Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin glargine U100 in individuals with basal-bolus insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 4): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Insulin icodec (icodec) is a basal insulin analogue suitable for once-weekly dosing. ONWARDS 4 aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly icodec compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in individuals with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen. METHODS: In this 26-week, phase 3a, randomised, open-label, multicentre, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, adults from 80 sites (outpatient clinics and hospital departments) across nine countries (Belgium, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, and the USA) with type 2 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 7·0-10·0%) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-weekly icodec or once-daily glargine U100 combined with 2-4 daily bolus insulin aspart injections. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 (non-inferiority margin of 0·3 percentage points). The primary outcome was evaluated in the full analysis set (ie, all randomly assigned participants). Safety outcomes were evaluated in the safety analysis set (ie, all participants randomly assigned who received at least one dose of trial product). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04880850. FINDINGS: Between May 14 and Oct 29, 2021, 746 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 582 (78%) were randomly assigned (291 [50%] to icodec treatment and 291 [50%] to glargine U100 treatment). Participants had a mean duration of type 2 diabetes of 17·1 years (SD 8·4). At week 26, estimated mean change in HbA1c was -1·16 percentage points in the icodec group (baseline 8·29%) and -1·18 percentage points in the glargine U100 group (baseline 8·31%), showing non-inferiority for icodec versus glargine U100 (estimated treatment difference 0·02 percentage points [95% CI -0·11 to 0·15], p<0·0001). Overall, 171 (59%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 167 (57%) of 291 participants in the glargine U100 group had an adverse event. 35 serious adverse events were reported in 22 (8%) of 291 participants in the icodec group and 33 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (9%) of 291 participants receiving glargine U100. Overall, combined level 2 and level 3 hypoglycaemia rates were similar between treatment groups. No new safety concerns were identified for icodec. INTERPRETATION: In people with long-standing type 2 diabetes on a basal-bolus regimen, once-weekly icodec showed similar improvements in glycaemic control, with fewer basal insulin injections, lower bolus insulin dose, and with no increase in hypoglycaemic rates compared with once-daily glargine U100. Key strengths of this trial include the use of masked continous glucose monitoring; the high trial completion rate; and the inclusion of a large, diverse, and multinational population. Limitations include the relatively short trial duration and the open-label design. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Once-weekly insulin icodec compared with daily basal insulin analogues in type 2 diabetes: Participant-level meta-analysis of the ONWARDS 1-5 trials.

AIM: To perform a participant-level post hoc meta-analysis of Phase 3a trials in type 2 diabetes (T2D) to characterize the hypoglycaemia safety and glycaemic efficacy of once-weekly insulin icodec (icodec). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All ONWARDS 1-5 randomized participants were pooled as overall T2D, insulin-naive, an insulin-experienced subgroups, and by once-daily trial comparator (degludec or glargine U100). The main outcomes included incidence and rates of clinically significant and severe hypoglycaemia. Additional endpoints included change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline and HbA1c target achievement without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: The meta-analysis comprised 3765 participants (1882 icodec vs. 1883 comparators). In the overall T2D pool, clinically significant hypoglycaemia incidence was similar in the icodec group versus the comparator group (17.9% vs. 16.2%, odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94, 1.38); however, rates were low but significantly higher in the icodec group (1.15 vs. 1.00 episodes/participant-year of exposure, estimated rate ratio 1.51 [95% CI 1.24, 1.85]). Fewer severe hypoglycaemic episodes occurred with icodec than with comparators (8 vs. 18). A greater reduction in HbA1c occurred with icodec versus comparators, irrespective of subgroup (estimated treatment difference range [-0.10 to -0.29%]; all p < 0.05). Across subgroups, except for the insulin-experienced subgroup, the odds of achieving HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (7.0%) without clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia were greater with icodec than with comparators (OR range 1.30-1.55; all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Icodec was associated with a similar incidence but higher rates of clinically significant hypoglycaemia (equating to one additional hypoglycaemic episode every 6 years) and fewer severe hypoglycaemic episodes versus comparators. Our findings also confirmed the greater efficacy of icodec that was demonstrated in the ONWARDS trial programme.

