Results from a cross-specialty consensus on optimal management of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD): from screening to complications.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects around 10% of the global population and has been estimated to affect around 50% of individuals with type 2 diabetes and 50% of those with heart failure. The guideline-recommended approach is to manage with disease-modifying therapies, but real-world data suggest that prescribing rates do not reflect this in practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop a cross-specialty consensus on optimal management of the patient with CKD using a modified Delphi method. DESIGN: An international steering group of experts specialising in internal medicine, endocrinology/diabetology, nephrology and primary care medicine developed 42 statements on aspects of CKD management including identification and screening, risk factors, holistic management, guidelines, cross-specialty alignment and education. Consensus was determined by agreement using an online survey. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was distributed to cardiologists, nephrologists, endocrinologists and primary care physicians across 11 countries. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The threshold for consensus agreement was established a priori by the steering group at 75%. Stopping criteria were defined as a target of 25 responses from each country (N=275), and a 4-week survey period. RESULTS: 274 responses were received in December 2022, 25 responses from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and 24 responses from Egypt. 53 responses were received from cardiologists, 52 from nephrologists, 55 from endocrinologists and 114 from primary care physicians. 37 statements attained very high agreement (≥90%) and 5 attained high agreement (≥75% and <90%). Strong alignment between roles was seen across the statements, and different levels of experience (2-5 years or 5+ years), some variation was observed between countries. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high degree of consensus regarding aspects of CKD management among healthcare professionals from 11 countries. Based on these strong levels of agreement, the steering group derived 12 key recommendations focused on diagnosis and management of CKD.

Mechanisms of action of metformin with special reference to cardiovascular protection.

Management guidelines continue to identify metformin as initial pharmacologic antidiabetic therapy of choice for people with type 2 diabetes without contraindications, despite recent randomized trials that have demonstrated significant improvements in cardiovascular outcomes with newer classes of antidiabetic therapies. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current state of knowledge of metformin's therapeutic actions on blood glucose and cardiovascular clinical evidence and to consider the mechanisms that underlie them. The effects of metformin on glycaemia occur mainly in the liver, but metformin-stimulated glucose disposal by the gut has emerged as an increasingly import site of action of metformin. Additionally, metformin induces increased secretion of GLP-1 from intestinal L-cells. Clinical cardiovascular protection with metformin is supported by three randomized outcomes trials (in newly diagnosed and late stage insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients) and a wealth of observational data. Initial evidence suggests that cotreatment with metformin may enhance the impact of newer incretin-based therapies on cardiovascular outcomes, an important observation as metformin can be combined with any other antidiabetic agent. Multiple potential mechanisms support the concept of cardiovascular protection with metformin beyond those provided by reduced blood glucose, including weight loss, improvements in haemostatic function, reduced inflammation, and oxidative stress, and inhibition of key steps in the process of atherosclerosis. Accordingly, metformin remains well placed to support improvements in cardiovascular outcomes, from diagnosis and throughout the course of type 2 diabetes, even in this new age of improved outcomes in type 2 diabetes.

Prediabetes management in the Middle East, Africa and Russia: Current status and call for action.

Most data on the burden of diabetes and prediabetes are from countries where local infrastructure can support reliable estimates of the burden of non-communicable diseases. Countries in the Middle East and Africa, together with Russia, have a total population of almost 2 billion, but have been relatively overlooked by authors in this field. We reviewed the prevalence and drivers of prediabetes and diabetes across this large region. A large, and variable, burden of dysglycaemia exists, especially in Middle Eastern and North African countries, associated with high levels of obesity and sedentariness, with a generally lower prevalence in most other parts of Africa. The design and size of studies are highly variable, and more research to quantify the scale of the problem is needed. Local barriers to care relating to issues concerned with gender, consanguinity, lack of understanding of diabetes, lack of understanding of obesity as a health issue, and limited resource at a national level for tracking and intervention for diabetes and other non-communicable diseases. Lifestyle interventions with proven local cost-effectiveness, enhanced access to pharmacologic intervention, and societal interventions to promote better diet and more activity will be an important element in strategies to combat these adverse trends.

