Study protocol for a prospective, multicentre study of hypercortisolism in patients with difficult-to-control type 2 diabetes (CATALYST): prevalence and treatment with mifepristone.

INTRODUCTION: Even with recent treatment advances, type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains poorly controlled for many patients, despite the best efforts to adhere to therapies and lifestyle modifications. Although estimates vary, studies indicate that in >10% of individuals with difficult-to-control T2D, hypercortisolism may be an underlying contributing cause. To better understand the prevalence of hypercortisolism and the impact of its treatment on T2D and associated comorbidities, we describe the two-part Hyper c ortisolism in P at ients with Difficult to Control Type 2 Di a betes Despite Receiving Standard-of-Care Therapies: Preva l ence and Treatment with Korl y m® (Mifepri st one) (CATALYST) trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In part 1, approximately 1000 participants with difficult-to-control T2D (haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7.5%-11.5% despite multiple therapies) are screened with a 1 mg dexamethasone suppression test (DST). Those with post-DST cortisol >1.8 µg/dL and dexamethasone level ≥140 ng/dL are identified to have hypercortisolism (part 1 primary endpoint), have morning adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) measured and undergo a non-contrast adrenal CT scan. Those requiring evaluation for elevated ACTH are referred for care outside the study; those with ACTH and DHEAS in the range may advance to part 2, a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the impact of treating hypercortisolism with the competitive glucocorticoid receptor antagonist mifepristone (Korlym®). Participants are randomised 2:1 to mifepristone or placebo for 24 weeks, stratified by the presence/absence of an abnormal adrenal CT scan. Mifepristone is dosed at 300 mg once daily for 4 weeks, then 600 mg daily based on tolerability and clinical improvement, with an option to increase to 900 mg. The primary endpoint of part 2 assesses changes in HbA1c in participants with hypercortisolism with or without abnormal adrenal CT scan. Secondary endpoints include changes in antidiabetes medications, cortisol-related comorbidities and quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by Cleveland Clinic IRB (Cleveland, Ohio, USA) and Advarra IRB (Columbia, Maryland, USA). Findings will be presented at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05772169.

Skeletal muscle density performance for screening frailty in older adults with cancer and the impact of diabetes: The CARE Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Skeletal muscle density (SMD) measurements from imaging scans identify myosteatosis and could screen patients for geriatric assessment. We assessed SMD performance as a screening tool to identify older adults with cancer likely to be frail and who could benefit from in-depth assessment; we compared performance by sex and diabetes status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed patients in the Cancer & Aging Resilience Evaluation (CARE) Registry. Frailty and diabetes were captured using a patient-reported geriatric assessment (CARE tool). Frailty was defined using CARE frailty index (CARE-FI) based on principles of deficit accumulation. SMD was calculated from computed tomography scans (L3 vertebrae). Analyses were conducted by sex and diabetes status. Scatterplots and linear regression described crude associations between SMD and frailty score. Classification performance (frail vs. non-frail) was analyzed with (1) area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and confidence intervals (CIs); and (2) sensitivity/specificity for sex-specific SMD quartile cut-offs (Q1, median, Q3). Performance was compared between patients with and without diabetes using differences and estimated CIs (2000 bootstrap replicates). We additionally calculated positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+, LR-). RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 872 patients (39% female, median age 68 years, 27% with diabetes) with predominately stage III/IV gastrointestinal cancer; >60% planning to initiate first-line chemotherapy. SMD was negatively associated with frailty score; models were best fit in male patients with diabetes. AUC estimates for female (range: 0.58-0.62) and male (0.58-0.68) patients were low. Q3 cut-offs had high sensitivity (range: 0.76-0.89), but poor specificity (0.25-0.34). Diabetes did not impact estimates for female patients. Male patients with diabetes had greater sensitivity estimates compared to those without (sensitivity differences: 0.23 [0.07, 0.38], 0.08 [-0.07, 0.24], and 0.11 [0.00, 0.22] for Q1, median, Q3, respectively). LR estimates were most notable for male patients with diabetes (LR+ = 2.92, Q1 cut-off; LR- = 0.46, Q3 cut-off). DISCUSSION: Using SMD alone to screen older patients for geriatric assessment requires improvement. High-sensitivity cut-off points could miss 11-24% of patients with frailty, and many non-frail patients may be flagged. Screening with SMD is practical but work is needed to understand clinical andresource impacts of different cut-off points. Future research should evaluate performance with additional clinical data and in subgroups.

