Lipid clinic experience with bempedoic acid in three UK centres.

OBJECTIVE: Novel lipid-lowering therapies are being introduced. Few studies exist of the real-world effectiveness of adenosine-tri-phosphate citrate lyase inhibition with bempedoic acid. METHODS: This study audited bempedoic acid therapy in 216 consecutive patients from three hospital centres - a university hospital (n = 77) and two district general hospitals (n = 106 and 33). Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, prescription qualification criteria, efficacy and adverse effects were assessed. RESULTS: The population was aged 65.9 ± 11.0 years, 42% were male, 25% had type 2 diabetes, and 31% had familial hypercholesterolaemia. CVD was present in 19% and multibed vascular disease in 8%. Statin intolerance was reported in 92%. Bempedoic acid reduced total cholesterol by 1.58 ± 1.44 mmol/L (20%), LDL-C by 1.37 ± 1.31 mmol/L (27%), triglycerides by 0.22 mmol/L (2%) with an 0.06 mmol/L (1%) increase in HDL-C after 22 ± 9 months follow-up. An LDL-C <2.5 mmol/L was achieved in 40% and <2 mmol/L in 20%. Efficacy (r2 = .33) was predicted by baseline LDL-C (ß = .54; p <.001). No significant changes were seen in transaminases, creatinine, creatine kinase, urate or HbA1c. Treatment was discontinued by 33% of patients and occurred due to myalgia (43%), lack of efficacy (16%) and gastrointestinal adverse effects (15%). No cases of gout were observed. In a logistic regression only the number of previous drug classes not tolerated (ß = 1.60; p = .009) was a contributing factor to discontinuation. CONCLUSION: This audit suggests that bempedoic acid therapy is effective but that adverse effects and discontinuation are common. This suggests nocebo effects might be generalizable to all lipid-lowering drug therapies in susceptible individuals.

SGLT2 Inhibitors - The New Standard of Care for Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolic Protection in Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review.

A substantial evidence base supports the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This class of medicines has demonstrated important benefits that extend beyond glucose-lowering efficacy to protective mechanisms capable of slowing or preventing the onset of long-term cardiovascular, renal and metabolic (CVRM) complications, making their use highly applicable for organ protection and the maintenance of long-term health outcomes. SGLT2is have shown cost-effectiveness in T2DM management and economic savings over other glucose-lowering therapies due to reduced incidence of cardiovascular and renal events. National and international guidelines advocate SGLT2i use early in the T2DM management pathway, based upon a plethora of supporting data from large-scale cardiovascular outcome trials, renal outcomes trials and real-world studies. While most people with T2DM would benefit from CVRM protection through SGLT2i use, prescribing hesitancy remains, potentially due to confusion concerning their place in the complex therapeutic paradigm, variation in licensed indications or safety perceptions/misunderstandings associated with historical data that have since been superseded by robust clinical evidence and long-term pharmacovigilance reporting. This latest narrative review developed by the Improving Diabetes Steering Committee (IDSC) outlines the place of SGLT2is within current evidence-informed guidelines, examines their potential as the standard of care for the majority of newly diagnosed people with T2DM and sets into context the perceived risks and proven advantages of SGLT2is in terms of sustained health outcomes. The authors discuss the cost-effectiveness case for SGLT2is and provide user-friendly tools to support healthcare professionals in the correct application of these medicines in T2DM management. The previously published IDSC SGLT2i Prescribing Tool for T2DM Management has undergone updates and reformatting and is now available as a Decision Tool in an interactive pdf format as well as an abbreviated printable A4 poster/wall chart.

The Road towards Triple Agonists: Glucagon-Like Peptide 1, Glucose-Dependent Insulinotropic Polypeptide and Glucagon Receptor - An Update.

Obesity is the fifth leading risk factor for global deaths with numbers continuing to increase worldwide. In the last 20 years, the emergence of pharmacological treatments for obesity based on gastrointestinal hormones has transformed the therapeutic landscape. The successful development of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, followed by the synergistic combined effect of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 receptor agonists achieved remarkable weight loss and glycemic control in those with the diseases of obesity and type 2 diabetes. The multiple cardiometabolic benefits include improving glycemic control, lipid profiles, blood pressure, inflammation, and hepatic steatosis. The 2023 phase 2 double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating a GLP-1/GIP/glucagon receptor triagonist (retatrutide) in patients with the disease of obesity reported 24.2% weight loss at 48 weeks with 12 mg retatrutide. This review evaluates the current available evidence for GLP-1 receptor agonists, dual GLP-1/GIP receptor co-agonists with a focus on GLP-1/GIP/glucagon receptor triagonists and discusses the potential future benefits and research directions.