Gastrointestinal adverse events and weight reduction in people with type 2 diabetes treated with tirzepatide in the SURPASS clinical trials.

AIMS: To evaluate gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) and the impact of nausea, vomiting or diarrhoea (N/V/D) and any gastrointestinal (GI) AEs overall on weight change with tirzepatide across the SURPASS-1 to -5 clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive once-weekly tirzepatide (5, 10 or 15 mg) or comparator (placebo, semaglutide 1 mg once weekly, or titrated daily basal insulins) as monotherapy or added on to background antihyperglycaemic medication(s). This post hoc analysis subdivided participants within each trial into subgroups that self-reported (yes/no) any N/V/D or GI AEs. Change from baseline in body weight at the primary timepoint was assessed within each trial and subgroup. Mediation analyses were conducted to evaluate the contribution of direct and indirect (mediated by N/V/D or GI AEs) effects of tirzepatide on weight change versus comparators. RESULTS: Across the SURPASS-1 to -5 trials (N = 6263), nausea (12%-24%), diarrhoea (12%-22%), and vomiting (2%-13%) were the most common GI AEs reported with tirzepatide; these were transient and of mild-to-moderate severity. Mean weight reduction at the primary timepoint with tirzepatide was consistent between participants who reported N/V/D (-6.2 to -14.9 kg) and those who did not report N/V/D (-6.2 to -13.3 kg). Mean weight reduction was significantly (P < 0.01) greater with tirzepatide compared with placebo, semaglutide 1 mg, and basal insulins within the N/V/D and GI AEs subgroups. Mediation analyses suggested minimal contribution (<6%) of N/V/D and GI AEs to the overall difference in weight change between tirzepatide and comparators. CONCLUSIONS: Superior weight reduction with tirzepatide versus comparators appears to be independent of reported N/V/D or GI AEs.

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.

Once-Weekly Insulin for Type 2 Diabetes without Previous Insulin Treatment.

BACKGROUND: It is thought that a reduction in the frequency of basal insulin injections might facilitate treatment acceptance and adherence among patients with type 2 diabetes. Insulin icodec is a basal insulin analogue designed for once-weekly administration that is in development for the treatment of diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a 26-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 2 trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec as compared with once-daily insulin glargine U100 in patients who had not previously received long-term insulin treatment and whose type 2 diabetes was inadequately controlled (glycated hemoglobin level, 7.0 to 9.5%) while taking metformin with or without a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. The primary end point was the change in glycated hemoglobin level from baseline to week 26. Safety end points, including episodes of hypoglycemia and insulin-related adverse events, were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 247 participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive icodec or glargine. Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups; the mean baseline glycated hemoglobin level was 8.09% in the icodec group and 7.96% in the glargine group. The estimated mean change from baseline in the glycated hemoglobin level was -1.33 percentage points in the icodec group and -1.15 percentage points in the glargine group, to estimated means of 6.69% and 6.87%, respectively, at week 26; the estimated between-group difference in the change from baseline was -0.18 percentage points (95% CI, -0.38 to 0.02, P = 0.08). The observed rates of hypoglycemia with severity of level 2 (blood glucose level, <54 mg per deciliter) or level 3 (severe cognitive impairment) were low (icodec group, 0.53 events per patient-year; glargine group, 0.46 events per patient-year; estimated rate ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.65). There was no between-group difference in insulin-related key adverse events, and rates of hypersensitivity and injection-site reactions were low. Most adverse events were mild, and no serious events were deemed to be related to the trial medications. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly treatment with insulin icodec had glucose-lowering efficacy and a safety profile similar to those of once-daily insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; NN1436-4383 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03751657.).