Real-world effectiveness of amlodipine/valsartan and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in high-risk patients and other subgroups.

BACKGROUND: The clinical EXCITE (EXperienCe of amlodIpine and valsarTan in hypErtension) study reported clinically relevant blood pressure (BP) reductions across all doses of amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) and Aml/Val/hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) single-pill combinations. The study prospectively observed a multiethnic population of hypertensive patients for 26 weeks who were treated according to routine clinical practice. Here, we present the results in high-risk subgroups including the elderly, obese patients, and patients with diabetes or isolated systolic hypertension. In addition, we present a post hoc analysis as per prior antihypertensive monotherapy and dual therapy. METHODS: Patients prescribed Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT were assessed in this 26±8 week, noninterventional, multicenter study across 13 countries in the Middle East and Asia. Changes in mean sitting systolic BP, mean sitting diastolic BP, and overall safety were assessed. RESULTS: Of a total of 9,794 patients analyzed, 8,603 and 1,191 patients were prescribed Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT, respectively. Among these, 15.5% were elderly, 32.5% were obese, 31.3% had diabetes, and 9.8% had isolated systolic hypertension. Both Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT single-pill combinations, respectively, were associated with clinically relevant and significant mean sitting systolic/diastolic BP reductions across all subgroups: elderly patients (-32.2/-14.3 mmHg and -38.5/-16.5 mmHg), obese patients (-32.2/-17.9 mmHg and -38.5/-18.4 mmHg), diabetic patients (-30.3/-16.1 mmHg and -34.4/-16.6 mmHg), and patients with isolated systolic hypertension (-25.5/-4.1 mmHg and -30.2/-5.9 mmHg). Incremental BP reductions with Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT single-pill combinations were also observed in patients receiving prior monotherapy or dual therapy for hypertension. Overall, both Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This large, multiethnic study supports the evidence that Aml/Val and Aml/Val/ HCT single-pill combinations are effective in diverse and clinically important subgroups of patients with hypertension.

Real-world clinical experience of amlodipine/valsartan and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in hypertension: the EXCITE study.

OBJECTIVE: The EXCITE (clinical EXperienCe of amlodIpine and valsarTan in hypErtension) study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability and adherence of amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val/HCT) single-pill combination therapies in patients with hypertension from the Middle East and Asia studied in routine clinical practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective, multinational, non-interventional real-world study in which adult patients with hypertension receiving treatment with Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT as part of routine clinical practice were observed for a period of 26 ± 8 weeks. Dosages in milligrams (prescribed in accordance with local prescribing information) were Aml/Val: 5/80, 5/160, 10/160, 5/320 or 10/320; Aml/Val/HCT: 5/160/12.5, 10/160/12.5, 5/160/25, 10/160/25 or 10/320/25. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment effectiveness was assessed by change from baseline in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (BP)/diastolic BP (msSBP/msDBP), and the proportion of patients achieving therapeutic goal and BP response. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 9794 patients analyzed (mean age 53.2 years), 8603 received Aml/Val and 1191 Aml/Val/HCT. At study end (26 ± 8 weeks), overall msSBP (95% confidence interval [CI]) reductions from baseline were -31.0 (-31.42, -30.67) mmHg for Aml/Val and -36.6 (-37.61, -35.50) mmHg for Aml/Val/HCT; msDBP reductions from baseline were -16.6 (-16.79, -16.34) mmHg for Aml/Val and -17.8 (-18.41, -17.22) mmHg for Aml/Val/HCT. Meaningful reductions in BP from baseline were also consistently observed across all Aml/Val dosages and severities of hypertension. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 11.2% and 6.1% of patients in the Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT groups, respectively. Most frequently reported AEs in the Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT groups were edema and peripheral edema. While the observational design of the study has inherent limitations, it enables collection of real-world data from a more naturalistic clinical setting, and the large size of the study increases the robustness of the study, as indicated by the narrow confidence intervals for the main study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The EXCITE study provides evidence that Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT provide clinically meaningful BP reductions and are well tolerated in a large multi-ethnic hypertensive population studied in routine clinical practice.