A Synopsis of the Evidence for the Science and Clinical Management of Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic (CKM) Syndrome: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

A growing appreciation of the pathophysiological interrelatedness of metabolic risk factors such as obesity and diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease has led to the conceptualization of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome. The confluence of metabolic risk factors and chronic kidney disease within cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome is strongly linked to risk for adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. In addition, there are unique management considerations for individuals with established cardiovascular disease and coexisting metabolic risk factors, chronic kidney disease, or both. An extensive body of literature supports our scientific understanding of, and approach to, prevention and management for individuals with cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome. However, there are critical gaps in knowledge related to cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome in terms of mechanisms of disease development, heterogeneity within clinical phenotypes, interplay between social determinants of health and biological risk factors, and accurate assessments of disease incidence in the context of competing risks. There are also key limitations in the data supporting the clinical care for cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome, particularly in terms of early-life prevention, screening for risk factors, interdisciplinary care models, optimal strategies for supporting lifestyle modification and weight loss, targeting of emerging cardioprotective and kidney-protective therapies, management of patients with both cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease, and the impact of systematically assessing and addressing social determinants of health. This scientific statement uses a crosswalk of major guidelines, in addition to a review of the scientific literature, to summarize the evidence and fundamental gaps related to the science, screening, prevention, and management of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome.

Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Health: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health reflects the interplay among metabolic risk factors, chronic kidney disease, and the cardiovascular system and has profound impacts on morbidity and mortality. There are multisystem consequences of poor cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health, with the most significant clinical impact being the high associated incidence of cardiovascular disease events and cardiovascular mortality. There is a high prevalence of poor cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health in the population, with a disproportionate burden seen among those with adverse social determinants of health. However, there is also a growing number of therapeutic options that favorably affect metabolic risk factors, kidney function, or both that also have cardioprotective effects. To improve cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health and related outcomes in the population, there is a critical need for (1) more clarity on the definition of cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome; (2) an approach to cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic staging that promotes prevention across the life course; (3) prediction algorithms that include the exposures and outcomes most relevant to cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health; and (4) strategies for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in relation to cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health that reflect harmonization across major subspecialty guidelines and emerging scientific evidence. It is also critical to incorporate considerations of social determinants of health into care models for cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome and to reduce care fragmentation by facilitating approaches for patient-centered interdisciplinary care. This presidential advisory provides guidance on the definition, staging, prediction paradigms, and holistic approaches to care for patients with cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome and details a multicomponent vision for effectively and equitably enhancing cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic health in the population.

Partial Meal Replacement for Weight Loss after Stroke: Results of a Pilot Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Over half of patients with acute ischemic stroke are overweight or obese as defined by a body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2. Professional and government agencies recommend weight management for these persons to improve risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, vascular inflammation, and diabetes. However, approaches to weight loss have not been adequately tested specifically in patients with stroke. In anticipation of a larger trial with vascular or functional outcomes, we tested the feasibility and safety of a 12-week partial meal replacement (PMR) intervention for weight loss in overweight or obese patients with a recent ischemic stroke. METHODS: This randomized open-label trial enrolled participants from December 2019 to February 2021 (with hiatus from March to August 2020 due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on research). Eligible patients had a recent ischemic stroke and BMI 27-49.9 kg/m2. Patients were randomized to a PMR diet (OPTAVIA® Optimal Weight 4 & 2 & 1 Plan®) plus standard care (SC) or SC alone. The PMR diet consisted of four meal replacements supplied to participants, two meals with lean protein and vegetables (self-prepared or supplied), and a healthy snack (also self-prepared or supplied). The PMR diet provided 1,100-1,300 calories per day. SC consisted of one instructional session on a healthy diet. Co-primary outcomes were ≥5% weight loss at 12 weeks and to identify barriers to successful weight loss among participants assigned to PMR. Safety outcomes included hospitalization, falls, pneumonia, or hypoglycemia requiring treatment by self or others. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, study visits after August 2020 were by remote communication. RESULTS: We enrolled 38 patients from two institutions. Two patients in each arm were lost and could not be included in outcome analyses. At 12 weeks, 9/17 patients in the PMR group and 2/17 patients in the SC group achieved ≥5% weight loss (52.9% vs. 11.9%; Fisher's exact p = 0.03). Mean percent weight change in the PMR group was -3.0% (SD 13.7) and -2.6% (SD 3.4) in the SC group (Wilcoxon rank-sum p = 0.17). No adverse events were attributed to study participation. Some participants had difficulty completing home monitoring of weight. In the PMR group, participants reported that food cravings and dislike for some food products were barriers to weight loss. CONCLUSION: A PMR diet after ischemic stroke is feasible, safe, and effective for weight loss. In future trials, in-person or improved remote outcome monitoring may reduce anthropometric data variation.