IMpact of flash glucose Monitoring in pEople with type 2 Diabetes Inadequately controlled with non-insulin Antihyperglycaemic ThErapy (IMMEDIATE): A randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To examine the efficacy and patient satisfaction of intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) in adults using non-insulin therapies for the management of type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IMMEDIATE study was a multisite, open label, randomized controlled trial with follow-up at 16 weeks. Adults with type 2 diabetes using at least one non-insulin therapy, with an HbA1c of 7.5% or higher (≥ 58 mmol/mol), were randomized 1:1 to receive an isCGM device plus diabetes self-management education (isCGM + DSME) or DSME alone. Enrolment occurred from 8 September 2020 to 24 December 2021. The primary outcome was percentage mean time in range (TIR), in the final 2-week period, measured via blinded CGM. RESULTS: One hundred and sixteen participants were randomized (mean age, 58 years; diabetes duration, 10 years; mean HbA1c, 8.6% [70 mmol/mol]). At 16 weeks of follow-up, the isCGM and DSME arm had a significantly greater mean TIR by 9.9% (2.4 hours) (95% CI, -17.3% to -2.5%; P < .01), significantly less time above range by 8.1% (1.9 hours) (95% CI, 0.5% to 15.7%; P = .037), and a greater reduction in mean HbA1c by 0.3% (3 mmol/mol) (95% CI, 0% to 0.7%; P = .048) versus the DSME arm. Time below range was low and not significantly different between groups and hypoglycaemic events were few in both groups. Glucose monitoring satisfaction was higher among isCGM users (adjusted difference -0.5 [95% CI, -0.7 to -0.3], P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The IMMEDIATE study has shown that among non-insulin-treated individuals with type 2 diabetes, use of isCGM is associated with an improvement in glycaemic outcomes.

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.

Comparing a daily versus weekly titration algorithm in people with type 2 diabetes switching from basal insulin to iGlarLixi in the LixiLan ONE CAN randomized trial.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of a simple daily titration algorithm compared with a weekly dose adjustment of iGlarLixi in people with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: LixiLan ONE CAN (NCT03767543), a randomized, 26-week, open-label, multicentre phase 3 trial conducted in Canada, involved 265 people with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c of ≥7.5% to ≤ 10.5% or less (≥58 to ≤91 mmol/mol) on basal insulin for 6 months or longer. Participants were randomized 1:1 with instructions to self-titrate iGlarLixi daily (1 unit/day) or once weekly (2 or 4 units/week) to a common target fasting plasma glucose of 4.4 to 5.6 mmol/L (79 to 101 mg/dl). The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of the daily versus weekly titration algorithm. RESULTS: At 26 weeks, daily titration of iGlarLixi was not inferior to a weekly titration for both the prespecified primary endpoint of change in HbA1c from baseline (least square [LS] mean change: -1.24% vs. -0.92%, respectively; LS mean difference: 0.32%; 95% CI [0.07, 0.57]; P < .0001) and for the secondary endpoint of change in weight from baseline (LS mean change: -0.22 vs. +0.81 kg, respectively; LS mean difference: 1.03 kg; 95% CI [0.01, 2.06]; P < .0001). Indeed, for both the primary and secondary outcome, the daily titration of iGlarLixi was superior. There were no statistically significant differences in hypoglycaemia incidence between the two titration strategies during the 26-week study. CONCLUSION: A daily titration algorithm for switching basal insulin to iGlarLixi was shown to be non-inferior and superior for glycaemic control and weight compared with weekly titration.

Extended-release naltrexone/bupropion and liver health: Pooled, post hoc analysis from four randomized controlled trials.

