Exploring the Possible Impact of Unbalanced Open-Label Drop-In of Glucose-Lowering Medications on EXSCEL Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: EXSCEL (Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering) assessed the impact of once-weekly exenatide 2 mg versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, while aiming for glycemic equipoise. Consequently, greater drop-in of open-label glucose-lowering medications occurred in the placebo group. Accordingly, we explored the potential effects of their unbalanced use on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke, and all-cause mortality (ACM), given that some of these agents are cardioprotective. METHODS: Cox hazard models were performed by randomized treatment for drug classes where >5% open-label drop-in glucose-lowering medication occurred, and for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs; 3.0%) using three methodologies: drop-in visit right censoring, inverse probability for treatment weighting (IPTW), and applying drug class risk reductions. RESULTS: Baseline glucose-lowering medications for the 14 752 EXSCEL participants (73.1% with previous cardiovascular disease) did not differ between treatment groups. During median 3.2 years follow-up, open-label drop-in occurred in 33.4% of participants, more frequently with placebo than exenatide (38.1% versus 28.8%), with metformin (6.1% versus 4.9%), sulfonylurea (8.7% versus 6.9%), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (10.6% versus 7.5%), SGLT-2i (10.3% versus 8.1%), GLP-1 RA (3.4% versus 2.4%), and insulin (13.8% versus 9.4%). The MACE effect size was not altered meaningfully by right censoring, but the favorable HR for exenatide became nominally significant in the sulfonylurea and any glucose-lowering medication groups, while the ACM HR and p-values were essentially unchanged. IPTW decreased the MACE HR from 0.91 (P=0.061) to 0.85 (P=0.008) and the ACM HR from 0.86 (P=0.016) to 0.81 (P=0.012). Application of literature-derived risk reductions showed no meaningful changes in MACE or ACM HRs or P values, although simulations of substantially greater use of drop-in cardioprotective glucose-lowering agents demonstrated blunting of signal detection. CONCLUSIONS: EXSCEL-observed HRs for MACE and ACM remained robust after right censoring or application of literature-derived risk reductions, but the exenatide versus placebo MACE effect size and statistical significance were increased by IPTW. Effects of open-label drop-in cardioprotective medications need to be considered carefully when designing, conducting, and analyzing cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering agents under the premise of glycemic equipoise. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01144338.

The management of type 2 diabetes before, during and after Covid-19 infection: what is the evidence?

Patients with Covid-19 place new challenges on the management of type 2 diabetes, including the questions of whether glucose-lowering therapy should be adjusted during infection and how to manage a return to normal care after resolution of Covid-19 symptoms. Due to the sudden onset of the pandemic, physicians have by necessity made such important clinical decisions in the absence of robust evidence or consistent guidelines. The risk to patients is compounded by the prevalence of cardiovascular disease in this population, which alongside diabetes is a major risk factor for severe disease and mortality in Covid-19. We convened as experts from the Central and Eastern European region to consider what advice we can provide in the setting of type 2 diabetes and Covid-19, considering the evidence before, during and after infection. We review recommendations that have been published to date, and consider the best available-but currently limited-evidence from large observational studies and the DARE-19 randomized control trial. Notably, we find a lack of guidance on restarting patients on optimal antidiabetic therapy after recovering from Covid-19, and suggest that this may provide an opportunity to optimize treatment and counter clinical inertia that predates the pandemic. Furthermore, we emphasize that optimization applies not only to glycaemic control, but other factors such as cardiorenal protection. While we look forward to the emergence of new evidence that we hope will address these gaps, in the interim we provide a perspective, based on our collective clinical experience, on how best to manage glucose-lowering therapy as patients with Covid-19 recover from their disease and return to normal care.

Worldwide inertia to the use of cardiorenal protective glucose-lowering drugs (SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA) in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes.