Caring for Patients With Diabetes in Stroke Neurology.

Diabetes is a heterogeneous disease that affects 9% of the world's population (11% in the United States). The consequences of diabetes for the brain are severe; it nearly doubles a person's risk of stroke and is a major contributor to risk for cerebral small vessel disease and dementia. These effects on the brain are in addition to peripheral neuropathy, retinopathy, nephropathy, and coronary heart disease. In this article, we explain the treatments that can prevent or mitigate its harmful effects and propose a role for neurologists and other neurology clinicians in managing patients during routine care.

Baseline Cardiovascular Risk Factor Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Coronary Disease Versus Stroke: Secondary Analysis of Cardiovascular Outcome Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease are at increased risk for recurrent ischemic events. Cardiovascular risk factor control is vital for secondary prevention, but how this compares among individuals with different T2D macrovascular complications is unknown. We aimed to determine if there might be differences in risk factor control in patients with T2D with previous stroke versus coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses were performed on 12 856 patients with T2D with prior history of stroke with or without CAD from 3 diabetes cardiovascular outcome trials: CARMELINA (The Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin), EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients), and CAROLINA (The Cardiovascular Outcome Study of Linagliptin vs Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes). Risk factors at baseline assessed included dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking, and current antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy. Control, respectively, was defined as LDL (low-density lipoprotein)-C <100 mg/dL or statin use, systolic blood pressure <140 and diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, not currently smoking, and use of an antiplatelet/anticoagulant medication. The odds ratio of 3 to 4 (or good) versus 0 to 2 (or suboptimal) risk factors controlled was analyzed by logistic regression models. RESULTS: The odds for good versus suboptimal risk factor control in patients with CAD alone was higher than in those with stroke alone across all 3 trials odds ratios (95% CI): CARMELINA, 2.05 (1.67-2.51), EMPA-REG OUTCOME, 2.50 (2.10-2.99), and CAROLINA, 1.63 (1.21-2.20). The respective odds ratios were lower (and rendered nonsignificant in CAROLINA) when cardiovascular risk factor control in patients with both CAD and stroke were compared with those with stroke alone: CARMELINA, 1.45 (1.13-1.87); EMPA-REG OUTCOME, 1.62 (1.25-2.08); and CAROLINA, 1.16 (0.74-1.83). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary populations of patients with T2D, there was significant discordance in control of cardiovascular risk factors between patients with stroke versus CAD, with the former having less optimal control. The intermediate results in patients with both CAD and stroke suggest that these differences could be related at least in part to clinician factors. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01243424, NCT01131676, NCT01897532.

Separate But Not Equal? A Cross-Sectional Study of Segregation by Payor Mix in Academic Primary Care Clinics.

BACKGROUND: At some US Academic Health Centers (AHCs), patients with predominantly Medicaid insurance are seen in one clinic and patients with other insurance are seen in another. The extent of this practice and implications are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of AHCs that have at least two primary care internal medicine clinics that differ substantially in proportion of patients with Medicaid and to compare patient demographic, staffing, and operational features. PARTICIPANTS: General internal medicine chiefs and clinic directors at 40 randomly selected US AHCs plus the top 10 AHCs in terms of NIH funding. MAIN MEASURE: An AHC was classified as maintaining clinics that differed substantially in the proportion of patients with Medicaid if any two differed by ≥ 40% (absolute). Other criteria were used for pre-specified secondary analyses (e.g., ≥ 30%). KEY RESULTS: Thirty-nine of 50 AHCs (78%) participated. Four of 39 (10%; 95% CI, 3 to 24%) had two clinics differing by ≥ 40% in the proportion of patients with Medicaid, eight (21%; 95% CI, 9 to 36%) had clinics differing by ≥ 30%, and 15 (38%; 95% CI, 23 to 55%) had clinics differing by ≥ 20%. Clinics with more patients with Medicaid by any of the three criteria were more likely to employ resident physicians as providers of longitudinal care (with faculty supervision) and more likely to have patients who were Black or Hispanic. CONCLUSIONS: Some US AHCs maintain separate clinics defined by the proportion of patients with Medicaid. Clinics with a higher proportion of patients insured by Medicaid are more likely to employ residents (with faculty oversight), feature residents as providers of longitudinal care, and serve patients who are Black and Hispanic. Further research is needed to understand why some AHCs have primary care clinics distinguishable by insurance mix with the goal of ensuring that racism and discrimination are not root causes.