Sustained weight loss improves liver histology in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. This post hoc analysis of four phase III, 56-week, randomized controlled trials investigated if extended-release naltrexone and bupropion (NB) affects alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index in adults with overweight or obesity. Two thousand and seventy-three subjects (NB = 1310; placebo = 763; 79.0% female; 81.6% Caucasian) had baseline mean weight 101 kg, body mass index 36.2 kg/m2 , ALT 26.9 IU/L and FIB-4 0.79. At 56 weeks, NB-treated subjects experienced more weight loss than placebo (8.7 vs. 3.2 kg, respectively, P < .0001). Weight loss, independent of treatment, was associated with improved ALT and FIB-4 (P < .0001). There was a significant independent effect of NB on change from baseline for FIB-4 (P < .0001), but not for ALT (P = .54). Categorical ALT response (from above to within normal ranges: 10-40 IU/L for men; 7-35 IU/L for women) and achievement of 25% and 50% reduction in ALT were greater for NB versus placebo, and independently affected by weight loss (P < .0001), but not treatment. NB-associated weight loss may improve liver health by normalizing ALT values for those with high baseline levels.

Renal, Cardiovascular, and Safety Outcomes of Canagliflozin by Baseline Kidney Function: A Secondary Analysis of the CREDENCE Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Canagliflozin reduced renal and cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes in the CREDENCE trial. We assessed efficacy and safety of canagliflozin by initial estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). METHODS: CREDENCE randomly assigned 4401 participants with an eGFR of 30 to <90 ml/min per 1.73 m2 and substantial albuminuria to canagliflozin 100 mg or placebo. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to analyze effects on renal and cardiovascular efficacy and safety outcomes within screening eGFR subgroups (30 to <45, 45 to <60, and 60 to <90 ml/min per 1.73 m2) and linear mixed effects models to analyze the effects on eGFR slope. RESULTS: At screening, 1313 (30%), 1279 (29%), and 1809 (41%) participants had an eGFR of 30 to <45, 45 to <60, and 60 to <90 ml/min per 1.73 m2, respectively. The relative benefits of canagliflozin for renal and cardiovascular outcomes appeared consistent among eGFR subgroups (all P interaction >0.11). Subgroups with lower eGFRs, who were at greater risk, exhibited larger absolute benefits for renal outcomes. Canagliflozin's lack of effect on serious adverse events, amputations, and fractures appeared consistent among eGFR subgroups. In all subgroups, canagliflozin use led to an acute eGFR drop followed by relative stabilization of eGFR loss. Among those with an eGFR of 30 to <45 ml/min per 1.73 m2, canagliflozin led to an initial drop of 2.03 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Thereafter, decline in eGFR was slower in the canagliflozin versus placebo group (-1.72 versus -4.33 ml/min per 1.73 m2; between-group difference 2.61 ml/min per 1.73 m2). CONCLUSIONS: Canagliflozin safely reduced the risk of renal and cardiovascular events, with consistent results across eGFR subgroups, including the subgroup initiating treatment with an eGFR of 30 to <45 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Absolute benefits for renal outcomes were greatest in subgroups with lower eGFR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: Evaluation of the Effects of Canagliflozin on Renal and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Participants With Diabetic Nephropathy (CREDENCE), NCT02065791.