The disclosure of proven cardiorenal benefits with certain antidiabetic agents was supposed to herald a new era in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D), especially for the many patients with T2D who are at high risk for cardiovascular and renal events. However, as the evidence in favour of various sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) accumulates, prescriptions of these agents continue to stagnate, even among eligible, at-risk patients. By contrast, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) DPP-4i remain more widely used than SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA in these patients, despite a similar cost to SGLT2i and a large body of evidence showing no clear benefit on cardiorenal outcomes. We are a group of diabetologists united by a shared concern that clinical inertia is preventing these patients from receiving life-saving treatments, as well as placing them at greater risk of hospitalisation for heart failure and progression of renal disease. We propose a manifesto for change, in order to increase uptake of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RA in appropriate patients as a matter of urgency, especially those who could be readily switched from an agent without proven cardiorenal benefit. Central to our manifesto is a shift from linear treatment algorithms based on HbA1c target setting to parallel, independent considerations of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure and renal risks, in accordance with newly updated guidelines. Finally, we call upon all colleagues to play their part in implementing our manifesto at a local level, ensuring that patients do not pay a heavy price for continued clinical inertia in T2D.

Choice of endpoint in kidney outcome trials: considerations from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® trial.

BACKGROUND: Doubling of serum creatinine [equivalent to 57% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)] is an established surrogate for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD); however, this endpoint necessitates lengthy follow-up and large sample sizes in clinical trials. We explored whether alternative eGFR decline thresholds provide more feasible surrogate kidney endpoints. METHODS: The study involved post hoc analysis of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® trial. Adults with type 2 diabetes, high cardiovascular risk and eGFR ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2 were assigned empagliflozin 10 mg or 25 mg (n = 4687) or placebo (n = 2333), on top of standard of care. We assessed composite endpoints incorporating different eGFR decline thresholds (≥30, ≥40, ≥50 or ≥57%) combined with initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) or renal death. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01131676). RESULTS: Empagliflozin versus placebo significantly lowered the risk of decline in eGFR for each threshold listed above, combined with initiation of RRT or renal death, ranging from a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-0.91] for endpoints based on 30% eGFR decline to an HR of 0.37 (0.23-0.61) for endpoints based on 57% eGFR decline. Lower thresholds (e.g. 30%) were associated with higher event rates but weaker treatment effects. The time to the 95% CI of the HR falling to <1.0 decreased with increasing eGFR threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The composite of 40% decline in eGFR, ESKD or renal death appears to provide reliable results similar to the traditional 57% decline in eGFR.

Sodium-glucose linked transporter-2 inhibitor renal outcome modification in type 2 diabetes: Evidence from studies in patients with high or low renal risk.

Data from three completed cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS Program and DECLARE-TIMI 58, add to the evidence supporting the potential renoprotective effects of sodium-glucose linked transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Despite recommendations in recent guidelines, it is difficult to support a view that definitive evidence for renoprotection exists from these SGLT2 inhibitor CVOT results. To date, the only dedicated trial to report definitive data on the renal impact of SGLT2 inhibition is CREDENCE. Notably, the total number of patient-relevant renal endpoint events (dialysis, transplant or renal death) observed in CREDENCE was significantly higher than the total for all three CVOTs collectively (183 events/4401 patients vs. 69 events/34 322 patients, respectively), which shows the increased statistical power of CREDENCE for these renal endpoints. Treatment with canagliflozin was associated with a 30% relative risk reduction (RRR) in the primary composite endpoint of end-stage kidney disease, doubling of serum creatinine, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes and a 34% RRR for the renal-specific elements of this primary endpoint (P <0.001). Canagliflozin has therefore become the first US-approved SGLT2 inhibitor to include an indication for RRR, in addition to type 2 diabetes glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk reduction. While confirmatory of the exploratory data from CVOTs, CREDENCE provides the first robust data on the effects of canagliflozin on patient-relevant renal endpoints. Extrapolation to a conclusion of a SGLT2 inhibitor class effect cannot be made until additional renal trials with other SGLT2 inhibitors are reported.

Evidence from routine clinical practice: EMPRISE provides a new perspective on CVOTs.

EMPA-REG OUTCOME is recognised by international guidelines as a landmark study that showed a significant cardioprotective benefit with empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease. To assess the impact of empagliflozin in routine clinical practice, the ongoing EMPRISE study is collecting real-world evidence to compare effectiveness, safety and health economic outcomes between empagliflozin and DPP-4 inhibitors. A planned interim analysis of EMPRISE was recently published, confirming a substantial reduction in hospitalisation for heart failure with empagliflozin across a diverse patient population. In this commentary article, we discuss the new data in the context of current evidence and clinical guidelines, as clinicians experienced in managing cardiovascular risk in patients with T2D. We also look forward to what future insights EMPRISE may offer, as evidence is accumulated over the next years to complement the important findings of EMPA-REG OUTCOME.