Identifying Best Practices to Improve Evaluation and Management of In-Hospital Stroke: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

This scientific statement describes a path to optimizing care for patients who experience an in-hospital stroke. Although these patients are in a monitored environment, their evaluation and treatment are often delayed compared with patients presenting to the emergency department, contributing to higher rates of morbidity and mortality. Reducing delays and optimizing treatment for patients with in-hospital stroke could improve outcomes. This scientific statement calls for the development of hospital systems of care and targeted quality improvement for in-hospital stroke. We propose 5 core elements to optimize in-hospital stroke care: 1. Deliver stroke training to all hospital staff, including how to activate in-hospital stroke alerts. 2. Create rapid response teams with dedicated stroke training and immediate access to neurological expertise. 3. Standardize the evaluation of patients with potential in-hospital stroke with physical assessment and imaging. 4. Address barriers to treatment potentially, including interfacility transfer to advanced stroke treatment. 5. Establish an in-hospital stroke quality oversight program delivering data-driven performance feedback and driving targeted quality improvement efforts. Additional research is needed to better understand how to reduce the incidence, morbidity, and mortality of in-hospital stroke.

Efficacy of lower doses of pioglitazone after stroke or transient ischaemic attack in patients with insulin resistance.

AIMS: Pioglitazone is a potent insulin-sensitizing drug with anti-atherosclerotic properties, but adverse effects have limited its use. We assessed the benefits and risks of lower versus higher doses of pioglitazone taken by participants in the Insulin Resistance Intervention in Stroke Trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Efficacy [myocardial infarction (MI) or recurrent stroke] new-onset diabetes) and adverse outcomes (oedema, weight gain, heart failure and bone fracture) were examined for subjects assigned to pioglitazone or placebo within strata defined by mode dose of study drug taken (i.e. the dose taken on most days in the study). RESULTS: Among the 1938 patients randomized to pioglitazone, the mode dose was <15 mg/day in 546 participants, 15 mg/day in 128, 30 mg/day in 89, and 45 mg/day in 1175. There was no significant effect on stroke/MI or new-onset diabetes with <15 mg/day. For 15 mg/30 mg/day pooled, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for stroke/MI were 0.48 (0.30, 0.76; p = .002) and 0.74 (0.69, 0.94) for 45 mg/day. For new-onset diabetes, the adjusted hazard ratios were 0.34 (0.15, 0.81; p = .001) and 0.31 (0.59, 0.94; p = .001) respectively. For oedema, weight gain and heart failure, the risk estimates for pioglitazone were lower for subjects taking <45 mg daily. For fractures, the increased risk with pioglitazone was similar across all dose strata. CONCLUSIONS: Lower doses of pioglitazone appear to confer much of the benefit with less adverse effects than the full dose. Further study is needed to confirm these findings so that clinicians may optimize dosing of this secondary prevention strategy in patients with stroke.

Central vs site outcome adjudication in the IRIS trial.

BACKGROUND: Central adjudication of outcome events is the standard in clinical trial research. We examine the benefit of central adjudication in the Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) trial and show how the benefit is influenced by outcome definition and features of the adjudicated events. METHODS: IRIS tested pioglitazone for prevention of stroke and myocardial infarction in patients with a recent transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke. We compared the hazard ratios for study outcomes classified by site and central adjudication. We repeated the analysis for an updated stroke definition. RESULTS: The hazard ratios for the primary outcome were identical (0.76) and statistically significant regardless of adjudicator. The hazard ratios for stroke alone were nearly identical with site and central adjudication, but only reached significance with site adjudication (HR, 0.80; p = 0.049 vs. HR, 0.82; p = 0.09). Using the updated stroke definition, all hazard ratios were lower than with the original IRIS definition and statistically significant regardless of adjudication method. Agreement was higher when stroke type was certain, subtype was large vessel or cardioembolic, signs or symptoms lasted > 24 h, imaging showed a stroke, and when NIHSS was ≥3. DISCUSSION: Central stroke adjudication caused the hazard ratio for a main secondary outcome in IRIS (stroke alone) to be higher and lose statistical significant compared with site review. The estimate of treatment effects were larger with the updated stroke definition. There may be benefit of central adjudication for events with specific features, such as shorter symptom duration or normal brain imaging.

