Weekly Icodec versus Daily Glargine U100 in Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec is an investigational once-weekly basal insulin analogue for diabetes management. METHODS: We conducted a 78-week randomized, open-label, treat-to-target phase 3a trial (including a 52-week main phase and a 26-week extension phase, plus a 5-week follow-up period) involving adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin level, 7 to 11%) who had not previously received insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly insulin icodec or once-daily insulin glargine U100. The primary end point was the change in the glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 52; the confirmatory secondary end point was the percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter (3.9 to 10.0 mmol per liter) in weeks 48 to 52. Hypoglycemic episodes (from baseline to weeks 52 and 83) were recorded. RESULTS: Each group included 492 participants. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The mean reduction in the glycated hemoglobin level at 52 weeks was greater with icodec than with glargine U100 (from 8.50% to 6.93% with icodec [mean change, -1.55 percentage points] and from 8.44% to 7.12% with glargine U100 [mean change, -1.35 percentage points]); the estimated between-group difference (-0.19 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.36 to -0.03) confirmed the noninferiority (P<0.001) and superiority (P = 0.02) of icodec. The percentage of time spent in the glycemic range of 70 to 180 mg per deciliter was significantly higher with icodec than with glargine U100 (71.9% vs. 66.9%; estimated between-group difference, 4.27 percentage points [95% CI, 1.92 to 6.62]; P<0.001), which confirmed superiority. Rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were 0.30 events per person-year of exposure with icodec and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure with glargine U100 at week 52 (estimated rate ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.75) and 0.30 and 0.16 events per person-year of exposure, respectively, at week 83 (estimated rate ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.61). No new safety signals were identified, and incidences of adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Glycemic control was significantly better with once-weekly insulin icodec than with once-daily insulin glargine U100. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; ONWARDS 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04460885.).

Semaglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Obesity without Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, has been shown to reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes. Whether semaglutide can reduce cardiovascular risk associated with overweight and obesity in the absence of diabetes is unknown. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven superiority trial, we enrolled patients 45 years of age or older who had preexisting cardiovascular disease and a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 27 or greater but no history of diabetes. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg or placebo. The primary cardiovascular end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke in a time-to-first-event analysis. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 17,604 patients were enrolled; 8803 were assigned to receive semaglutide and 8801 to receive placebo. The mean (±SD) duration of exposure to semaglutide or placebo was 34.2±13.7 months, and the mean duration of follow-up was 39.8±9.4 months. A primary cardiovascular end-point event occurred in 569 of the 8803 patients (6.5%) in the semaglutide group and in 701 of the 8801 patients (8.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 0.90; P<0.001). Adverse events leading to permanent discontinuation of the trial product occurred in 1461 patients (16.6%) in the semaglutide group and 718 patients (8.2%) in the placebo group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without diabetes, weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg was superior to placebo in reducing the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke at a mean follow-up of 39.8 months. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; SELECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03574597.).

Effects of an Intervention to Improve Evidence-Based Care for People With Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease Across Sex, Race, and Ethnicity Subgroups: Insights From the COORDINATE-Diabetes Trial.

BACKGROUND: Results from the COORDINATE-Diabetes trial (Coordinating Cardiology Clinics Randomized Trial of Interventions to Improve Outcomes - Diabetes) demonstrated that a multifaceted, clinic-based intervention increased prescription of evidence-based medical therapies to participants with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This secondary analysis assessed whether intervention success was consistent across sex, race, and ethnicity. METHODS: COORDINATE-Diabetes, a cluster randomized trial, recruited participants from 43 US cardiology clinics (20 randomized to intervention and 23 randomized to usual care). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of evidence-based therapy (high-intensity statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist) at last trial assessment (6 to 12 months). In this prespecified analysis, mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to assess the outcome by self-reported sex, race, and ethnicity in the intervention and usual care groups, with adjustment for baseline characteristics, medications, comorbidities, and site location. RESULTS: Among 1045 participants with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the median age was 70 years, 32% were female, 16% were Black, and 9% were Hispanic. At the last trial assessment, there was an absolute increase in the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of evidence-based therapy in women (36% versus 15%), Black participants (41% versus 18%), and Hispanic participants (46% versus 18%) with the intervention compared with usual care, with consistent benefit across sex (male versus female; Pinteraction=0.44), race (Black versus White; Pinteraction=0.59), and ethnicity (Hispanic versus Non-Hispanic; Pinteraction= 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: The COORDINATE-Diabetes intervention successfully improved delivery of evidence-based care, regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity. Widespread dissemination of this intervention could improve equitable health care quality, particularly among women and minority communities who are frequently underrepresented in clinical trials. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03936660.