SGLT2 inhibitors in T2D and associated comorbidities - differentiating within the class.

BACKGROUND: For patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the single most common cause of mortality. In 2008 and 2012, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) respectively mandated cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) on all new anti-diabetic agents, as prospective trials statistically powered to rule out excess cardiovascular risk in patients with T2D. Unexpectedly, some of these CVOTs have demonstrated not only cardiovascular safety, but also cardioprotective effects, as was first shown for the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin in EMPA-REG OUTCOME. EXPERT OPINION: To debate newly available CVOT data and to put them into context, we convened as a group of medical experts from the Central and Eastern European Region. Here we describe our discussions, focusing on the conclusions we can draw from EMPA-REG OUTCOME and other SGLT2 inhibitor CVOTs, including when considered alongside real-world evidence. CONCLUSION: CVOTs investigating SGLT2 inhibitors have suggested benefits beyond glucose lowering that have been confirmed in real-world evidence studies.

Diabetes in the older patient: heterogeneity requires individualisation of therapeutic strategies.

Owing to the worldwide increase in life expectancy, the high incidence of diabetes in older individuals and the improved survival of people with diabetes, about one-third of all individuals with diabetes are now older than 65 years. Evidence is accumulating that type 2 diabetes is associated with cognitive impairment, dementia and frailty. Older people with diabetes have significantly more comorbidities, such as myocardial infarction, stroke, peripheral arterial disease and renal impairment, compared with those without diabetes. However, as a consequence of the increased use of multifactorial risk factor intervention, a considerable number of older individuals can now survive for many years without any vascular complications. Given the heterogeneity of older individuals with type 2 diabetes, an individualised approach is warranted, which must take into account the health status, presence or absence of complications, and life expectancy. In doing so, undertreatment of otherwise healthy older individuals and overtreatment of those who are frail may be avoided. Specifically, overtreatment of hyperglycaemia in older patients is potentially harmful; in particular, insulin and sulfonylureas should be avoided or, if necessary, used with caution. Instead, glucose-dependent drugs that do not induce hypoglycaemia are preferable since older patients with diabetes and impaired kidney function are especially vulnerable to this adverse event.

Unrecognised cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: is it time to act earlier?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most significant prognostic factor in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, a significant number of individuals may develop CVD that does not present with the classic angina-related or heart failure symptoms. In these cases, CVD may seem to be 'silent' or 'asymptomatic', but may be more accurately characterised as unrecognised diabetic cardiac impairment. An initial step to raise awareness of unrecognised CVD in individuals with T2D would be to reach a consensus regarding the terminology used to describe this phenomenon. By standardising the terminologies, and agreeing on the implementation of an efficient screening program, it is anticipated that patients will receive an earlier diagnosis and appropriate and timely treatment. Given the availability of anti-diabetic medications that have been shown to concomitantly reduce CV risk and mortality, it is imperative to improve early identification and initiate treatment as soon as possible in order to enable as many patients with T2D as possible to benefit.

Translating recent results from the Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials into clinical practice: recommendations from the Central and Eastern European Diabetes Expert Group (CEEDEG).

AIMS: These recommendations aim to improve care for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular (CV) risk in Central and Eastern Europe. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and/or chronic kidney disease (CKD) are major interdependent comorbidities in patients with T2D, accounting for 50% of mortality. Following recent CV outcomes trial (CVOT) results, including those from EMPA-REG OUTCOME®, LEADER®, SUSTAIN™-6 and, most recently, the CANVAS study, it is essential to develop regional expert consensus recommendations to aid physicians in interpreting these newest data to clinical practice. METHODS: The Central and Eastern European Diabetes Expert Group (CEEDEG) followed a Delphi method to develop treatment algorithms to aid physicians in the clinical management of patients with T2D at high CV risk. RESULTS: In light of the latest CVOT results, and in particular the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® and LEADER® trials, the diagnosis, assessment, treatment choice and monitoring of patients with T2D and established CVD and/or CKD have been considered together with existing guidelines and presented in two reference algorithms. In addition, adherence, special prescribing considerations and a proposed multidisciplinary management approach have been discussed and are presented with the proposed algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: The latest available high-level evidence on glucose-lowering drugs has enabled CEEDEG to develop practical consensus recommendations for patients with established CVD and/or CKD. These recommendations represent an update to international and country-level guidelines used for these patients, with the aim of providing a resource not only to endocrinologists, but to cardiologists, nephrologists and primary care physicians in the region.