Regional variation in cause of death in patients with type 2 diabetes: Insights from EXSCEL.

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a risk factor for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality. However, global distribution of cause-specific deaths in T2D is poorly understood. We characterized cause-specific deaths by geographic region among individuals with T2D at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS AND RESULTS: The international EXSCEL trial included 14,752 participants with T2D (73% with established CVD). We identified the proportion of deaths over 5-year follow-up attributed to cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular causes, and associated risk factors. During median 3.2-year follow-up, 1,091 (7.4%) participants died. Adjudicated causes of death were 723 cardiovascular (66.3% of deaths), including 252 unknown, and 368 non-cardiovascular (33.7%). Most deaths occurred in North America (N = 356/9.6% across region) and Eastern Europe (N = 326/8.1%), with fewest in Asia/Pacific (N = 68/4.4%). The highest proportional cause-specific deaths by region were sudden cardiac in Asia/Pacific (23/34% of regional deaths) and North America (86/24%); unknown in Eastern Europe (90/28%) and Western Europe (39/21%); and non-malignant non-cardiovascular in Latin America (48/31%). Cox proportional hazards model for adjudicated causes of death showed prognostic risk factors (hazard ratio [95% CI]) for cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular deaths, respectively: heart failure 2.04 (1.72-2.42) and 1.86 (1.46-2.39); peripheral artery disease 1.83 (1.54-2.18) and 1.78 (1.40-2.26); and current smoking status 1.61 (1.29-2.01) and 1.77 (1.31-2.40). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary T2D trial population, with and without established CVD, leading causes of death varied by geographic region. Underlying mechanisms leading to variability in cause of death across geographic regions and its impact on clinical trial endpoints warrant future research.

Mortality in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE).

OBJECTIVE: We report mortality outcomes in the Glycemia Reduction Approaches in Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Study (GRADE) among people with type 2 diabetes diagnosed within 10 years and no recent history of cardiovascular events or cancer. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Overall mortality rates and major causes of death were assessed over an average of 5 years of follow-up. Cause of death was adjudicated centrally by a committee masked to treatment assignment. We examined baseline covariates and the 10-year Framingham Risk Score for associations. RESULTS: Mortality rate was low (0.59 per 100 participant-years). Participants who died during follow-up were likely to be older, be male, have a history of hypertension, have a history of smoking, and have moderate albuminuria. The two most common underlying causes of death were "cardiovascular-cause" (a composite of underlying causes) (38.6%) and cancer (26.8%). There were no differences by treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Among people with diabetes of relatively short duration, cause of death was varied. Attention to health risks beyond cardiovascular diseases is warranted.

Geriatric Assessment Impairment Profiles and Mortality in Older Adults with Gastrointestinal Cancers: Latent Class Analysis of the CARE Registry.