Primary Care of Adult Patients After Stroke: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

Primary care teams provide the majority of poststroke care. When optimally configured, these teams provide patient-centered care to prevent recurrent stroke, maximize function, prevent late complications, and optimize quality of life. Patient-centered primary care after stroke begins with establishing the foundation for poststroke management while engaging caregivers and family members in support of the patient. Screening for complications (eg, depression, cognitive impairment, and fall risk) and unmet needs is both a short-term and long-term component of poststroke care. Patients with ongoing functional impairments may benefit from referral to appropriate services. Ongoing care consists of managing risk factors such as high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, carotid stenosis, and dyslipidemia. Recommendations to reduce risk of recurrent stroke also include lifestyle modifications such as healthy diet and exercise. At the system level, primary care practices can use quality improvement strategies and available resources to enhance the delivery of evidence-based care and optimize outcomes.

A Primary Care Agenda for Brain Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

A healthy brain is critical for living a longer and fuller life. The projected aging of the population, however, raises new challenges in maintaining quality of life. As we age, there is increasing compromise of neuronal activity that affects functions such as cognition, also making the brain vulnerable to disease. Once pathology-induced decline begins, few therapeutic options are available. Prevention is therefore paramount, and primary care can play a critical role. The purpose of this American Heart Association scientific statement is to provide an up-to-date summary for primary care providers in the assessment and modification of risk factors at the individual level that maintain brain health and prevent cognitive impairment. Building on the 2017 American Heart Association/American Stroke Association presidential advisory on defining brain health that included "Life's Simple 7," we describe here modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline, including depression, hypertension, physical inactivity, diabetes, obesity, hyperlipidemia, poor diet, smoking, social isolation, excessive alcohol use, sleep disorders, and hearing loss. These risk factors include behaviors, conditions, and lifestyles that can emerge before adulthood and can be routinely identified and managed by primary care clinicians.

Adherence to study drug in a stroke prevention trial"?>.

OBJECTIVE: Standards for reporting and analyzing adherence to medical therapy have recently improved due to international consensus efforts. If applied to clinical trial research in patients with stroke, these improvements have the potential to identify when in the sequence of trial operations participants are at risk for non-adherence and opportunities to safeguard adherence. METHODS: We analyzed three phases of adherence according to the European Society for Patient Adherence, COMpliance, and Persistence (ESPACOMP) Medication Adherence Reporting Guideline (EMERGE) taxonomy in the Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke (IRIS) trial: initiation (did patient start drug), implementation (did patient take a drug holiday, defined as temporary cessation lasting ≥14 days), and persistence (did patient prematurely and permanently discontinue drug). IRIS was a randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind trial testing pioglitazone to prevent stroke or myocardial infarction in patients with a recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Adherence was classified by self-report. Researchers used coaching algorithms to seek adherence recovery if participants went off drug. RESULTS: During 2005-2013, 3876 participants were enrolled from 179 sites in seven countries and followed for a mean of 4.8 years. Less than 1% of participants in each group did not initiate study drug. 20% of patients assigned to pioglitazone and 17% assigned to placebo took at least one drug holiday. 36% and 30%, respectively, discontinued the study drug prematurely with or without a prior holiday. The risk for stopping the study drug (temporarily or permanently) in the first year after randomization was twice the risk in each of the subsequent four years. This was true both for patients assigned to active therapy and placebo. More participants assigned to pioglitazone, compared to placebo, took a drug holiday or permanently stopped study drug, but the difference in rates of discontinuation was only evident in year one. In years two through five, rates of discontinuation were similar in the two treatment groups. The difference in rates during year one was the result of adverse effects related to the active study drug, pioglitazone. During the remainder of the trial, the attribution of discontinuations to adverse effects potentially related to pioglitazone was reduced but still higher in those assigned to active drug. Other reasons for discontinuation were similar between treatment groups and were largely unrelated to pharmacodynamic effects of the study drug. Rates of discontinuation varied widely among research sites. CONCLUSION: Patients in a drug trial for stroke prevention are at greatest risk for premature drug discontinuation early after randomization. Reasons for discontinuation change over time. Variable discontinuation rates among sites suggests that adherence can be improved by using best practices from high-performing sites.