Variability in and predictors of glycaemic responses after 24 weeks of treatment with exenatide twice daily and exenatide once weekly.

The range of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) responses and characteristics associated with above-average response to exenatide twice daily and once weekly were examined. Data were pooled from 8 exenatide-twice-daily and 5 exenatide-once-weekly studies. A baseline HbA1c-corrected measure of change in HbA1c after 24 weeks identified high, average and low responses. Multiple linear regression and multivariate generalized estimating equation models identified factors associated with high response. Among 2355 participants (exenatide twice daily, n = 1414; exenatide once weekly, n = 941), baseline HbA1c correlated with change in HbA1c (P < .0001). Across baseline HbA1c levels, the 25th to 75th percentile of HbA1c change ranged from -0.3% to -3.2% with exenatide twice daily and from -0.5% to -3.6% with exenatide once weekly. Asian ethnicity and older age were significantly associated with high response to exenatide twice daily; no factors were significantly associated with response to exenatide once weekly. These data provide clinically useful information for estimating the likelihood that, depending on baseline HbA1c, an individual can achieve HbA1c goals. The association between Asian ethnicity, age and high response to exenatide twice daily may relate to the specific effects of exenatide twice daily on postprandial glucose.

Linagliptin and its effects on hyperglycaemia and albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes and renal dysfunction: the randomized MARLINA-T2D trial.

AIMS: The MARLINA-T2D study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01792518) was designed to investigate the glycaemic and renal effects of linagliptin added to standard-of-care in individuals with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria. METHODS: A total of 360 individuals with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c 6.5% to 10.0% (48-86 mmol/mol), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) 30-3000 mg/g despite single agent renin-angiotensin-system blockade were randomized to double-blind linagliptin (n = 182) or placebo (n = 178) for 24 weeks. The primary and key secondary endpoints were change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24 and time-weighted average of percentage change from baseline in UACR over 24 weeks, respectively. RESULTS: Baseline mean HbA1c and geometric mean (gMean) UACR were 7.8% ± 0.9% (62.2 ± 9.6 mmol/mol) and 126 mg/g, respectively; 73.7% and 20.3% of participants had microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria, respectively. After 24 weeks, the placebo-adjusted mean change in HbA1c from baseline was -0.60% (-6.6 mmol/mol) (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.78 to -0.43 [-8.5 to -4.7 mmol/mol]; P < .0001). The placebo-adjusted gMean for time-weighted average of percentage change in UACR from baseline was -6.0% (95% CI, -15.0 to 3.0; P = .1954). The adverse-event profile, including renal safety and change in eGFR, was similar between the linagliptin and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals at early stages of diabetic kidney disease, linagliptin significantly improved glycaemic control but did not significantly lower albuminuria. There was no significant change in placebo-adjusted eGFR. Detection of clinically relevant renal effects of linagliptin may require longer treatment, as its main experimental effects in animal studies have been to reduce interstitial fibrosis rather than alter glomerular haemodynamics.

Inflammation Modifies the Paradoxical Association between Body Mass Index and Mortality in Hemodialysis Patients.

High body mass index (BMI) is paradoxically associated with better outcome in hemodialysis (HD) patients. Persistent inflammation commonly features in clinical conditions where the obesity paradox is described. We examined the relationship between BMI and mortality in HD patients, accounting for inflammation, in a historic cohort study of 5904 incident HD patients enrolled in 2007-2009 (312 facilities; 15 European countries) with ≥3 months of follow-up. Patients were classified by presence (n=3231) or absence (n=2673) of inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥10 mg/l and/or albumin ≤35 g/l). Patients were divided into quintiles by BMI (Q1-Q5: <21.5, 21.5-24.0, >24.0-26.4, >26.4-29.8, and >29.8 kg/m(2), respectively). Noninflamed patients in BMI Q5 formed the reference group. During a median follow-up period of 36.7 months, 1929 deaths occurred (822 cardiovascular), with 655 patients censored for renal transplantation and 1183 for loss to follow-up. Greater mortality was observed in inflamed patients (P<0.001). In fully adjusted time-dependent analyses, the all-cause mortality risk in noninflamed patients was higher only in the lowest BMI quintile (hazard ratio [HR, 1.80; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.26 to 2.56). No protective effect was associated with higher BMI quintiles in noninflamed patients. Conversely, higher BMI associated with lower all-cause mortality risk in inflamed patients (HR [95% CI] for Q1: 5.63 [4.25 to 7.46]; Q2: 3.88 [2.91 to 5.17]; Q3: 2.89 [2.16 to 3.89]; Q4: 2.14 [1.59 to 2.90]; and Q5: 1.77 [1.30 to 2.40]). Thus, whereas a protective effect of high BMI was observed in inflamed patients, this effect was mitigated in noninflamed patients.