Racial Differences in Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure Treated With Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors: A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis of the CHIEF-HF, DEFINE-HF, and PRESERVED-HF Trials.

BACKGROUND: Health status outcomes, including symptoms, function, and quality of life, are worse for Black compared with White patients with heart failure. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) reduce cardiovascular mortality and improve health status in patients with heart failure, but whether the health status benefit of SGLT2is is similar across races is not established. The objective of this study was to compare the treatment effect of SGLT2is (versus placebo) on health status for Black compared with White patients with heart failure. METHODS: We combined patient-level data from 3 randomized clinical trials of SGLT2is: DEFINE-HF (Dapagliflozin Effect on Symptoms and Biomarkers in Patients With Heart Failure; n=263), PRESERVED-HF (Dapagliflozin in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure; n=324), and CHIEF-HF (A Study on Impact of Canagliflozin on Health Status, Quality of Life, and Functional Status in Heart Failure; n=448). These 3 United States-based trials enrolled a substantial proportion of Black patients, and each used the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) to measure health status at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment. Among 1035 total participants, selecting self-identified Black and White patients with complete information yielded a final analytic cohort of 935 patients. The primary endpoint was KCCQ Clinical Summary score. Twelve-week change in KCCQ with SGLT2is versus placebo was compared between Black and White patients by testing the interaction between race and treatment using multivariable linear regression models adjusted for trial, baseline KCCQ (as a restricted cubic spline), race, and treatment. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. RESULTS: Among 935 participants, 236 (25%) self-identified as Black, and 469 (50.2%) were treated with an SGLT2i. Treatment with an SGLT2i, compared with placebo, resulted in KCCQ Clinical Summary score improvements at 12 weeks of +4.0 points (95% CI, 1.7-6.3; P=0.0007) in White patients and +4.7 points (95% CI, 0.7-8.7; P=0.02) in Black patients, with no significant interaction by race and treatment (P=0.76). Other KCCQ scales showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with an SGLT2i resulted in consistent and significant improvements in health status for both Black and White patients with heart failure.