Correction to: Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

The affiliation details for Geltrude Mingrone are corrected below.

Pioglitazone Prevents Stroke in Patients With a Recent Transient Ischemic Attack or Ischemic Stroke: A Planned Secondary Analysis of the IRIS Trial (Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke).

BACKGROUND: The IRIS trial (Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke) demonstrated that pioglitazone reduced the risk for a composite outcome of stroke or myocardial infarction among nondiabetic patients with insulin resistance and a recent stroke or transient ischemic attack. The current planned secondary analysis uses updated 2013 consensus criteria for ischemic stroke to examine the effect of pioglitazone on stroke outcomes. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive pioglitazone (45 mg/d target dose) or placebo within 180 days of a qualifying ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and were followed for a maximum of 5 years. An independent committee, blinded to treatment assignments, adjudicated all potential stroke outcomes. Time to first stroke event was compared by treatment group, overall and by type of event (ischemic or hemorrhagic), using survival analyses and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among 3876 IRIS participants (mean age, 63 years; 65% male), 377 stroke events were observed in 319 participants over a median follow-up of 4.8 years. Pioglitazone was associated with a reduced risk for any stroke at 5 years (8.0% in comparison with 10.7% for the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.94; log-rank P=0.01). Pioglitazone reduced risk for ischemic strokes (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.91; P=0.005) but had no effect on risk for hemorrhagic events (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.50-2.00; P=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Pioglitazone was effective for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke in nondiabetic patients with insulin resistance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00091949.

Heart Failure After Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack in Insulin-Resistant Patients Without Diabetes Mellitus Treated With Pioglitazone.

BACKGROUND: The IRIS trial (Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke) demonstrated that pioglitazone reduced the risk for both cardiovascular events and diabetes mellitus in insulin-resistant patients. However, concern remains that pioglitazone may increase the risk for heart failure (HF) in susceptible individuals. METHODS: In IRIS, patients with insulin resistance but without diabetes mellitus were randomized to pioglitazone or placebo (1:1) within 180 days of an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack and followed for ≤5 years. To identify patients at higher HF risk with pioglitazone, we performed a secondary analysis of IRIS participants without HF history at entry. HF episodes were adjudicated by an external review, and treatment effects were analyzed using time-to-event methods. A baseline HF risk score was constructed from a Cox model estimated using stepwise selection. Baseline patient features (individually and summarized in risk score) and postrandomization events were examined as possible modifiers of the effect of pioglitazone. Net cardiovascular benefit was estimated for the composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and hospitalized HF. RESULTS: Among 3851 patients, the mean age was 63 years, and 65% were male. The 5-year HF risk did not differ by treatment (4.1% pioglitazone, 4.2% placebo). Risk for hospitalized HF was low and not significantly greater in pioglitazone compared with placebo groups (2.9% versus 2.3%, P=0.36). Older age, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, obesity, edema, high C-reactive protein, and smoking were risk factors for HF. However, the effect of pioglitazone did not differ across levels of baseline HF risk (hazard ratio [95% CI] for pioglitazone versus placebo for patients at low, moderate, and high risk: 1.03 [0.61-1.73], 1.10 [0.56-2.15], and 1.08 [0.58-2.01]; interaction P value=0.98). HF risk was increased in patients with versus those without incident myocardial infarction in both groups (pioglitazone: 31.4% versus 2.7%; placebo: 25.7% versus 2.4%; P<0.0001). Edema, dyspnea, and weight gain in the trial did not predict HF hospitalization but led to more study drug dose reduction with a lower mean dose of pioglitazone versus placebo (29±17 mg versus 33±15 mg, P<0.0001). Pioglitazone reduced the composite outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or hospitalized HF (hazard ratio, 0.78; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: In IRIS, with surveillance and dose adjustments, pioglitazone did not increase the risk of HF and conferred net cardiovascular benefit in patients with insulin resistance and cerebrovascular disease. The risk of HF with pioglitazone was not modified by baseline HF risk. The IRIS experience may be instructive for maximizing the net benefit of this therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00091949.