Risk of hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U300 in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: the randomised, head-to-head CONCLUDE trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: A head-to-head randomised trial was conducted to evaluate hypoglycaemia safety with insulin degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin. METHODS: This randomised (1:1), open-label, treat-to-target, multinational trial included individuals with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥18 years with HbA1c ≤80 mmol/mol (9.5%) and BMI ≤45 kg/m2. Participants were previously treated with basal insulin with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs (excluding insulin secretagogues) and had to fulfil at least one predefined criterion for hypoglycaemia risk. Both degludec U200 and glargine U300 were similarly titrated to a fasting blood glucose target of 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. Endpoints were assessed during a 36 week maintenance period and a total treatment period up to 88 weeks. There were three hypoglycaemia endpoints: (1) overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia (either severe, an event requiring third-party assistance, or confirmed by blood glucose [<3.1 mmol/l] with symptoms); (2) nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (severe or confirmed by blood glucose with symptoms, between 00:01 and 05:59 h); and (3) severe hypoglycaemia. The primary endpoint was the number of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemic events in the maintenance period. Secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints included the number of nocturnal symptomatic events and number of severe hypoglycaemic events during the maintenance period. RESULTS: Of the 1609 randomised participants, 733 of 805 (91.1%) in the degludec U200 arm and 734 of 804 (91.3%) in the glargine U300 arm completed the trial (87.3% and 87.8% completed on treatment, respectively). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two treatment arms. For the primary endpoint, the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia was not significantly lower with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 (rate ratio [RR] 0.88 [95% CI 0.73, 1.06]). As there was no significant difference between treatments for the primary endpoint, the confirmatory testing procedure for superiority was stopped. The pre-specified confirmatory secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints were analysed using pre-specified statistical models but were now considered exploratory. These endpoints showed a lower rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.48, 0.84]) and severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07, 0.57]) with degludec U200 vs glargine U300. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: There was no significant difference in the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 in the maintenance period. The rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were nominally significantly lower with degludec U200 during the maintenance period compared with glargine U300. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03078478 FUNDING: This trial was funded by Novo Nordisk (Bagsvaerd, Denmark).

Goal achievement of HbA1c and LDL-cholesterol in a randomized trial comparing colesevelam with ezetimibe: GOAL-RCT.

AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of colesevelam and ezetimibe as second-line low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-c)-lowering options in type 2 diabetes (T2D). MATERIALS AND METHODS: GOAL-RCT is a 24-week, open-label, randomized, pragmatic clinical trial. Subjects with T2D with uncontrolled HbA1c (7.1%-10%) and LDL-c (>2.0 mmol/L) were randomized 1:1 to colesevelam 3.75 g or ezetimibe 10 mg daily. The primary composite outcome was the proportion of participants achieving an LDL-c target of ≤2.0 mmol/L and HbA1c target of ≤7.0%. Intention to treat analysis was performed. RESULTS: Two hundred subjects were enrolled: mean age 59 ± 10 years; mean HbA1c 8.0%; mean LDL-c 2.5 mmol/L; 97% on statin therapy. The primary composite outcome was achieved by similar proportions of participants with colesevelam (14.6%) and ezetimibe (10.5%) (Pnon-inferiority < .001, Psuperiority = .41). LDL-c reduction from baseline was less with colesevelam compared with ezetimibe (14.0% vs. 23.2%, P < .01), as was the proportion of subjects achieving an LDL-c target of ≤2.0 mmol/L (47.6% and 67.0%, respectively; P = .007). Mean HbA1c was reduced with colesevelam (-0.26 ± 0.10%), while no change was observed with ezetimibe (difference P = .06). Adverse events and discontinuation rates were higher for colesevelam (20.2% and 31.1%) compared with ezetimibe (7.2% and 6.2%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among subjects with T2D, the initiation of colesevelam or ezetimibe led to similar achievement of primary composite outcome (LDL-c and HbA1c within target), with ezetimibe recording a greater LDL-c reduction and better tolerability than colesevelam.

Cardiovascular and renal benefits of dapagliflozin in patients with short and long-standing type 2 diabetes: Analysis from the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial.