Efficacy and safety of co-administered once-weekly cagrilintide 2·4 mg with once-weekly semaglutide 2·4 mg in type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Combining the GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide with the long-acting amylin analogue cagrilintide has weight-loss benefits; the impact on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) is unknown. This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of co-administered semaglutide with cagrilintide (CagriSema) in participants with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This 32-week, multicentre, double-blind, phase 2 trial was conducted across 17 sites in the USA. Adults with type 2 diabetes and a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or higher on metformin with or without an SGLT2 inhibitor were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to once-weekly subcutaneous CagriSema, semaglutide, or cagrilintide (all escalated to 2·4 mg). Randomisation was done centrally using an interactive web response system and was stratified according to use of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment (yes vs no). The trial participants, investigators, and trial sponsor staff were masked to treatment assignment throughout the trial. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c; secondary endpoints were bodyweight, fasting plasma glucose, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) parameters, and safety. Efficacy analyses were performed in all participants who had undergone randomisation, and safety analyses in all participants who had undergone randomisation and received at least one dose of the trial medication. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04982575) and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Aug 2 and Oct 18, 2021, 92 participants were randomly assigned to CagriSema (n=31), semaglutide (n=31), or cagrilintide (n=30). 59 (64%) participants were male; the mean age of participants was 58 years (SD 9). The mean change in HbA1c from baseline to week 32 (CagriSema: -2·2 percentage points [SE 0·15]; semaglutide: -1·8 percentage points [0·16]; cagrilintide: -0·9 percentage points [0·15]) was greater with CagriSema versus cagrilintide (estimated treatment difference -1·3 percentage points [95% CI -1·7 to -0·8]; p<0·0001), but not versus semaglutide (-0·4 percentage points [-0·8 to 0·0]; p=0·075). The mean change in bodyweight from baseline to week 32 (CagriSema: -15·6% [SE 1·26]; semaglutide: -5·1% [1·26]; cagrilintide: -8·1% [1·23]) was greater with CagriSema versus both semaglutide (p<0·0001) and cagrilintide (p<0·0001). The mean change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 32 (CagriSema: -3·3 mmol/L [SE 0·3]; semaglutide: -2·5 mmol/L [0·4]; cagrilintide: -1·7 mmol/L [0·3]) was greater with CagriSema versus cagrilintide (p=0·0010) but not versus semaglutide (p=0·10). Time in range (3·9-10·0 mmol/L) was 45·9%, 32·6%, and 56·9% at baseline and 88·9%, 76·2%, and 71·7% at week 32 with CagriSema, semaglutide, and cagrilintide, respectively. Adverse events were reported by 21 (68%) participants in the CagriSema group, 22 (71%) in the semaglutide group, and 24 (80%) in the cagrilintide group. Mild or moderate gastrointestinal adverse events were most common; no level 2 or 3 hypoglycaemia was reported. No fatal adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: In people with type 2 diabetes, treatment with CagriSema resulted in clinically relevant improvements in glycaemic control (including CGM parameters). The mean change in HbA1c with CagriSema was greater versus cagrilintide, but not versus semaglutide. Treatment with CagriSema resulted in significantly greater weight loss versus semaglutide and cagrilintide and was well tolerated. These data support further investigation of CagriSema in this population in longer and larger phase 3 studies. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Adults with Overweight or Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a global health challenge with few pharmacologic options. Whether adults with obesity can achieve weight loss with once-weekly semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention has not been confirmed. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we enrolled 1961 adults with a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 30 or greater (≥27 in persons with ≥1 weight-related coexisting condition), who did not have diabetes, and randomly assigned them, in a 2:1 ratio, to 68 weeks of treatment with once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (at a dose of 2.4 mg) or placebo, plus lifestyle intervention. The coprimary end points were the percentage change in body weight and weight reduction of at least 5%. The primary estimand (a precise description of the treatment effect reflecting the objective of the clinical trial) assessed effects regardless of treatment discontinuation or rescue interventions. RESULTS: The mean change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was -14.9% in the semaglutide group as compared with -2.4% with placebo, for an estimated treatment difference of -12.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.4 to -11.5; P<0.001). More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group achieved weight reductions of 5% or more (1047 participants [86.4%] vs. 182 [31.5%]), 10% or more (838 [69.1%] vs. 69 [12.0%]), and 15% or more (612 [50.5%] vs. 28 [4.9%]) at week 68 (P<0.001 for all three comparisons of odds). The change in body weight from baseline to week 68 was -15.3 kg in the semaglutide group as compared with -2.6 kg in the placebo group (estimated treatment difference, -12.7 kg; 95% CI, -13.7 to -11.7). Participants who received semaglutide had a greater improvement with respect to cardiometabolic risk factors and a greater increase in participant-reported physical functioning from baseline than those who received placebo. Nausea and diarrhea were the most common adverse events with semaglutide; they were typically transient and mild-to-moderate in severity and subsided with time. More participants in the semaglutide group than in the placebo group discontinued treatment owing to gastrointestinal events (59 [4.5%] vs. 5 [0.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: In participants with overweight or obesity, 2.4 mg of semaglutide once weekly plus lifestyle intervention was associated with sustained, clinically relevant reduction in body weight. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03548935).