Achievement of Guideline-Recommended Weight Loss Among Patients With Ischemic Stroke and Obesity.

Background and Purpose- The proportion of patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and obesity who successfully achieve goals for weight reduction recommended by major professional organizations is unknown. Methods- We examined the experience of participants in the placebo group of the IRIS trial (Insulin Resistance Intervention after Stroke) with a body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 at entry. Patients were of age ≥40 years, with a qualifying stroke or TIA within 180 days of randomization and documented insulin resistance without diabetes mellitus. Weights at baseline and at years 1 and 2 after entry were analyzed to determine the proportion of patients achieving a 5% weight loss and achievement of body mass index <27 kg/m2. Results- Of 1937 subjects assigned to placebo, 855 (44%) had obesity at entry. Median age of these 855 subjects was 60 years (interquartile range, 53-68), 41% were women, and median time from stroke/TIA to trial entry was 79 days. Among 788 subjects in the trial at 1 year, 166 (21%) had lost at least 5% of their starting weight and 12 (2%) had achieved a body mass index <27 kg/m2. One hundred nine (14%) participants gained at least 5% of their baseline weight at 1 year. Among 744 subjects in the trial at 2 years, 185 (25%) had lost at least 5% of their baseline weight and 23 (3%) had achieved a body mass index <27 kg/m2. One hundred forty (19%) participants gained at least 5% of their starting weight at 2 years. Conclusions- Only one quarter of obese patients with a recent ischemic stroke or TIA lost a clinically significant amount of weight after their vascular event. Many patients gained weight. Enhancing weight loss after ischemic stroke or TIA may help improve functional outcome and reduce risk for future vascular events, but clinical trials are needed to test and confirm these potential benefits.

Scoring System to Optimize Pioglitazone Therapy After Stroke Based on Fracture Risk.

Background and Purpose- The insulin sensitizer, pioglitazone, reduces cardiovascular risk in patients after an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack but increases bone fracture risk. We conducted a secondary analysis of the IRIS trial (Insulin Resistance Intervention After Stroke) to assess the effect of pretreatment risk for fracture on the net benefits of pioglitazone therapy. Methods- IRIS was a randomized placebo-controlled trial of pioglitazone that enrolled patients with insulin resistance but without diabetes mellitus within 180 days of an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Participants were recruited at 179 international centers from February 2005 to January 2013 and followed for a median of 4.8 years. Fracture risk models were developed from patient characteristics at entry. Within fracture risk strata, we quantified the effects of pioglitazone compared with placebo by estimating the relative risks and absolute 5-year risk differences for fracture and stroke or myocardial infarction. Results- The fracture risk model included points for age, race-ethnicity, sex, body mass index, disability, and medications. The relative increment in fracture risk with pioglitazone was similar in the lower (

Pioglitazone after Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) are at increased risk for future cardiovascular events despite current preventive therapies. The identification of insulin resistance as a risk factor for stroke and myocardial infarction raised the possibility that pioglitazone, which improves insulin sensitivity, might benefit patients with cerebrovascular disease. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 3876 patients who had had a recent ischemic stroke or TIA to receive either pioglitazone (target dose, 45 mg daily) or placebo. Eligible patients did not have diabetes but were found to have insulin resistance on the basis of a score of more than 3.0 on the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index. The primary outcome was fatal or nonfatal stroke or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: By 4.8 years, a primary outcome had occurred in 175 of 1939 patients (9.0%) in the pioglitazone group and in 228 of 1937 (11.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the pioglitazone group, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.93; P=0.007). Diabetes developed in 73 patients (3.8%) and 149 patients (7.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69; P<0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.17; P=0.52). Pioglitazone was associated with a greater frequency of weight gain exceeding 4.5 kg than was placebo (52.2% vs. 33.7%, P<0.001), edema (35.6% vs. 24.9%, P<0.001), and bone fracture requiring surgery or hospitalization (5.1% vs. 3.2%, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients without diabetes who had insulin resistance along with a recent history of ischemic stroke or TIA, the risk of stroke or myocardial infarction was lower among patients who received pioglitazone than among those who received placebo. Pioglitazone was also associated with a lower risk of diabetes but with higher risks of weight gain, edema, and fracture. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00091949.).

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.