BACKGROUND: Many older adults with cancer have ≥2 impairments on geriatric assessment which impacts present and future frailty status, treatment tolerability, and outcomes. Our objective was to identify and describe distinct geriatric assessment impairment classes using latent class analysis (LCA) in older patients with gastrointestinal malignancies and assess 1-year mortality. METHODS: We used the Cancer & Aging Resilience Evaluation (CARE) Study, a registry of older adults (≥60 years) at University of Alabama at Birmingham. The analytic cohort included patients with gastrointestinal malignancies who completed a self-administered geriatric assessment (CARE tool) before chemotherapy and had ≥1 geriatric assessment impairment. Thirteen geriatric assessment impairments were used as indicators in LCA. Resultant classes were described, mortality was estimated, and risk contrasts (differences, hazard ratios) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. For comparison, estimates were provided for frailty categories (robust, pre-frail, frail) determined from 44 items in the CARE tool. Stratified analyses included high-risk (pancreatic, hepatobiliary, esophageal) vs. low-risk gastrointestinal cancers, and stage (IV vs. I-III). RESULTS: Six geriatric assessment impairment classes were identified: Mild impairment (LC1); Social support impairment (LC2); Weight loss alone (LC3); Impaired, low anxiety/depression (LC4); Impaired with anxiety/depression (LC5); Global impairment (LC6). One-year mortality was 14%, 22%, 29%, 34%, 50% and 50% for LC1-LC6, respectively. For frailty categories, estimates ranged from 18% (robust) to 40% (frail). In stratified analyses, LC4-LC6 consistently had higher mortality estimates compared to LC1. CONCLUSIONS: The 6 geriatric assessment impairment classes showed a wider spread of mortality estimates compared to frailty categories and could be used to identify vulnerable patients and to plan interventions.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg compared with 14 mg in adults with type 2 diabetes (PIONEER PLUS): a multicentre, randomised, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Once-daily oral semaglutide is an effective type 2 diabetes treatment. We aimed to investigate a new formulation of oral semaglutide at higher investigational doses versus the approved 14 mg dose in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This global, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3b trial, carried out at 177 sites in 14 countries, enrolled adults with type 2 diabetes, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 8·0-10·5% (64-91 mmol/mol), a BMI of 25·0 kg/m2 or greater, receiving stable daily doses of one to three oral glucose-lowering drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), by means of an interactive web response system, to once-daily oral semaglutide 14 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg for 68 weeks. Investigators, site personnel, trial participants, and trial sponsor staff were masked to dose assignment throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 52, evaluated with a treatment policy estimand in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of trial drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04707469, and the European Clinical Trials register, EudraCT 2020-000299-39, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15 and Sept 29, 2021, of 2294 people screened, 1606 (n=936 [58·3%] male; n=670 [41·7%] female; mean [SD] age 58·2 [10·8] years) received oral semaglutide 14 mg (n=536), 25 mg (n=535), or 50 mg (n=535). At baseline, mean (SD) HbA1c was 9·0% (0·8; 74·4 mmol/L [SD 8·3]) and mean bodyweight was 96·4 kg (21·6). Mean changes (SE) in HbA1c at week 52 were -1·5 percentage points (SE 0·05) with oral semaglutide 14 mg, -1·8 percentage points (0·06) with 25 mg (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·27, 95% CI -0·42 to -0·12; p=0·0006), and -2·0 percentage points (0·06) with 50 mg (ETD -0·53, -0·68 to -0·38; p<0·0001). Adverse events were reported by 404 (76%) participants in the oral semaglutide 14 mg group, 422 (79%) in the 25 mg group, and 428 (80%) in the 50 mg group. Gastrointestinal disorders, which were mostly mild to moderate, occurred more frequently with oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg than with 14 mg. Ten deaths occurred during the trial; none were judged to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Oral semaglutide 25 mg and 50 mg were superior to 14 mg in reducing HbA1c and bodyweight in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes. No new safety concerns were identified. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Effects of oral semaglutide on cardiovascular outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or chronic kidney disease: Design and baseline characteristics of SOUL, a randomized trial.

AIM: To describe the design of the SOUL trial (Semaglutide cardiOvascular oUtcomes triaL) and the baseline clinical data of its participants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In SOUL, the effects of oral semaglutide, the first oral glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, on the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in individuals with type 2 diabetes and established atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD) and/or chronic kidney disease (CKD) will be assessed. SOUL is a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled CV outcomes trial comparing oral semaglutide (14 mg once daily) with placebo, both in addition to standard of care, in individuals aged ≥50 years with type 2 diabetes and evidence of ASCVD (coronary artery disease [CAD], cerebrovascular disease, symptomatic peripheral arterial disease [PAD]) and/or CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 ). The primary outcome is time from randomization to first occurrence of a major adverse CV event (MACE; a composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke). This event-driven trial will continue until 1225 first adjudication-confirmed MACEs have occurred. Enrolment has been completed. RESULTS: Overall, 9650 participants were enrolled between June 17, 2019 and March 24, 2021 (men 71.1%, White ethnicity 68.9%, mean age 66.1 years, diabetes duration 15.4 years, body mass index 31.1 kg/m2 , glycated haemoglobin 63.5 mmol/mol [8.0%]). The most frequently used antihyperglycaemic medications at baseline were metformin (75.7%), insulin and insulin analogues (50.5%), sulphonylureas (29.1%), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (26.7%) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (23.0%). At randomization, 70.7% of participants had CAD, 42.3% had CKD, 21.1% had cerebrovascular disease and 15.7% had symptomatic PAD (categories not mutually exclusive). Prevalent heart failure was reported in 23.0% of participants. CONCLUSION: SOUL will provide evidence regarding the CV effects of oral semaglutide in individuals with type 2 diabetes and established ASCVD and/or CKD.