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec With Dosing Guide App Versus Once-Daily Basal Insulin Analogues in Insulin-Naive Type 2 Diabetes (ONWARDS 5) : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate dose titration and poor adherence to basal insulin can lead to suboptimal glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec) is a basal insulin analogue that is in development and is aimed at reducing treatment burden. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of icodec titrated with a dosing guide app (icodec with app) versus once-daily basal insulin analogues (OD analogues) dosed per standard practice. DESIGN: 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3a trial with real-world elements. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04760626). SETTING: 176 sites in 7 countries. PARTICIPANTS: 1085 insulin-naive adults with T2D. INTERVENTION: Icodec with app or OD analogue (insulin degludec, insulin glargine U100, or insulin glargine U300). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level from baseline to week 52. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (Treatment Related Impact Measure for Diabetes [TRIM-D] compliance domain score and change in Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire [DTSQ] total treatment satisfaction score). RESULTS: The estimated mean change in HbA1c level from baseline to week 52 was greater with icodec with app than with OD analogues, with noninferiority (P < 0.001) and superiority (P = 0.009) confirmed in prespecified hierarchical testing (estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0.38 percentage points [95% CI, -0.66 to -0.09 percentage points]). At week 52, patient-reported outcomes were more favorable with icodec with app than with OD analogues (ETDs, 3.04 [CI, 1.28 to 4.81] for TRIM-D and 0.78 [CI, 0.10 to 1.47] for DTSQ). Rates of clinically significant or severe hypoglycemia were low and similar with both treatments. LIMITATION: Inability to differentiate the effects of icodec and the dosing guide app. CONCLUSION: Compared with OD analogues, icodec with app showed superior HbA1c reduction and improved treatment satisfaction and compliance with similarly low hypoglycemia rates. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Worth Their Weight? An Update on New and Emerging Pharmacologic Agents for Obesity and Their Potential Role for Persons with Cardiac Conditions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Obesity is associated with cardiovascular (CV) conditions, including but not limited to atherosclerotic disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Despite this, the impact of intentional weight loss on CV outcomes for persons with obesity and established CV conditions remains poorly studied. New and emerging pharmacologic therapies for weight loss primarily targeting the incretin/nutrient sensing axes induce substantial and sustained weight loss. The glucagon-like-peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) liraglutide and semaglutide have US FDA approval for the treatment of obesity, and the application for an obesity indication for the dual GLP-1/glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor agonist tirzepatide is presently under FDA review. Extensive phase II and IIIa randomized controlled trials are underway evaluating permutations of combined GLP-1 RA, GIP receptor agonist, GIP receptor antagonist, and glucagon receptor agonists. Clinical outcome trials of these therapies in persons with obesity at high risk of established CV conditions should make it possible to estimate the role of intentional weight loss in managing CV risk via these medications. RECENT FINDINGS: High-dose once weekly injectable semaglutide (2.4 mg/week) use among persons with obesity and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction was effective at both reducing weight and improving health status; exercise capacity was also improved. Ongoing CV outcome trials of oral semaglutide and once weekly injectable tirzepatide will help to establish the role of these therapies among persons with other CV conditions. In addition to these two therapies targeting a CV claim or indication, many other new therapeutics for weight loss, as reviewed, are currently in development. The impact of pharmacologic-induced weight loss on CV conditions for persons with obesity and established CV conditions is currently under investigation for multiple agents. These therapies may offer new avenues to manage CV risk in persons with obesity and with established or at high risk for CV disease.

Obesity management as a primary treatment goal for type 2 diabetes: time to reframe the conversation.

Obesity is now recognised as a disease that is associated with serious morbidity and increased mortality. One of its main metabolic complications is type 2 diabetes, as the two conditions share key pathophysiological mechanisms. Weight loss is known to reverse the underlying metabolic abnormalities of type 2 diabetes and, as such, improve glucose control; loss of 15% or more of bodyweight can have a disease-modifying effect in people with type 2 diabetes, an outcome that is not attainable by any other glucose-lowering intervention. Furthermore, weight loss in this population exerts benefits that extend beyond glycaemic control to improve risk factors for cardiometabolic disease and quality of life. We review the evidence supporting the role of weight loss in the management of type 2 diabetes and propose that many patients with type 2 diabetes would benefit from having a primary weight-centric approach to diabetes treatment. We discuss the logistical challenges to implementing a new weight-centric primary treatment goal in people with type 2 diabetes.

Serum Urate Lowering with Allopurinol and Kidney Function in Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Higher serum urate levels are associated with an increased risk of diabetic kidney disease. Lowering of the serum urate level with allopurinol may slow the decrease in the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in persons with type 1 diabetes and early-to-moderate diabetic kidney disease. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned participants with type 1 diabetes, a serum urate level of at least 4.5 mg per deciliter, an estimated GFR of 40.0 to 99.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area, and evidence of diabetic kidney disease to receive allopurinol or placebo. The primary outcome was the baseline-adjusted GFR, as measured with iohexol, after 3 years plus a 2-month washout period. Secondary outcomes included the decrease in the iohexol-based GFR per year and the urinary albumin excretion rate after washout. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 267 patients were assigned to receive allopurinol and 263 to receive placebo. The mean age was 51.1 years, the mean duration of diabetes 34.6 years, and the mean glycated hemoglobin level 8.2%. The mean baseline iohexol-based GFR was 68.7 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in the allopurinol group and 67.3 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in the placebo group. During the intervention period, the mean serum urate level decreased from 6.1 to 3.9 mg per deciliter with allopurinol and remained at 6.1 mg per deciliter with placebo. After washout, the between-group difference in the mean iohexol-based GFR was 0.001 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.9 to 1.9; P = 0.99). The mean decrease in the iohexol-based GFR was -3.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year with allopurinol and -2.5 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year with placebo (between-group difference, -0.6 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year; 95% CI, -1.5 to 0.4). The mean urinary albumin excretion rate after washout was 40% (95% CI, 0 to 80) higher with allopurinol than with placebo. The frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of clinically meaningful benefits of serum urate reduction with allopurinol on kidney outcomes among patients with type 1 diabetes and early-to-moderate diabetic kidney disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; PERL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02017171.).