Long-term changes in cardiovascular risk markers during administration of exenatide twice daily or glimepiride: results from the European exenatide study.

OBJECTIVE: The risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is significantly increased in patients with diabetes; thus, it is important to determine whether glucose-lowering therapy affects this risk over time. Changes in cardiovascular risk markers were examined in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with exenatide twice daily (a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) or glimepiride (a sulfonylurea) added to metformin in the EURopean EXenAtide (EUREXA) study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes failing metformin were randomized to add-on exenatide twice daily (n = 515) or glimepiride (n = 514) until treatment failure defined by hemoglobin A1C. Anthropomorphic measures, blood pressure (BP), heart rate, lipids, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) over time were evaluated. RESULTS: Over 36 months, twice-daily exenatide was associated with improved body weight (-3.9 kg), waist circumference (-3.6 cm), systolic/diastolic BP (-2.5/-2.6 mmHg), high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol (0.05 mmol/L), triglycerides (-0.2 mmol/L), and hsCRP (-1.7 mg/L). Heart rate did not increase (-0.3 beats/minute), and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (0.2 mmol/L) and total cholesterol (0.1 mmol/L) increased slightly. Between-group differences were significantly in favor of exenatide for body weight (P < 0.0001), waist circumference (P < 0.001), systolic BP (P < 0.001), diastolic BP (P = 0.023), HDL-cholesterol (P = 0.001), and hsCRP (P = 0.004). Fewer patients randomized to exenatide twice daily versus glimepiride required the addition of at least one antihypertensive (20.4 vs 26.4%; P = 0.026) or lipid-lowering medication (8.4 vs 12.8%; P = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Add-on exenatide twice daily was associated with significant, sustained improvement in several cardiovascular risk markers in patients with type 2 diabetes versus glimepiride. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00359762, http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov.

Exenatide once weekly versus liraglutide once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-6): a randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists exenatide and liraglutide have been shown to improve glycaemic control and reduce bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes. We compared the efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly with liraglutide once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We did a 26 week, open-label, randomised, parallel-group study at 105 sites in 19 countries between Jan 11, 2010, and Jan 17, 2011. Patients aged 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes treated with lifestyle modification and oral antihyperglycaemic drugs were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence with a voice response system, to receive injections of once-daily liraglutide (1·8 mg) or once-weekly exenatide (2 mg). Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) from baseline to week 26. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01029886. FINDINGS: Of 912 randomised patients, 911 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (450 liraglutide, 461 exenatide). The least-squares mean change in HbA(1c) was greater in patients in the liraglutide group (-1·48%, SE 0·05; n=386) than in those in the exenatide group (-1·28%, 0·05; 390) with the treatment difference (0·21%, 95% CI 0·08-0·33) not meeting predefined non-inferiority criteria (upper limit of CI <0·25%). The most common adverse events were nausea (93 [21%] in the liraglutide group vs 43 [9%] in the exenatide group), diarrhoea (59 [13%] vs 28 [6%]), and vomiting 48 [11%] vs 17 [4%]), which occurred less frequently in the exenatide group and with decreasing incidence over time in both groups. 24 (5%) patients allocated to liraglutide and 12 (3%) allocated to exenatide discontinued participation because of adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Both once daily liraglutide and once weekly exenatide led to improvements in glycaemic control, with greater reductions noted with liraglutide. These findings, plus differences in injection frequency and tolerability, could inform therapeutic decisions for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company and Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC.