Effect of the Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Semaglutide and Liraglutide on Kidney Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Pooled Analysis of SUSTAIN 6 and LEADER.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the effect of once-weekly semaglutide and once-daily liraglutide on kidney outcomes in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Pooled (n=12 637) and by-trial data from SUSTAIN 6 (Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-Term Outcomes With Semaglutide in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes; n=3297) and LEADER (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results; n=9340) were assessed for albuminuria change, annual slope of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) change, and time to persistent eGFR reduction (30%, 40%, 50%, and 57%) from baseline. RESULTS: The median follow-up durations were 2.1 years for SUSTAIN 6 and 3.8 years for LEADER. In the pooled analysis, semaglutide/liraglutide lowered albuminuria from baseline to 2 years after randomization by 24% versus placebo (95% CI, 20%-27%; P<0.001). Significant reductions were also observed in by-trial data analyses (P<0.001 for all), the largest being with semaglutide 1.0 mg (33% [95% CI, 24%-40%]; P<0.001) at 2 years. With semaglutide 1.0 mg and liraglutide, eGFR slope decline was significantly slowed by 0.87 and 0.26 mL/min/1.73 m2/y (P<0.0001 and P<0.001), respectively, versus placebo. Effects appeared larger in patients with baseline eGFR <60 versus ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (Pinteraction=0.06 and 0.008 for semaglutide 1.0 mg and liraglutide, respectively). Semaglutide/liraglutide significantly lowered risk of persistent 40% and 50% eGFR reductions versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.75-0.99]; P=0.039 and HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.66-0.97]; P=0.023, respectively). Similar, nonsignificant, directional results were observed for 30% and 57% eGFR reductions (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-1.02]; P=0.10 and HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.69-1.13]; P=0.34). In patients with baseline eGFR 30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, the likelihood of persistent reduction for all thresholds was increased, ranging from HR 0.71 for 30% reduction (95% CI, 0.59-0.85; P=0.0003, Pinteraction=0.017) to 0.54 for 57% reduction (95% CI, 0.36-0.81; P=0.003, Pinteraction=0.035). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, semaglutide/liraglutide offered kidney-protective effects, which appeared more pronounced in patients with preexisting chronic kidney disease.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 2·0 mg versus 1·0 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN FORTE): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3B trial.

BACKGROUND: Semaglutide is an effective treatment for type 2 diabetes; however, 20-30% of patients given semaglutide 1·0 mg do not reach glycaemic treatment goals. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide 2·0 mg versus 1·0 mg in adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on a stable dose of metformin with or without a sulfonylurea. METHODS: We did a 40-week, randomised, active-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind, phase 3B trial (SUSTAIN FORTE) at 125 outpatient clinics in ten countries. Participants (≥18 years) with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 8·0-10·0%) with metformin and with or without sulfonylurea were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web-response system to 2·0 mg or 1·0 mg once-weekly semaglutide. Participants, site personnel, the clinical study group, and investigators were masked to the randomised treatment. Outcomes included change from baseline at week 40 in HbA1c (primary outcome) and bodyweight (secondary confirmatory outcome), evaluated through trial product estimand (no treatment discontinuation or without rescue medication) and treatment policy estimand (regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue medication) strategies. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03989232; EudraCT, 2018-004529-96; and WHO, U1111-1224-5162. FINDINGS: Between June 19 and Nov 28, 2019, of 1515 adults assessed for eligibility, 961 participants (mean age 58·0 years [SD 10·0]; 398 [41%] women) were included. Participants were randomly assigned to once-weekly semaglutide 2·0 mg (n=480 [50%]) or 1·0 mg (n=481 [50%]); 462 (96%) patients in the semaglutide 2·0 mg group and 471 (98%) in the semaglutide 1·0 mg group completed the trial. Mean baseline HbA1c was 8·9% (SD 0·6; 73·3 mmol/mol [SD 6·9]) and BMI was 34·6 kg/m2 (SD 7·0). Mean change in HbA1c from baseline at week 40 was -2·2 percentage points with semaglutide 2·0 mg and -1·9 percentage points with semaglutide 1·0 mg (estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·23 percentage points [95% CI -0·36 to -0·11]; p=0·0003; trial product estimand) and -2·1 percentage points with semaglutide 2·0 mg and -1·9 percentage points with semaglutide 1·0 mg (ETD -0·18 percentage points [-0·31 to -0·04]; p=0·0098; treatment policy estimand). Mean change in bodyweight from baseline at week 40 was -6·9 kg with semaglutide 2·0 mg and -6·0 kg with semaglutide 1·0 mg (ETD -0·93 kg [95% CI -1·68 to -0·18]; p=0·015; trial product estimand) and -6·4 kg with semaglutide 2·0 mg and -5·6 kg with semaglutide 1·0 mg (ETD -0·77 kg [-1·55 to 0·01]; p=0·054; treatment policy estimand). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most commonly reported adverse events (163 [34%] in the 2·0 mg group and 148 [31%] in the 1·0 mg group). Serious adverse events were similar between treatment groups, reported for 21 (4%) participants given semaglutide 2·0 mg and 25 (5%) participants given semaglutide 1·0 mg. Three deaths were reported during the trial (one in the semaglutide 1·0 mg group and two in the semaglutide 2·0 mg group). INTERPRETATION: Semaglutide 2·0 mg was superior to 1·0 mg in reducing HbA1c, with additional bodyweight loss and a similar safety profile. This higher dose provides a treatment intensification option for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with semaglutide in need of additional glycaemic control. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Potential kidney protection with liraglutide and semaglutide: Exploratory mediation analysis.