Coordinating Cardiology clinics randomized trial of interventions to improve outcomes (COORDINATE) - Diabetes: rationale and design.

Several medications that are proven to reduce cardiovascular events exist for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, however they are substantially underused in clinical practice. Clinician, patient, and system-level barriers all contribute to these gaps in care; yet, there is a paucity of high quality, rigorous studies evaluating the role of interventions to increase utilization. The COORDINATE-Diabetes trial randomized 42 cardiology clinics across the United States to either a multifaceted, site-specific intervention focused on evidence-based care for patients with T2DM or standard of care. The multifaceted intervention comprised the development of an interdisciplinary care pathway for each clinic, audit-and-feedback tools and educational outreach, in addition to patient-facing tools. The primary outcome is the proportion of individuals with T2DM prescribed three key classes of evidence-based medications (high-intensity statin, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and either a sodium/glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) and will be assessed at least 6 months after participant enrollment. COORDINATE-Diabetes aims to identify strategies that improve the implementation and adoption of evidence-based therapies.

Systolic blood pressure reduction with tirzepatide in patients with type 2 diabetes: insights from SURPASS clinical program.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide, a once-weekly glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/ glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, is approved in the United States, Europe and Japan for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Across the SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical studies, tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg demonstrated significant improvements in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) (- 1.9 to - 2.6%), body weight (- 6.6 to - 13.9%) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (- 2.8 to - 12.6 mmHg) at the end of study treatment. METHODS: Post-hoc mediation analyses were conducted to evaluate weight-loss dependent and weight-loss independent effects of tirzepatide on SBP reductions across the 5 SURPASS studies. The safety population (all randomized patients who took at least 1 dose of study drug) of each study was analyzed. Additional analyses were conducted at individual study level or pooled across 5 SURPASS trials. RESULTS: The difference in mean SBP change from baseline at 40 weeks (total effect) between the tirzepatide and comparator groups was - 1.3 to - 5.1 mmHg (tirzepatide 5 mg), - 1.7 to - 6.5 mmHg (tirzepatide 10 mg) and - 3.1 to - 11.5 mmHg (tirzepatide 15 mg). These SBP reductions were primarily mediated through weight loss, with different degrees of contributions from weight-loss independent effects across the different trials. In the SURPASS-4 study, which enrolled patients with established cardiovascular disease, weight-loss independent effects explained 33% to 57% of difference in SBP change between tirzepatide and insulin glargine groups. In a pooled analysis of the SURPASS-1 to -5 studies, there was a significant (p < 0.001) but weak correlation (r = 0.18 to 0.22) between change in body weight and SBP. Reductions in SBP with tirzepatide were not dependent on concomitant antihypertensive medications at baseline as similar reductions were observed whether participants were receiving them or not (interaction p = 0.77). The largest SBP reductions were observed in the highest baseline category (> 140 mmHg), while those in the first quartile of baseline SBP category (< 122 mmHg) observed no further decrease in SBP. CONCLUSIONS: Tirzepatide-induced SBP reduction was primarily mediated through weight loss, with different degrees of contributions from weight-loss independent effects across the different trials. SBP reduction was not dependent on antihypertensive medication use but dependent on baseline SBP value, alleviating theoretical concerns of hypotension.

Semaglutide for the treatment of overweight and obesity: A review.

Obesity is a chronic, relapsing disease associated with multiple complications and a substantial morbidity, mortality and health care burden. Pharmacological treatments for obesity provide a valuable adjunct to lifestyle intervention, which often achieves only limited weight loss that is difficult to maintain. The Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with obesity (STEP) clinical trial programme is evaluating once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg (a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue) in people with overweight or obesity. Across STEP 1, 3, 4 and 8, semaglutide 2.4 mg was associated with mean weight losses of 14.9%-17.4% in individuals with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes from baseline to week 68; 69%-79% of participants achieved ≥10% weight loss with semaglutide 2.4 mg (vs. 12%-27% with placebo) and 51%-64% achieved ≥15% weight loss (vs. 5%-13% with placebo). In STEP 5, mean weight loss was -15.2% with semaglutide 2.4 mg versus -2.6% with placebo from baseline to week 104. In STEP 2 (individuals with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes), mean weight loss was -9.6% with semaglutide 2.4 mg versus -3.4% with placebo from baseline to week 68. Improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, including high blood pressure, atherogenic lipids and benefits on physical function and quality of life were seen with semaglutide 2.4 mg. The safety profile of semaglutide 2.4 mg was consistent across trials, primarily gastrointestinal adverse events. The magnitude of weight loss reported in the STEP trials offers the potential for clinically relevant improvement for individuals with obesity-related diseases.