Exenatide twice daily versus glimepiride for prevention of glycaemic deterioration in patients with type 2 diabetes with metformin failure (EUREXA): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control deteriorates progressively over time in patients with type 2 diabetes. Options for treatment escalation remain controversial after failure of first-line treatment with metformin. We compared add-on exenatide with glimepiride for durability of glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin alone. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial at 128 centres in 14 countries between Sept 5, 2006, and March 29, 2011. Patients aged 18-85 years with type 2 diabetes inadequately treated by metformin were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive exenatide twice daily or glimepiride once daily as add-on to metformin. Randomisation was stratified by predetermined categories of glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1C)) concentration. The primary outcome was time to inadequate glycaemic control and need for alternative treatment, defined as an HbA(1c) concentration of more than 9% after the first 3 months of treatment, or more than 7% at two consecutive visits after the first 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-005448-21, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00359762. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 515 patients to the exenatide group and 514 to the glimepiride group, of whom 490 versus 487 were the intention-to-treat population. 203 (41%) patients had treatment failure in the exenatide group compared with 262 (54%) in the glimepiride group (risk difference 12·4 [95% CI 6·2-18·6], hazard ratio 0·748 [0·623-0·899]; p=0·002). 218 (44%) of 490 patients in the exenatide group, and 150 (31%) of 487 in the glimepiride group achieved an HbA(1c) concentration of less than 7% (p<0·0001), and 140 (29%) versus 87 (18%) achieved concentrations of 6·5% and less (p=0·0001). We noted a significantly greater decrease in bodyweight in patients given exenatide than in those given glimepiride (p<0·0001). Five patients in each treatment group died from causes unrelated to treatment. Significantly fewer patients in the exenatide group than in the glimepiride group reported documented symptomatic (p<0·0001), nocturnal (p=0·007), and non-nocturnal (p<0·0001) hypoglycaemia. Discontinuation because of adverse events (mainly gastrointestinal) was significantly higher (p=0·0005) in the exenatide group than in the glimepiride group in the first 6 months of treatment, but not thereafter. INTERPRETATION: These findings provide evidence for the benefits of exenatide versus glimepiride for control of glycaemic deterioration in patients with type-2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin alone. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company; Amylin Pharmaceuticals.

[Injection therapy of diabetes]. / Injektionstherapie (GLP1-Rezeptor Agonisten und Insulin) bei Typ 2 Diabetes mellitus (Update 2023).

The present article is a recommendation of the Austrian Diabetes Association for the practical use of injection therapy (GLP1-receptor agonists and insulin) in type 2 diabetes.

[Individualising antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetes. A guideline by the Austrian Diabetes Association (update 2023)]. / Individualisierung der antihypertensiven Therapie bei Patient:innen mit Diabetes mellitus. Leitlinie der Österreichischen Diabetes Gesellschaft (Update 2023).

Hypertension is one of the most important comorbidities of diabetes, contributing significantly to death and leading to macrovascular and microvascular complications. When assessing the medical priorities for patients with diabetes, treating hypertension should be a primary consideration. In the present review practical approaches to hypertension in diabetes, including individualized targets for preventing specific complications are discussed according to current evidence and guidelines. Blood pressure values of about 130/80 mm Hg are associated with the best outcome; most importantly, at least blood pressure values < 140/90 mm Hg should be achieved in most patients. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers should be preferred in patients with diabetes, especially in those who also have albuminuria or coronary artery disease. Most patients with diabetes require combination therapy to achieve blood pressure goals; agents with proven cardiovascular benefit should be used (including, besides angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and alternatively angiotensin receptor blockers, dihydropyridin-calcium antagonists and thiazide diuretics), preferable in single-pill combinations. Once the target is achieved, antihypertensive drugs should be continued. Newer antidiabetic medications such as SGLT-2-inhibitors or GLP1-receptor agonists have also antihypertensive effects.

[Diagnosis and insulin therapy of type 1 diabetes mellitus (Update 2023)]. / Diagnostik und Therapie des Typ 1 Diabetes mellitus (Update 2023).

This guideline summarizes diagnosis of type 1 diabetes, including accompanying autoimmune disorders, insulin therapy regimens and glycemic target values.

[Antihyperglycemic treatment guidelines for diabetes mellitus type 2 (Update 2023)]. / Antihyperglykämische Therapie bei Diabetes mellitus Typ 2 (Update 2023).

Hyperglycemia significantly contributes to complications in patients with diabetes mellitus. While lifestyle interventions remain cornerstones of disease prevention and treatment, most patients with type 2 diabetes will eventually require pharmacotherapy for glycemic control. The definition of individual targets regarding optimal therapeutic efficacy and safety as well as cardiovascular effects is of great importance. In this guideline we present the most current evidence-based best clinical practice data for healthcare professionals.