Retinopathy, Neuropathy, and Subsequent Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Acute Coronary Syndrome in the ELIXA: The Importance of Disease Duration.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the association of diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy with increased risk of recurrent cardiovascular (CV) events in 6068 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) enrolled in the Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ELIXA). METHODS: History of retinopathy and neuropathy as well as duration of T2DM were self-reported at screening. Proportional hazards regression models were used to assess relationships between retinopathy, neuropathy, and recurrent CV events. RESULTS: At screening, retinopathy and neuropathy were reported in 10.7% and 17.5% of patients, respectively, while 5.7% reported both. When adjusted for randomized treatment only, both retinopathy and neuropathy were associated with a primary composite outcome (CV death, nonfatal MI, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina) (retinopathy: HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19-1.75; neuropathy: HR 1.33, 95% CI 1.12-1.57), CV composite (CV death, nonfatal MI, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HF)) (retinopathy: HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.31-1.88; neuropathy: HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19-1.62), myocardial infarction (retinopathy: HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.08-1.76; neuropathy: HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02-1.54), HF hospitalization (retinopathy: HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48-2.78; neuropathy: HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.30-2.27), and all-cause mortality (retinopathy: HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.28-2.12; neuropathy: HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.14-1.78). When included in the same model, and adjusted for T2DM duration, there were no independent associations of either with CV outcomes, while T2DM duration remained strongly associated with all outcomes. Addition of demographic characteristics and CV risk factors did not further alter these relationships. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM and recent ACS, a history of retinopathy and/or neuropathy and longer T2DM duration could be considered clinical markers for high risk of recurrent CV events. This trial is registered with the ELIXA (Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome), ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT01147250.

Differential effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on heart rate.

While glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are known to increase heart rate (HR), it is insufficiently recognized that the extent varies greatly between the various agonists and is affected by the assessment methods employed. Here we review published data from 24-h time-averaged HR monitoring in healthy individuals and subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with either short-acting GLP-1 RAs, lixisenatide or exenatide, or long-acting GLP-1 RAs, exenatide LAR, liraglutide, albiglutide, or dulaglutide (N = 1112; active-treatment arms). HR effects observed in two independent head-to-head trials of lixisenatide and liraglutide (N = 202; active-treatment arms) are also reviewed. Short-acting GLP-1 RAs, exenatide and lixisenatide, are associated with a transient (1-12 h) mean placebo- and baseline-adjusted 24-h HR increase of 1-3 beats per minute (bpm). Conversely, long-acting GLP-1 RAs are associated with more pronounced increases in mean 24-h HR; the highest seen with liraglutide and albiglutide at 6-10 bpm compared with dulaglutide and exenatide LAR at 3-4 bpm. For both liraglutide and dulaglutide, HR increases were recorded during both the day and at night. In two head-to-head comparisons, a small, transient mean increase in HR from baseline was observed with lixisenatide; liraglutide induced a substantially greater increase that remained significantly elevated over 24 h. The underlying mechanism for increased HR remains to be elucidated; however, it could be related to a direct effect at the sinus node and/or stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system, with this effect related to the duration of action of the respective GLP-1 RAs. In conclusion, this review indicates that the effects on HR differ within the class of GLP-1 RAs: short-acting GLP-1 RAs are associated with a modest and transient HR increase before returning to baseline levels, while some long-acting GLP-1 RAs are associated with a more pronounced and sustained increase during the day and night. Findings from recently completed trials indicate that a GLP-1 RA-induced increase in HR, regardless of magnitude, does not present an increased cardiovascular risk for subjects with T2DM, although a pronounced increase in HR may be associated with adverse clinical outcomes in those with advanced heart failure.

Lixisenatide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are higher among patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly those with concomitant cardiovascular diseases, than in most other populations. We assessed the effects of lixisenatide, a glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonist, on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary event. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a myocardial infarction or who had been hospitalized for unstable angina within the previous 180 days to receive lixisenatide or placebo in addition to locally determined standards of care. The trial was designed with adequate statistical power to assess whether lixisenatide was noninferior as well as superior to placebo, as defined by an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of less than 1.3 and 1.0, respectively, for the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: The 6068 patients who underwent randomization were followed for a median of 25 months. A primary end-point event occurred in 406 patients (13.4%) in the lixisenatide group and in 399 (13.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 1.17), which showed the noninferiority of lixisenatide to placebo (P<0.001) but did not show superiority (P=0.81). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio in the lixisenatide group, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.23) or the rate of death (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.13). Lixisenatide was not associated with a higher rate of serious adverse events or severe hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, pancreatic neoplasms, or allergic reactions than was placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes and a recent acute coronary syndrome, the addition of lixisenatide to usual care did not significantly alter the rate of major cardiovascular events or other serious adverse events. (Funded by Sanofi; ELIXA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01147250.).

Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics in Evaluation of LIXisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome, a long-term cardiovascular end point trial of lixisenatide versus placebo.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Furthermore, patients with T2DM and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have a particularly high risk of CV events. The glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, lixisenatide, improves glycemia, but its effects on CV events have not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: ELIXA (www.clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT01147250) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study of lixisenatide in patients with T2DM and a recent ACS event. The primary aim is to evaluate the effects of lixisenatide on CV morbidity and mortality in a population at high CV risk. The primary efficacy end point is a composite of time to CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Data are systematically collected for safety outcomes, including hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, and malignancy. RESULTS: Enrollment began in July 2010 and ended in August 2013; 6,068 patients from 49 countries were randomized. Of these, 69% are men and 75% are white; at baseline, the mean ± SD age was 60.3 ± 9.7 years, body mass index was 30.2 ± 5.7 kg/m(2), and duration of T2DM was 9.3 ± 8.2 years. The qualifying ACS was a myocardial infarction in 83% and unstable angina in 17%. The study will continue until the positive adjudication of the protocol-specified number of primary CV events. CONCLUSION: ELIXA will be the first trial to report the safety and efficacy of a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist in people with T2DM and high CV event risk.