Achievement of glycaemic targets with weight loss and without hypoglycaemia in type 2 diabetes with the once-weekly glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide: A post hoc analysis of the SURPASS-1 to -5 studies.

AIM: To assess composite endpoints combining glycaemic control (HbA1c < 7.0%, ≤ 6.5% or < 5.7%) with weight loss (≥ 5%, ≥ 10% or ≥ 15%) and without hypoglycaemia with tirzepatide in type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the phase 3 SURPASS programme were evaluated post hoc by trial. Participants with T2D were randomized to tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg), placebo (SURPASS-1,5), semaglutide 1 mg (SURPASS-2) or titrated basal insulin (SURPASS-3,4). The proportions of participants achieving the composite endpoints were compared between tirzepatide and the respective comparator groups at week 40/52. RESULTS: The proportions of participants achieving an HbA1c value of less than 7.0% with 5% or more weight loss and without hypoglycaemia ranged from 43% to 82% with tirzepatide across the SURPASS-1 to -5 trials versus 4%-5% with placebo, 51% with semaglutide 1 mg and 5% with basal insulin (P < .001 vs. all comparators). The proportions of participants achieving an HbA1c value of less than 7.0% with 10% or more, or 15% or more weight loss and without hypoglycaemia were significantly higher with all tirzepatide doses versus comparators across trials (P < .001 or P < .05). Similar results were observed for all other combinations of endpoints with an HbA1c value of 6.5% or less, or less than 5.7%, with more tirzepatide-treated participants achieving these endpoints versus those in the comparator groups, including semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS: Across the SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials, more tirzepatide-treated participants with T2D achieved clinically meaningful composite endpoints, which included reaching glycaemic targets with various degrees of weight loss and without hypoglycaemia, than those in the comparator groups.

Rationale and design of the phase 3a development programme (ONWARDS 1-6 trials) investigating once-weekly insulin icodec in diabetes.

AIM: To describe the phase 3a ONWARDS clinical development programme investigating insulin icodec (icodec), a once-weekly basal insulin, including the design and rationale for each of the ONWARDS 1-6 trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six randomized controlled trials have been initiated in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (insulin-naive: ONWARDS 1, 3 and 5; previously insulin-treated: ONWARDS 2 and 4) and type 1 diabetes (T1D) (ONWARDS 6). Each trial will investigate icodec use in a unique clinical scenario, with consideration of long-term safety and varied comparator treatments (insulin glargine U100 or U300 or insulin degludec). ONWARDS 5 will incorporate real-world elements and a digital dose titration solution to guide icodec dosing. The primary objective for each of the trials is to compare the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 or week 52 between icodec and comparator arms. Secondary objectives include investigating other glycaemic control and safety parameters, such as fasting glucose, time in glycaemic range and hypoglycaemia. Patient-reported outcomes will assess treatment satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The ONWARDS 1-6 trials will evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec compared with currently available daily basal insulin analogues in T2D and T1D. These trials will generate comprehensive evidence of icodec use in diverse populations across the spectrum of diabetes progression and treatment experience.

Associations of liver fat content with cardiometabolic phenotypes and outcomes in a multi-ethnic population: Results from the Dallas Heart Study.