AIMS: To investigate whether effects on chronic kidney disease risk factors could explain the apparent reduction in kidney outcomes (composite of macroalbuminuria, doubling of serum creatinine, renal replacement therapy, or renal death), primarily driven by changes in albuminuria, after treatment with the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) liraglutide and semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the LEADER and SUSTAIN 6 trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the mediation effect of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (BP), and body weight on the kidney effects of GLP-1RAs. Diastolic BP, haemoglobin, heart rate, low-density lipoprotein and total cholesterol, and white blood cell count were also investigated. The mediation effect was estimated by the novel Vansteelandt statistical method. Subgroups with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 and ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 were examined in LEADER. RESULTS: We observed that HbA1c mediated 25% (95% confidence interval [CI] -7.1; 67.3) and 26% (95% CI noncalculable), and systolic BP 9% (95% CI 2.8; 22.7) and 22% (95% CI noncalculable) of kidney effects of GLP-1RAs in LEADER and SUSTAIN 6, respectively. Small or no mediation was observed for the other parameters; for example, body weight mediated 9% (95% CI -7.9; 35.5) in the former and did not mediate effects in the latter study. Mediation by HbA1c was greater in patients with eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (57%) versus those with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (no mediation). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that HbA1c and systolic BP may moderately mediate kidney benefits of liraglutide and semaglutide, with all other variables having a small to no effect. Potential kidney benefits may be driven by other mediators or potentially by direct mechanisms.

A Type 2 Diabetes Subtype Responsive to ACCORD Intensive Glycemia Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Current type 2 diabetes (T2D) management contraindicates intensive glycemia treatment in patients with high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and is partially motivated by evidence of harms in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Heterogeneity in response to intensive glycemia treatment has been observed, suggesting potential benefit for some individuals. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: ACCORD was a randomized controlled trial that investigated whether intensively treating glycemia in individuals with T2D would reduce CVD outcomes. Using a novel approach to cluster HbA1c trajectories, we identified groups in the intensive glycemia arm with modified CVD risk. Genome-wide analysis and polygenic score (PS) were developed to predict group membership. Mendelian randomization was performed to infer causality. RESULTS: We identified four clinical groupings in the intensive glycemia arm, and clinical group 4 (C4) displayed fewer CVD (hazard ratio [HR] 0.34; P = 2.01 × 10-3) and microvascular outcomes (HR 0.86; P = 0.015) than those receiving standard treatment. A single-nucleotide polymorphism, rs220721, in MAS1 reached suggestive significance in C4 (P = 4.34 × 10-7). PS predicted C4 with high accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.98), and this predicted C4 displayed reduced CVD risk with intensive versus standard glycemia treatment (HR 0.53; P = 4.02 × 10-6), but not reduced risk of microvascular outcomes (P < 0.05). Mendelian randomization indicated causality between PS, on-trial HbA1c, and reduction in CVD outcomes (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of a T2D clinical group in ACCORD that benefited from intensive glycemia treatment, and membership in this group could be predicted using genetic variants. This study generates new hypotheses with implications for precision medicine in T2D and represents an important development in this landmark clinical trial warranting further investigation.

Predicting major adverse limb events in individuals with type 2 diabetes: Insights from the EXSCEL trial.

