Shifting Paradigms in the Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes: Reflections on Recent Cardiovascular Outcome Trials.

An important challenge in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes is cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. While it is well established that intensive glycemic control prevents the onset and slows the progression of certain microvascular complications, such a strategy utilized in multiple clinical trials over the past few decades has failed to show a similar benefit with regard to cardiovascular events, including mortality. Despite this, a major hope has been the discovery of glucose-lowering medications that simultaneously improve cardiovascular outcomes. Over the past year and a half, four randomized clinical trials (involving empagliflozin, pioglitazone, liraglutide, and semaglutide) have reported important benefits in preventing adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with or at risk for type 2 diabetes and established CVD. On the basis of these landmark trials, we propose that a paradigm shift in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes, specifically in those with prior macrovascular disease. A transition from current algorithms based primarily on hemoglobin A1c values to a more comprehensive strategy additionally focused on CVD prevention seems warranted.

Dexamethasone-induced insulin resistance: kinetic modeling using novel PET radiopharmaceutical 6-deoxy-6-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose.

PURPOSE: An insulin-resistant rat model, induced by dexamethasone, was used to evaluate a Michaelis-Menten-based kinetic model using 6-deoxy-6-[(18)F]fluoro-D-glucose (6-[(18)F]FDG) to quantify glucose transport with PET. PROCEDURES: Seventeen, male, Sprague-Dawley rats were studied in three groups: control (Ctrl), control + insulin (Ctrl + I), and dexamethasone + insulin (Dex + I). PET scans were acquired for 2 h under euglycemic conditions in the Ctrl group and under hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic conditions in the Ctrl + I and Dex + I groups. RESULTS: Glucose transport, assessed according to the 6-[(18)F]FDG concentration, was highest in skeletal muscle in the Ctrl + I, intermediate in the Dex + I, and lowest in the Ctrl group, while that in the brain was similar among the groups. Modeling analysis applied to the skeletal muscle uptake curves yielded values of parameters related to glucose transport that were greatest in the Ctrl + I group and increased to a lesser degree in the Dex + I group, compared to the Ctrl group. CONCLUSION: 6-[(18)F]FDG and the Michaelis-Menten-based model can be used to measure insulin-stimulated glucose transport under basal and an insulin resistant state in vivo.

Individualizing glycemic targets in type 2 diabetes mellitus: implications of recent clinical trials.

One of the first steps in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus is setting glycemic goals. Professional organizations advise setting specific hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) targets for patients, and individualization of these goals has more recently been emphasized. However, the operational meaning of glycemic goals, and specific methods for individualizing them, have not been well-described. Choosing a specific HbA(1c) target range for a given patient requires taking several factors into consideration, including an assessment of the patient's risk for hyperglycemia-related complications versus the risks of therapy, all in the context of the overall clinical setting. Comorbid conditions, psychological status, capacity for self-care, economic considerations, and family and social support systems also play a key role in the intensity of therapy. The individualization of HbA(1c) targets has gained more traction after recent clinical trials in older patients with established type 2 diabetes mellitus failed to show a benefit from intensive glucose-lowering therapy on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. The limited available evidence suggests that near-normal glycemic targets should be the standard for younger patients with relatively recent onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus and little or no micro- or macrovascular complications, with the aim of preventing complications over the many years of life. However, somewhat higher targets should be considered for older patients with long-standing type 2 diabetes mellitus and evidence of CVD (or multiple CVD risk factors). This review explores these issues further and proposes a framework for considering an appropriate and safe HbA(1c) target range for each patient.