AIMS: To evaluate the associations between liver fat content and cardiometabolic parameters to explore potential threshold values that define metabolically healthy liver fat content, and to examine the association of liver fat content with cardiovascular events as well as its longitudinal progression. METHODS: Participants in the Dallas Heart Study underwent clinical evaluation, including laboratory testing, and liver fat quantification by magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) at baseline (N = 2287) and at follow-up (N = 343) after a mean of 7.3 years. Cardiovascular events were adjudicated (>12 years). RESULTS: The mean age at study entry was 44 years, 47% of participants were men, and 48% were African American. The following cardiometabolic biomarkers worsened across liver fat quintiles (P < 0.0001): body mass index (BMI); waist circumference; prevalence of hypertension; prevalence of diabetes; cholesterol, triglyceride, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), leptin and fasting glucose levels; homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR); coronary artery calcium score; visceral adipose tissue; abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue; and lower body subcutaneous adipose tissue. Cardiovascular events were comparable across groups defined by tertile of baseline liver fat content. Change in BMI (R = 0.40), waist circumference (R = 0.35), CRP (R = 0.31), alanine aminotransferase (R = 0.27), HOMA-IR (R = 0.26), aspartate transaminase (R = 0.15) and triglycerides (R = 0.12) significantly correlated with change in liver fat content (P < 0.01 for all). CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant metabolic abnormalities were higher across quintiles of liver fat, with increases noted well within normal liver fat ranges, but cardiovascular events were not associated with liver fat content. Longitudinal changes in metabolic parameters, especially adiposity-related parameters, were correlated with change in liver fat content.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly efpeglenatide in people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes: The AMPLITUDE-D, AMPLITUDE-L and AMPLITUDE-S randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly (QW) efpeglenatide in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) suboptimally controlled with oral glucose-lowering drugs and/or basal insulin (BI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three phase 3, multicentre, randomized controlled trials compared the efficacy and safety of QW efpeglenatide versus dulaglutide when added to metformin (AMPLITUDE-D), efpeglenatide versus placebo when added to BI ± oral glucose-lowering drugs (AMPLITUDE-L) or metformin ± sulphonylurea (AMPLITUDE-S). All trials were terminated early by the sponsor because of funding rather than safety or efficacy concerns. RESULTS: In AMPLITUDE-D, non-inferiority of efpeglenatide to dulaglutide 1.5 mg was shown in HbA1c reduction from baseline to week 56, least squares mean treatment difference (95% CI): 4 mg, -0.03% (-0.20%, 0.14%)/-0.35 mmol/mol (-2.20, 1.49); 6 mg, -0.08% (-0.25%, 0.09%)/-0.90 mmol/mol (-2.76, 0.96). The reductions in body weight (approximately 3 kg) from baseline to week 56 were similar across all treatment groups. In AMPLITUDE-L and AMPLITUDE-S, numerically greater reduction in HbA1c and body weight were observed at all doses of efpeglenatide than placebo. American Diabetes Association level 2 hypoglycaemia (< 54 mg/dL [< 3.0 mmol/L]) was reported in few participants across all treatment groups (AMPLITUDE-D, ≤ 1%; AMPLITUDE-L, ≤ 10%; and AMPLITUDE-S, ≤ 4%). The adverse events profile was consistent with other glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs); gastrointestinal adverse events were most frequent in all three studies. CONCLUSIONS: In people with T2D suboptimally controlled with oral glucose-lowering drugs and/or BI, QW efpeglenatide was non-inferior to dulaglutide in terms of HbA1c reduction and showed numerically greater improvements than placebo in glycaemic control and body weight, with safety consistent with the GLP-1 RA class.

Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec vs Once-Daily Insulin Degludec in Adults With Insulin-Naive Type 2 Diabetes: The ONWARDS 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Once-weekly insulin icodec could provide a simpler dosing alternative to daily basal insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec vs once-daily insulin degludec in people with insulin-naive type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, noninferiority, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial conducted from March 2021 to June 2022 at 92 sites in 11 countries in adults with type 2 diabetes treated with any noninsulin glucose-lowering agents with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7%-11% (53-97 mmol/mol). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either once-weekly icodec and once-daily placebo (icodec group; n = 294) or once-daily degludec and once-weekly placebo (degludec group; n = 294). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (noninferiority margin, 0.3% percentage points). Secondary end points included change in fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 26, mean weekly insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment, body weight change from baseline to week 26, and number of level 2 (clinically significant; glucose level <54 mg/dL) and level 3 (severe; requiring external assistance for recovery) hypoglycemic episodes. Results: Among 588 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 58 [10] years; 219 [37%] women), 564 (96%) completed the trial. Mean HbA1c level decreased from 8.6% (observed) to 7.0% (estimated) at 26 weeks in the icodec group and from 8.5% (observed) to 7.2% (estimated) in the degludec group (estimated treatment difference [ETD], -0.2 [95% CI, -0.3 to -0.1] percentage points), confirming noninferiority (P < .001) and superiority (P = .002). There were no significant differences between the icodec and degludec groups for fasting plasma glucose change from baseline to week 26 (ETD, 0 [95% CI, -6 to 5] mg/dL; P = .90), mean weekly insulin dose during the last 2 weeks of treatment, or body weight change from baseline to week 26 (2.8 kg vs 2.3 kg; ETD, 0.46 [95% CI, -0.19 to 1.10] kg; P = .17). Combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemia rates were numerically higher in the icodec group than the degludec group from week 0 to 31 (0.31 vs 0.15 events per patient-year exposure; P = .11) and statistically higher in the icodec group from week 0 to 26 (0.35 vs 0.12 events per patient-year exposure; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with insulin-naive type 2 diabetes, once-weekly icodec demonstrated superior HbA1c reduction to once-daily degludec after 26 weeks of treatment, with no difference in weight change and a higher rate of combined level 2 or 3 hypoglycemic events in the context of less than 1 event per patient-year exposure in both groups. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04795531.