AIM: To investigate whether the cardiovascular and renal benefits observed with dapagliflozin in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial are also observed in patients with short and long-standing diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis studied the dual primary efficacy endpoints, a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (CVD/HHF) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; CVD, myocardial infarction [MI], ischaemic stroke) by diabetes duration. RESULTS: Of the 17 160 patients, 3836 had diabetes duration of ≤5 years, 4731 >5-10 years, 3952 >10-15 years, 2433 >15-20 years and 2206 >20 years. Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of CVD/HHF by a similar amount across diabetes duration subgroups, ranging from HR 0.79 (0.58-1.06) in patients with diabetes duration of ≤5 years to 0.75 (0.55-1.03) in those patients with diabetes duration of >20 years (interaction trend P-value 0.76). Hazard ratios (HRs) for MACE ranged from 1.08 (0.87-1.35) in patients with diabetes duration of ≤5 years to 0.67 (0.52-0.86) in those patients with diabetes duration of >20 years (interaction trend P-value 0.004). This was driven by greater reductions in the risk of MI and ischaemic stroke with dapagliflozin in patients with long-standing diabetes (interaction trend P-values 0.019 and 0.015, respectively). The duration-based MACE heterogeneity was apparent in those with or without a history of prior MI and in those with multiple risk factors. The renal-specific outcome was reduced with dapagliflozin with HRs ranging from 0.79 (0.47-1.34) in patients with diabetes duration of ≤5 years to 0.42 (0.25-0.72) in those patients with diabetes duration of >20 years (interaction trend P-value 0.084). CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of CVD/HHF consistently, regardless of diabetes duration, whereas the treatment effect for MACE differed by duration subgroups, with significant reductions with dapagliflozin in patients with long-standing diabetes.

Glucose Lowering Strategies for Cardiac Benefits: Pathophysiological Mechanisms.

Recent trials in Type 2 diabetes (T2D) have shown cardiovascular benefits with specific GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors. We discuss the landscape of outcome trials in T2D from a pathophysiology viewpoint, review current knowledge gaps in underlying mechanisms, propose a caloric fuel routing hypothesis, and highlight areas of future research.

CANadian CAnagliflozin REgistry: Effectiveness and safety of canagliflozin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Canadian clinical practice.

AIM: There is limited information concerning the effects of canagliflozin (CANA), a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) in a real-world clinical setting in Canada. CanCARE is a 12-month, prospective, observational analysis to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of CANA in usual clinical practice in Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SGLT2i-naïve adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (n = 527) on a stable antihyperglycemic agent (AHA) regimen with glycated hemoglobin (A1C) ≥ 7%, an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73m2 , were initiated on CANA as part of their usual treatment approach, and were followed for a period of 12 months. The primary effectiveness objective was the mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Significant improvement from baseline in mean HbA1c levels were observed at 6 months (-0.90%; 95% CI, -1.02, -0.78) and at 12 months (-1.04%; 95% CI, -1.15, -0.92), regardless of duration of diabetes or background AHA treatment regimen. Similarly, significant decreases in systolic blood pressure (-4.65 mm Hg); body weight (-3.24 kg), waist circumference (-2.91 cm) and body mass index (-1.15 kg/m2 ) were observed at 12 months. Additionally, 40.5% of patients achieved the double endpoint (≥0.5% HbA1c reduction and ≥ 3% weight loss), while 24.3% of patients achieved the triple composite endpoint (≥0.5% HbA1c reduction, ≥3% weight loss and ≥ 4 mm Hg systolic blood pressure reduction). No unexpected adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: CANA provided sustained clinically meaningful improvements in cardiometabolic parameters in this study in a real-world setting, confirming findings from randomized controlled trials.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and cardiovascular protection in type 2 diabetes: a pathophysiology-based review of clinical implications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOT) with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) have had variable results to date: with two CVOTs being positive and two concluding neutrality/safety results for primary cardiovascular outcome. Mechanistic insights delving into the pathophysiologic mechanisms that may link certain GLP-1 RA to cardioprotection may help define the application of this medication class in clinical practice based on the evidence of the CVOT data. We discuss the various mechanisms that have been postulated from animal and preclinical human studies to help explain the benefits observed in CVOTs with GLP-1 RA. RECENT FINDINGS: Cardiovascular benefits of GLP-1 may be dependent on the complex interactions of this incretin hormone with the atherosclerotic pathways, either through its direct actions on the cardiovascular system or indirectly through intermediary actions on metabolism, energy transfer, inflammation or thrombosis. An indirect metabolic action of GLP-1 RA, via an initial step of achieving glucose homeostasis or balancing inter-organ energy metabolism, leading to favorable downstream effects on the inflammation-thrombosis pathways, finally impacting atherosclerosis, appears compelling. SUMMARY: In addition to their metabolic benefits, specific GLP-1 RA medications offer cardiovascular protection in high-risk type 2 diabetes. Further mechanistic studies and clinical trials in lower cardiovascular risk populations may help cement the place of this class of medications across the spectrum of type 2 diabetes.