AIMS: Although models exist to predict amputation among people with type 2 diabetes with foot ulceration or infection, we aimed to develop a prediction model for a broader range of major adverse limb events (MALE)-including gangrene, revascularization and amputation-among individuals with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: In a post-hoc analysis of data from the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) trial, we compared participants who experienced MALE with those who did not. A multivariable model was constructed and translated into a risk score. RESULTS: Among the 14,752 participants with type 2 diabetes in EXSCEL, 3.6% experienced MALE. Characteristics associated with increased risk of MALE were peripheral artery disease (PAD) (HRadj 4.83, 95% CI: 3.94-5.92), prior foot ulcer (HRadj 2.16, 95% CI: 1.63-2.87), prior amputation (HRadj 2.00, 95% CI: 1.53-2.64), current smoking (HRadj 2.00, 95% CI: 1.54-2.61), insulin use (HRadj 1.86, 95% CI: 1.52-2.27), coronary artery disease (HRadj 1.67, 95% CI: 1.38-2.03) and male sex (HRadj 1.64, 95% CI: 1.31-2.06). Cerebrovascular disease, former smoking, age, glycated haemoglobin, race and neuropathy were also associated significantly with MALE after adjustment. A risk score ranging from 6 to 96 points was constructed, with a C-statistic of 0.822 (95% CI: 0.803-0.841). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of MALE occurred among participants with PAD, but participants without a history of PAD also experienced MALE. A risk score with good performance was generated. Although it requires validation in an external dataset, this risk score may be valuable in identifying patients requiring more intensive care and closer follow-up.

Applying REWIND cardiovascular disease criteria to SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6: An exploratory analysis of cardiovascular outcomes with semaglutide.

In the REWIND trial, dulaglutide reduced cardiovascular (CV) risk versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes in both the "established CV disease" (CVD) and "CV risk factor" subgroups. The SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 trials of semaglutide used different criteria for established CVD from those used in REWIND. The present post hoc analysis assessed the effect of semaglutide on major adverse CV events (MACE) in a pooled population of SUSTAIN 6 and PIONEER 6 patients, re-categorized into CV risk subgroups using the REWIND CVD criteria. In the pooled analysis (n = 6480), a lower percentage of patients were in the established CVD subgroup, when using the REWIND CVD criteria, compared with the original trial CVD criteria (66.5% vs. 83.8%, respectively). After re-categorization, the risk of MACE was significantly lower with semaglutide versus placebo in the established CVD subgroup (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59, 0.92) and nonsignificantly lower in the CV risk factor subgroup (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.55, 1.28) (P-interaction = 0.60). These results suggest that the CV effects of semaglutide may extend to patients with type 2 diabetes across the CV risk continuum.

Long-term efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide and the effect of switching from sitagliptin to oral semaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 52-week, randomized, open-label extension of the PIONEER 7 trial.

INTRODUCTION: The PIONEER 7 trial demonstrated superior glycemic control and weight loss with once-daily oral semaglutide with flexible dose adjustment versus sitagliptin 100 mg in type 2 diabetes. This 52-week extension evaluated long-term oral semaglutide treatment and switching from sitagliptin to oral semaglutide. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 52-week, open-label extension commenced after the 52-week main phase. Patients on oral semaglutide in the main phase continued treatment (n=184; durability part); those on sitagliptin were rerandomized to continued sitagliptin (n=98) or oral semaglutide (n=100; initiated at 3 mg) (switch part). Oral semaglutide was dose-adjusted (3, 7, or 14 mg) every 8 weeks based on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (target <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol)) and tolerability. Secondary endpoints (no primary) included changes in HbA1c and body weight. RESULTS: In the durability part, mean (SD) changes in HbA1c and body weight from week 0 were -1.5% (0.8) and -1.3% (1.0) and -2.8 kg (3.8) and -3.7 kg (5.2) at weeks 52 and 104, respectively. In the switch part, mean changes in HbA1c from week 52 to week 104 were -0.2% for oral semaglutide and 0.1% for sitagliptin (difference -0.3% (95% CI -0.6 to 0.0); p=0.0791 (superiority not confirmed)). More patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% with oral semaglutide (52.6%) than sitagliptin (28.6%; p=0.0011) and fewer received rescue medication (9% vs 23.5%). Respective mean changes in body weight were -2.4 kg and -0.9 kg (difference -1.5 kg (95% CI -2.8 to -0.1); p=0.0321). Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported with oral semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term oral semaglutide with flexible dose adjustment maintained HbA1c reductions, with additional body weight reductions, and was well tolerated. Switching from sitagliptin to flexibly dosed oral semaglutide maintained HbA1c reductions, helped more patients achieve HbA1c targets with less use of additional glucose-lowering medication, and offers the potential for additional reductions in body weight. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02849080.

Effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists liraglutide and semaglutide on cardiovascular and renal outcomes across body mass index categories in type 2 diabetes: Results of the LEADER and SUSTAIN 6 trials.

Associations between body mass index (BMI) and the cardiovascular (CV) and kidney efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are uncertain; therefore, data analysed separately from the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) trial and the Trial to Evaluate Cardiovascular and Other Long-term Outcomes with Semaglutide in Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 6) were examined. These international, randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigated liraglutide and semaglutide (both subcutaneous) in patients with T2D and at high risk of CV events. In post hoc analyses, patients were categorized by baseline BMI (<25, ≥25-<30, ≥30-<35 and ≥35 kg/m2 ), and CV and kidney outcomes with GLP-1 RA versus placebo were analysed. All baseline BMI data from LEADER (n = 9331) and SUSTAIN 6 (n = 3290) were included (91% and 92% of patients with overweight or obesity, respectively). In SUSTAIN 6, nominally significant heterogeneity of semaglutide efficacy by baseline BMI was observed for CV death/myocardial infarction/stroke (major adverse CV events, primary outcome of both; Pinteraction = .02); otherwise, there was no statistical heterogeneity for either GLP-1 RA versus placebo across BMI categories for key CV and kidney outcomes. The lack of statistical heterogeneity from these cardiorenal outcomes implies that liraglutide and semaglutide may be beneficial for many patients and is probable not to depend on their baseline BMI, but further study is needed.

Comprehensive Pulmonary Safety Review of Inhaled Technosphere® Insulin in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Technosphere® Insulin (TI), a human insulin powder for inhalation (Afrezza®; MannKind Corporation, Westlake Village, CA, USA), is an ultra-rapid-acting inhaled insulin indicated to improve postprandial glycemic control in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM). Because TI is absorbed across the alveolar membrane, the objective of this analysis was to characterize its pulmonary safety. METHODS: Pooled data from 13 phase 2/3 clinical studies in 5505 patients with T1DM or T2DM treated with TI, Technosphere inhalation powder without insulin (TP; placebo), or active-comparator treatment were analyzed for incidences of respiratory treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), changes in pulmonary function, and lung malignancies. Radiographic changes in the lungs were monitored in a subset of 229 patients. RESULTS: Among 3017 patients receiving TI, the median duration of TI exposure was 168 days; median active-comparator and TP exposure durations were 363 and 149 days for 2198 and 290 patients, respectively. Respiratory TEAEs were comparable across treatments, except for a higher incidence of mild cough with TI in active-comparator studies (28.0% vs. 5.2%). Slight reversible declines in pulmonary function from baseline were observed for TI versus TP and active-comparator treatments, including in a subpopulation of patients with retrospectively identified lung dysfunction. Lung malignancies were reported in two patients on active TI therapy with a smoking history. No clinically significant changes from baseline were observed in radiographic images. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary safety assessment of the TI inhalation system did not identify any safety issues in individuals with either T1DM or T2DM.

The effect of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists liraglutide and semaglutide on cardiovascular and renal outcomes across baseline blood pressure categories: Analysis of the LEADER and SUSTAIN 6 trials.

It is unknown if the cardioprotective and renal effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are consistent across blood pressure (BP) categories in patients with type 2 diabetes and at high risk of cardiovascular events. Using data from the LEADER (9340 patients) and SUSTAIN 6 (3297 patients) trials, we evaluated post hoc the cardiorenal effect of liraglutide and semaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and nephropathy by baseline BP categories using a Cox proportional hazards model (treatment and subgroup as factors; adjusted for cardiorenal risk factors). Data from the two trials were analysed separately. In the LEADER and SUSTAIN 6 trials, the prevalence of stage 1 hypertension was 30% and 31%, respectively, and of stage 2 hypertension 41% and 43%, respectively. There was no statistical heterogeneity across the BP categories for the effects of liraglutide (P = .06 for MACE; P = .14 for nephropathy) or semaglutide (P = .40 for MACE; P = .27 for nephropathy) versus placebo. This implies that liraglutide and semaglutide may be beneficial for patients with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of their baseline BP.