Coordinated Care to Optimize Cardiovascular Preventive Therapies in Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence-based therapies to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in adults with type 2 diabetes are underused in clinical practice. Objective: To assess the effect of a coordinated, multifaceted intervention of assessment, education, and feedback vs usual care on the proportion of adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prescribed all 3 groups of recommended, evidence-based therapies (high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs] or angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and/or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists [GLP-1RAs]). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster randomized clinical trial with 43 US cardiology clinics recruiting participants from July 2019 through May 2022 and follow-up through December 2022. The participants were adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease not already taking all 3 groups of evidence-based therapies. Interventions: Assessing local barriers, developing care pathways, coordinating care, educating clinicians, reporting data back to the clinics, and providing tools for participants (n = 459) vs usual care per practice guidelines (n = 590). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of recommended therapies at 6 to 12 months after enrollment. The secondary outcomes included changes in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors and a composite outcome of all-cause death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, decompensated heart failure, or urgent revascularization (the trial was not powered to show these differences). Results: Of 1049 participants enrolled (459 at 20 intervention clinics and 590 at 23 usual care clinics), the median age was 70 years and there were 338 women (32.2%), 173 Black participants (16.5%), and 90 Hispanic participants (8.6%). At the last follow-up visit (12 months for 97.3% of participants), those in the intervention group were more likely to be prescribed all 3 therapies (173/457 [37.9%]) vs the usual care group (85/588 [14.5%]), which is a difference of 23.4% (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.38 [95% CI, 2.49 to 7.71]; P < .001) and were more likely to be prescribed each of the 3 therapies (change from baseline in high-intensity statins from 66.5% to 70.7% for intervention vs from 58.2% to 56.8% for usual care [adjusted OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.06-2.83]; ACEIs or ARBs: from 75.1% to 81.4% for intervention vs from 69.6% to 68.4% for usual care [adjusted OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.14-2.91]; SGLT2 inhibitors and/or GLP-1RAs: from 12.3% to 60.4% for intervention vs from 14.5% to 35.5% for usual care [adjusted OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.08-4.64]). The intervention was not associated with changes in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors. The composite secondary outcome occurred in 23 of 457 participants (5%) in the intervention group vs 40 of 588 participants (6.8%) in the usual care group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.46 to 1.33]). Conclusions and Relevance: A coordinated, multifaceted intervention increased prescription of 3 groups of evidence-based therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03936660.

Incorporating SGLT2i and GLP-1RA for Cardiovascular and Kidney Disease Risk Reduction: Call for Action to the Cardiology Community.

Multiple sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) have been shown to impart significant cardiovascular and kidney benefits, but are underused in clinical practice. Both SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA were first studied as glucose-lowering drugs, which may have impeded uptake by cardiologists in the wake of proven cardiovascular efficacy. Their significant effect on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, which are largely independent of glucose-lowering effects, must drive a broader use of these drugs. Cardiologists are 3 times more likely than endocrinologists to see patients with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, thus they are ideally positioned to share responsibility for SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA treatment with primary care providers. In order to increase adoption, SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA must be reframed as primarily cardiovascular and kidney disease risk-reducing agents with a side effect of glucose-lowering. Coordinated and multifaceted interventions engaging clinicians, patients, payers, professional societies, and health systems must be implemented to incentivize the adoption of these medications as part of routine cardiovascular and kidney care. Greater use of SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA will improve outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular and kidney disease.