SGLT2 inhibitors: practical considerations and recommendations for cardiologists.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To address common concerns regarding sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor use for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in cardiovascular practice. RECENT FINDINGS: SGLT2 inhibitors provide glycemic control and improve cardiovascular and renal endpoints in T2DM. Cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated sustained cardiovascular, heart failure and renal benefits independent of glycemic control, which persist down to an eGFR of 30 ml/min/1.73 m. SGLT2 inhibitors can be safely administered alongside common diuretics, and routine monitoring of renal function is advised at initiation of therapy, particularly for patients on loop diuretics. Mild initial reductions in eGFR are expected, usually stabilizing over time. The most common adverse effect noted with SGLT2 inhibitors is genital mycotic infections, primarily in women. Less common, but concerning effects associated with canagliflozin include increased risk of fractures and lower limb amputations, particularly in patients with previous amputation history. Overall, SGLT2 inhibitors are well tolerated and effective adjuncts to diabetic treatment, for which the benefits seem to outweigh the risks. SUMMARY: The care of patients with T2DM requires an interdisciplinary team approach, within which the role of cardiologists is expanding. SGLT2 inhibitors are an encouraging treatment option for achieving glycemic control, whilst also improving cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

Glycemic Improvement with a Fixed-dose combination of DPP-4 inhibitor + metformin in patients with Type 2 diabetes (GIFT study).

This study investigates changes in A1C following a switch from dual therapy of metformin and DPP-4 inhibitor to a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of metformin + DPP-4 inhibitor following the introduction of the FDC in the provincial formulary. The LMC Diabetes Registry was queried retrospectively for patients with type 2 diabetes, aged between 18 and 80 years with at least one A1C recorded prior and ≥3 months post-switch. Five hundred and sixty-eight subjects with mean age 64 ± 12 years and mean A1C 7.7% ± 1.2% met study criteria. Overall, A1C was 0.3% lower post-switch to FDC (P < .01). In stratified analysis, subjects with baseline A1C between 7% and 10% had 0.4% lower A1C (P < .01), with 31% of these subjects reaching target A1C ≤7%, post-switch. A1C reduction was greater among patients with a higher baseline pill burden: 0.4% among those using ≥10 pills/day vs. 0.1% for those with <10 pills/day (P = .02). In this real-world study, switching to FDC of metformin + DPP-4 inhibitor was associated with a significant improvement in A1C. Switching to FDC, especially in patients with high pill burden, can improve A1C goal achievement in clinical practice.

Antihyperglycemic agents and cardiovascular outcomes: recent insights.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) with antihyperglycemic agents conducted since 2008 US Food and Drug Administration guidance. RECENT FINDINGS: A series of large CVOTs since 2008 have included patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), who are otherwise treated according to standard of care. After the initial trials with incretin agents demonstrated cardiovascular safety, two recent CVOTs with currently available antihyperglycemic agents - EMPA-REG OUTCOME with empagliflozin and LEADER with liraglutide - show a significant reduction of the primary composite outcome, including a significant difference in the cardiovascular death end-point in both trials [EMPA-REG OUTCOME: hazard ratio = 0.62, confidence interval (CI) = 0.49-0.77, P < 0.001 and LEADER: hazard ratio = 0.78, CI = 0.66-0.93, P = 0.007]. Number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular death of 46 and 77 for empagliflozin and liraglutide, respectively, over 3 years is comparable with other currently employed evidence-based cardioprotective strategies. In addition, EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial had a robust reduction in hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio = 0.65, CI = 0.50-0.85, P = 0.002). SUMMARY: New-generation CVOTs are shifting the focus in the treatment of T2D to the prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.