Antibacterial Use Is Associated with an Increased Risk of Hematologic and Gastrointestinal Adverse Events in Patients Treated with Gemcitabine for Stage IV Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical evidence has demonstrated that common intratumor bacteria metabolize the chemotherapeutic drug gemcitabine. The significance of this bacterial metabolism pathway, relative to the known metabolic pathways by host enzymes, is not known. We hypothesized that bacterial metabolism is clinically significant and that "knockdown" by antibacterial therapy has the unintended effect of increasing the effective dose of gemcitabine, thereby increasing the risk for gemcitabine-associated toxicities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reanalyzed the comparator arm of the MPACT trial (NCT01442974), made available through Project Data Sphere, LLC (CEO Roundtable on Cancer's Life Sciences Consortium, Cary, NC; www.projectdatasphere.org). In this arm, 430 patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were treated with gemcitabine. We used the Anderson-Gill survival model to compare the risk of developing an adverse event after antibacterial prescription with time unexposed to antibacterials. Adverse events of grade 3 and greater were considered at three levels of granularity: all aggregated into one endpoint, aggregated by class, and taken individually. Antibiotic exposures were analyzed in aggregate as well as by class. RESULTS: Antibacterial exposure was associated with an increased risk of adverse events (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.77; confidence interval [CI]: 1.46-2.14), any hematologic adverse event (HR: 1.64; CI: 1.26-2.13), and any gastrointestinal adverse event (HR: 2.14; CI: 1.12-4.10) but not a constitutional (HR: 1.33; CI: 0.611-2.90) or hepatologic adverse event (HR: 0.99; CI: 0.363-2.71). Among specific adverse events, antibacterial exposure was associated with an increased risk of anemia (HR: 3.16; CI: 1.59-6.27), thrombocytopenia (HR: 2.52; CI: 1.31-4.85), leukopenia (HR: 3.91; CI: 1.46-10.5), and neutropenia (HR: 1.53; CI: 1.07-2.17) but not any other specific adverse events. CONCLUSION: Antibacterial exposure was associated with an increased risk of gemcitabine-associated, dose-limiting adverse events, including aggregate hematologic and gastrointestinal events, as well as four specific hematologic adverse events, suggesting that intratumor bacteria may be responsible for a clinically significant portion of gemcitabine metabolism. Alternative avenues of evidence will be necessary to confirm this preliminary finding and assess its generalizability. There is plentiful opportunity for similar analyses on other clinical trial data sets, where gemcitabine or other biomimetic small molecules were used. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients treated with gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have an increased rate of gemcitabine-associated toxicity during and after antibiotic therapy. This observation is consistent with preclinical evidence that intratumor bacteria metabolize gemcitabine to an inactive form. Further research is needed to determine whether this observation merits any changes in clinical practice.

Real-world evidence on sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor use and risk of Fournier's gangrene.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) have been associated with increased occurrence of Fournier's gangrene (FG), a rare but serious form of necrotizing fasciitis, leading to a warning from the Food and Drug Administration. Real-world evidence on FG is needed to validate this warning. METHODS: We used data from IBM MarketScan (2013-2017) to compare the incidence of FG among adult patients who initiated either SGLT2i, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i), or any non-SGLT2i antihyperglycemic medication. FG was defined using inpatient International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition and Tenth Edition diagnosis codes 608.83 and N49.3, respectively, combined with procedure codes for debridement, surgery, or systemic antibiotics. We estimated crude incidence rates (IRs) using Poisson regression, and crude and adjusted HRs (aHR) and 95% CIs using standardized mortality ratio-weighted Cox proportional hazards models. Sensitivity analyses examined the impact of alternative outcome definitions. RESULTS: We identified 211 671 initiators of SGLT2i (n=93 197) and DPP4i (n=118 474), and 305 329 initiators of SGLT2i (n=32 868) and non-SGLT2i (n=272 461). Crude FG IR ranged from 3.2 to 3.8 cases per 100 000 person-years during a median follow-up of 0.51-0.58 years. Compared with DPP4i, SGLT2i initiation was not associated with increased risk of FG for any outcome definition, with aHR estimates ranging from 0.25 (0.04-1.74) to 1.14 (0.86-1.51). In the non-SGLT2i comparison, we observed an increased risk of FG for SGLT2i initiators when using FG diagnosis codes alone, using all diagnosis settings (aHR 1.80; 0.53-6.11) and inpatient diagnoses only (aHR 4.58; 0.99-21.21). CONCLUSIONS: No evidence of increased risk of FG associated with SGLT2i was observed compared with DPP4i, arguably the most relevant clinical comparison. However, uncertainty remains based on potentially higher risk in the broader comparison with all non-SGLT2i antihyperglycemic agents and the rarity of FG. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EUPAS Register Number 30018.