency of FS glucose monitoring in Veterans Affairs (VA) NH residents with diabetes mellitus, type II (T2DM). DESIGN AND SETTING: National retrospective cohort study in 140 VA NHs. PARTICIPANTS: NH residents with T2DM and older than 65 years admitted to VA NHs between 2013 and 2015 following discharge from a VA hospital. MEASUREMENTS: NH residents were classified into five groups based on their highest hypoglycemia risk glucose-lowering medication (GLM) each day: no GLMs; metformin only; sulfonylureas; long-acting insulin; and any short-acting insulin. Our outcome was a daily count of FS measurements. RESULTS: Among 17,474 VA NH residents, mean age was 76 (standard deviation (SD) = 8) years and mean hemoglobin A1c was 7.6% (SD = 1.5%). On day 1 after NH admission, 49% of NH residents were on short-acting insulin, decreasing slightly to 43% at day 90. Overall, NH residents had an average of 1.9 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.8-1.9) FS measurements on NH day 1, decreasing to 1.4 (95% CI = 1.3-1.4) by day 90. NH residents on short-acting insulin had the most frequent FS measurements, with 3.0 measurements (95% CI = 2.9-3.0) on day 1, decreasing to 2.6 measurements (95% CI = 2.5-2.7) by day 90. Less frequent FS measurements were seen for NH residents receiving long-acting insulin (2.1 (95% CI = 2.0-2.2) on day 1) and sulfonylureas (1.7 (95% CI = 1.5-1.8) on day 1). Even NH residents on metformin monotherapy had 1.1 (95% CI = 1.1-1.2) measurements on day 1, decreasing to 0.5 (95% CI = 0.4-0.6) measurements on day 90. CONCLUSION: Although guidelines recommend less frequent glucose monitoring for NH residents, we found that many VA NH residents receive frequent FS monitoring. Given the uncertain benefits and potential for substantial patient burdens and harms, our results suggest decreasing FS monitoring may be warranted for many low hypoglycemia risk NH residents.

Change in glucose-lowering medication regimens in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany.

AIM: To estimate the proportion of individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) undergoing changes in glucose-lowering therapy in 2019 and 2020. METHOD: Individuals with T2DM who had at least one consultation in one of 940 general (including diabetologist) practices in Germany between January and July 2019 (N = 79 268) and between January and July 2020 (N = 85 046) were included. Therapy changes were defined as the prescription of new glucose-lowering drugs, with or without the discontinuation of previous treatments (therapy switch and add-on therapy, respectively). The number of T2DM patients with at least one medication regimen change was calculated for the periods 1 January to 14 March in 2019 and 2020, and for the periods 15 March to 31 July in 2019 and 2020. March 2020 corresponded to the beginning of the lockdown in Germany. RESULTS: Overall, there was a decrease in the number of patients with at least one medication regimen change in the period 15 March to 31 July 2019 compared with 15 March to 31 July 2020 (dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: -15%; sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors: -3%; glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: 0%; other oral glucose-lowering drugs: -6%; and insulin: -21%). CONCLUSIONS: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-2019) pandemic had a strong impact on glucose-lowering drug use in T2DM patients in Germany. More research is warranted to further investigate the treatment and management of T2DM individuals during the COVID-19 era in Germany and elsewhere.

What to do with diabetes therapies when HbA1c lowering is inadequate: add, switch, or continue? A MASTERMIND study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear what to do when people with type 2 diabetes have had no or a limited glycemic response to a recently introduced medication. Intra-individual HbA1c variability can obscure true response. Some guidelines suggest stopping apparently ineffective therapy, but no studies have addressed this issue. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort analysis using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), we assessed the outcome of 55,530 patients with type 2 diabetes starting their second or third non-insulin glucose-lowering medication, with a baseline HbA1c > 58 mmol/mol (7.5%). For those with no HbA1c improvement or a limited response at 6 months (HbA1c fall < 5.5 mmol/mol [0.5%]), we compared HbA1c 12 months later in those who continued their treatment unchanged, switched to new treatment, or added new treatment. RESULTS: An increase or a limited reduction in HbA1c was common, occurring in 21.9% (12,168/55,230), who had a mean HbA1c increase of 2.5 mmol/mol (0.2%). After this limited response, continuing therapy was more frequent (n = 9308; 74%) than switching (n = 1177; 9%) or adding (n = 2163; 17%). Twelve months later, in those who switched medication, HbA1c fell (- 6.8 mmol/mol [- 0.6%], 95%CI - 7.7, - 6.0) only slightly more than those who continued unchanged (- 5.1 mmol/mol [- 0.5%], 95%CI - 5.5, - 4.8). Adding another new therapy was associated with a substantially better reduction (- 12.4 mmol/mol [- 1.1%], 95%CI - 13.1, - 11.7). Propensity score-matched subgroups demonstrated similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Where glucose-lowering therapy does not appear effective on initial HbA1c testing, changing agents does not improve glycemic control. The initial agent should be continued with another therapy added.