Preoperative enoxaparin versus postoperative semuloparin thromboprophylaxis in major abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis with semuloparin started postoperatively versus enoxaparin started preoperatively in major abdominal surgery. BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is an important complication following major abdominal surgery. Semuloparin is a novel ultra-low-molecular-weight heparin with high antifactor Xa and minimal antifactor IIa activity. METHODS: In this double-blind noninferiority trial, adult patients undergoing major abdominal or pelvic operation under general anesthesia lasting more than 45 minutes were assigned to either daily enoxaparin 40 mg commenced preoperatively or daily semuloparin 20 mg commenced postoperatively, for 7 to 10 days. Patients underwent bilateral leg venography between 7 and 11 days postsurgery. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of any deep vein thrombosis, nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or all-cause death. The primary safety outcome was bleeding. Both were independently adjudicated. RESULTS: In total, 4413 patients were randomized; 3030 (1499 in the enoxaparin and 1531 in the semuloparin groups) were evaluable for the primary efficacy end point, which occurred in 97 patients (6.3%) in the semuloparin group and 82 patients (5.5%) in the enoxaparin group [odds ratio (OR) = 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84-1.59]. On the basis of a noninferiority margin of 1.25, postoperative semuloparin did not demonstrate noninferiority to preoperative enoxaparin. Major bleeding occurred in 63 of 2175 patients (2.9%) in the semuloparin group and 98 of 2177 patients (4.5%) in the enoxaparin group (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Semuloparin commenced postoperatively did not demonstrate noninferiority to enoxaparin initiated preoperatively for thromboprophylaxis after major abdominal surgery. Study registered with clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00679588.

Semuloparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism. Limited data support the clinical benefit of antithrombotic prophylaxis. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicenter trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the ultra-low-molecular-weight heparin semuloparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer. Patients with metastatic or locally advanced solid tumors who were beginning to receive a course of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous semuloparin, 20 mg once daily, or placebo until there was a change of chemotherapy regimen. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of any symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis, any nonfatal pulmonary embolism, and death related to venous thromboembolism. Clinically relevant bleeding (major and nonmajor) was the main safety outcome. RESULTS: The median treatment duration was 3.5 months. Venous thromboembolism occurred in 20 of 1608 patients (1.2%) receiving semuloparin, as compared with 55 of 1604 (3.4%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.60; P<0.001), with consistent efficacy among subgroups defined according to the origin and stage of cancer and the baseline risk of venous thromboembolism. The incidence of clinically relevant bleeding was 2.8% and 2.0% in the semuloparin and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.89 to 2.21). Major bleeding occurred in 19 of 1589 patients (1.2%) receiving semuloparin and 18 of 1583 (1.1%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.99). Incidences of all other adverse events were similar in the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Semuloparin reduces the incidence of thromboembolic events in patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer, with no apparent increase in major bleeding. (Funded by Sanofi; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00694382.).

Addition of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy improves control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Aprepitant is a novel neurokinin 1 (NK(1)) antagonist that has been shown to improve control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) when added to a standard antiemetic regimen of a 5-hydroxytriptamine-3 antagonist plus a corticosteroid. The authors sought to evaluate further the efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant plus standard therapy in a large clinical trial. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-groups, Phase III study. Patients with cancer who were scheduled to receive treatment with high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy were randomized to receive 1 of 2 treatment regimens; the standard therapy group received intravenous ondansetron 32 mg and oral dexamethasone 20 mg on Day 1, and oral dexamethasone 8 mg twice daily on Days 2-4. The aprepitant group received oral aprepitant 125 mg, intravenous ondansetron 32 mg, and oral dexamethasone 12 mg on Day 1; oral aprepitant 80 mg and oral dexamethasone 8 mg once daily on Days 2-3; and oral dexamethasone 8 mg on Day 4. Patients recorded episodes of emesis, use of rescue therapy, and severity of nausea in a diary. A modified intent-to-treat approach was used to analyze the efficacy data. The primary endpoint was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) during the 5-day period postcisplatin. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models, and reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments were used to assess tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients were evaluated for efficacy, and 568 patients were evaluated for safety. During the 5 days after chemotherapy, the percentages of patients who achieved a complete response were 62.7% in the aprepitant group (163 of 260 patients) versus 43.3% in the standard therapy group (114 of 263 patients; P < 0.001). For Day 1, the complete response rates were 82.8% for the aprepitant group and 68.4% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.001); for Days 2-5, the complete response rates were 67.7% in the aprepitant group and 46.8% in the standard therapy group (P < 0.001). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the 2 treatment groups (72.8% in the aprepitant group [206 of 283 patients] and 72.6% in the standard therapy group [207 of 285 patients]) as were rates of serious adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, and deaths. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cancer who are receiving high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy, therapy consisting of aprepitant (125 mg on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2-3) plus a standard regimen of ondansetron and dexamethasone provided superior antiemetic protection compared with standard therapy alone and was generally well tolerated.