Efficacy and safety of methionine aminopeptidase 2 inhibition in type 2 diabetes: a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This multicentre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial assessed the efficacy and safety of a methionine aminopeptidase 2 (MetAP2) inhibitor, beloranib, in individuals with obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 53-97 mmol/mol [7-11%] and fasting glucose <15.6 mmol/l). METHODS: Participants were randomised (via a centralised interactive web response system) to placebo, 1.2 or 1.8 mg beloranib s.c. twice weekly for 26 weeks. Participants, investigators and the sponsor were blinded to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the change in weight from baseline to week 26. The trial was terminated early when beloranib development was stopped because of an imbalance of venous thromboembolism events in beloranib-treated individuals vs placebo that became evident during late-stage development of the drug. RESULTS: In total, 153 participants were randomised, 51 to placebo, 52 to 1.2 mg beloranib and 50 to 1.8 mg beloranib. In participants who completed week 26, the least squares mean ± SE weight change (baseline 111 kg) was -3.1 ± 1.2% with placebo (n = 22) vs -13.5 ± 1.1% and -12.7 ± 1.3% with 1.2 and 1.8 mg beloranib, respectively (n = 25; n = 19; p < 0.0001). The change in HbA1c (baseline 67 mmol/mol [8.3%]) was -6.6 ± 2.2 mmol/mol (-0.6 ± 0.2%) with placebo vs -21.9 ± 2.2 mmol/mol (-2.0 ± 0.2%) or -21.9 ± 3.3 mmol/mol (-2.0 ± 0.3%) with 1.2 or 1.8 mg beloranib (p < 0.0001), respectively. The most common beloranib adverse events were sleep related. One beloranib-treated participant experienced a non-fatal pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: MetAP2 inhibitors represent a novel mechanism for producing meaningful weight loss and improvement in HbA1c. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02324491 FUNDING: The study was funded by Zafgen, Inc.

Reasons for non-intensification of treatment in people with type 2 diabetes receiving oral monotherapy: Outcomes from the prospective DIAttitude study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the management of glucose-lowering agents in people with type 2 diabetes initially on oral monotherapy, cared for by French general practitioners, and to identify reasons underlying treatment non-intensification. METHODS: People with type 2 diabetes on oral monotherapy were recruited by general practitioners and followed-up over 12 months. Patient characteristics, HbA1c, and glucose-lowering treatments were recorded electronically. Management objectives and reasons for treatment non-intensification were solicited from the general practitioners. RESULTS: A total of 1212 patients were enrolled by 198 general practitioners; 937 patients (mean age 68 years) were treated with oral monotherapy, and 916 patients had at least two successive HbA1c values recorded. Of these, 390 patients (43%) had HbA1c≥6.5% on both occasions, and 164/390 (42%) had their treatment intensified. The 226 patients whose treatment was not intensified were older (69±11 years vs. 66±12 years, P=0.02) and had better glycaemic control at study inclusion (6.9%±0.6 vs. 7.3%±0.8, P<0.0001) than treatment intensified patients. Among uncontrolled patients, there were no differences in general practitioner treatment objectives at inclusion for treatment intensified and non-intensified patients; the main reason given by general practitioners for non-intensification was that the patient had an adequate HbA1c (66%). HbA1c did exceed the 6.5% target, but was less than 7.0% in 69% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: General practitioners showed a patient-centred approach to treatment, but clinical inertia was apparent for 31% of the uncontrolled patients.

Improving Diabetes Care for Hospice Patients.

Although type 2 diabetes guidelines recommend less aggressive glycemic control for patients with limited life expectancy, many hospice patients continue their glucose-lowering medications, resulting in an increased risk of hypoglycemia. Three common reasons for overly tight glycemic control in hospice patients include (1) discussions about reducing or stopping chronic medications are uncomfortable; (2) many patients and families believe that mild hyperglycemia can cause symptoms; and (3) until 2014, Healthcare Information and Data Information Set (HEDIS) quality indicators for glycemic control included hospice patients. To address these issues, we recommend (1) providers discuss with patients and families upon hospice enrollment that diabetes medications can be reduced or discontinued as their life-limiting disease progresses; (2) keeping blood glucose levels between 200 and 300 mg/dL; and (3) educate providers that HEDIS measures now exclude hospice patients. Implementing these recommendations should decrease the risk of hypoglycemia in hospice patients and improve their quality of life.

A comparison of glycated albumin and glycosylated hemoglobin for the screening of diabetes mellitus in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: Glycated albumin (GA) values reflect an average plasma glucose level over approximately 2-4 weeks, and the assay is stable and can be run on serum or plasma. The aim of this study was to determine the universality and the clinical utility of GA in screening for diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Subjects consisted of 2192 male and female residents in Yi-lan County, Northern Taiwan (mean age 60.1 years), of whom 54.2% (n = 1188) had previously been diagnosed and treated for diabetes. Fasting blood samples were obtained to measure HbA1c, plasma glucose, serum GA, insulin, and measures of kidney and liver function. The reference values for these parameters were determined. Data from patients with diabetes and non-diabetic controls were also compared. RESULTS: Mean GA values were 13.8% in controls and 18.1% in diabetic subjects (31.2% higher, p < 0.0001), while mean HbA1c values were 5.6% in controls and 7.2% in diabetic subjects (29.2% higher, p < 0.0001). The 95th percentile values for GA and HbA1c in controls were 16.1% and 6.2%, respectively. Our suggested GA and HbA1c cut-points for prediabetes at the 75th percentile of the normal population would be 14.6% and 5.8%, respectively. For both parameters, values greater than these cut-points provided a reasonable degree of specificity and sensitivity for risk of having diabetes, while a GA value of 16.5% corresponds to an HbA1c level of 6.5%, diagnostic of diabetes. CONCLUSION: These data indicate that GA values can be used as a surrogate parameter for HbA1c in screening for prediabetes and diabetes mellitus.