Time to Reach Glycaemic and Body Weight Loss Thresholds with Tirzepatide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Pre-planned Exploratory Analysis of SURPASS-2 and SURPASS-3.

INTRODUCTION: Tirzepatide, a once-weekly glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, provides clinically meaningful improvements in glycaemic control and body weight loss in people with type 2 diabetes. The early efficacy profile of tirzepatide after treatment initiation is of interest. In this exploratory pre-planned analysis, we evaluated the time to achieve glycaemic control and body weight loss thresholds with tirzepatide. METHODS: In two randomised studies, we compared time to achieve HbA1c (< 7.0% and ≤ 6.5%) and weight loss (≥ 5%, SURPASS-2 only) thresholds among people treated with tirzepatide (5, 10, and 15 mg), semaglutide 1 mg in SURPASS-2, and titrated insulin degludec in SURPASS-3. Longitudinal logistic regression models were used to explore the proportion of participants achieving HbA1c and body weight loss thresholds at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. The time to achieve these thresholds was analysed and compared between groups using the Cox proportional-hazards model. RESULTS: Overall, greater proportions of participants achieved the HbA1c and body weight loss thresholds at 4, 12, and 24 weeks with tirzepatide compared with semaglutide 1 mg and insulin degludec. The median time to achieve HbA1c < 7.0% (8.1 weeks with each tirzepatide dose, 12.0 weeks with semaglutide 1 mg, and 12.1 weeks with insulin degludec) and ≤ 6.5% (12.1, 15.7, and 24.1 weeks, respectively) was faster with tirzepatide than semaglutide 1 mg and insulin degludec. In SURPASS-2, the median time to first achieve a body weight loss of ≥ 5% was faster with tirzepatide 5 mg (16.0 weeks) and 10 and 15 mg (12.4 weeks) than with semaglutide 1 mg (24.0 weeks). CONCLUSION: Analyses of data from SURPASS-2 and -3 revealed that tirzepatide treatment enabled more people with type 2 diabetes to achieve glycaemic thresholds and these were achieved faster than with semaglutide 1 mg or insulin degludec. Tirzepatide-treated participants also achieved a body weight loss of ≥ 5% significantly faster with tirzepatide than with semaglutide 1 mg. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03987919; NCT03882970.

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Therapy: From Discovery to Type 2 Diabetes and Beyond.

The therapeutic benefits of the incretin hormone, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1), for people with type 2 diabetes and/or obesity, are now firmly established. The evidence-base arising from head-to-head comparative effectiveness studies in people with type 2 diabetes, as well as the recommendations by professional guidelines suggest that GLP1 receptor agonists should replace more traditional treatment options such as sulfonylureas and dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors. Furthermore, their benefits in reducing cardiovascular events in people with type 2 diabetes beyond improvements in glycaemic control has led to numerous clinical trials seeking to translate this benefit beyond type 2 diabetes. Following early trial results their therapeutic benefit is currently being tested in other conditions including fatty liver disease, kidney disease, and Alzheimer's disease.

The long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK.

AIMS: Once-weekly semaglutide and dulaglutide represent two highly efficacious treatment options for type 2 diabetes. A recent indirect treatment comparison (ITC) has associated semaglutide 1 mg with similar and greater improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, respectively, vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg. The present study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0) was used to project outcomes over patients' lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from SUSTAIN 7, with changes in HbA1c and body mass index applied as per the ITC. Modelled patients received semaglutide or dulaglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Costs (expressed in 2020 pounds sterling [GBP]) were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective. RESULTS: Semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.05 and 0.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively, due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications with semaglutide. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 76 lower and GBP 8 higher in the comparisons with dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively. Overall outcomes were similar, but favoured semaglutide, and based on modelled mean outcomes it was considered dominant vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 228 per QALY gained vs. dulaglutide 4.5 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide 1 mg represents a cost-effective treatment vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg for type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK.

Colesevelam - a bile acid sequestrant for treating hypercholesterolemia and improving hyperglycemia.

INTRODUCTION: Low density Lipoprotein cholesterol)LDL-C) levels show a clear relationship with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Statins are first line agents to reduce LDL-C and CVD risk. However, combination lipid-lowering therapy is often required to achieve large reductions in LDL-C. AREA COVERED: Colesevelam HCl is a bile acid sequestrant (BAS), which reduces LDL-C by 16-22% in monotherapy and adds a further 12-14% reduction in LDL-C when combined with other lipid-lowering drugs. Like statins, colesevelam reduces C-reactive protein levels by 16% in monotherapy and additional 6% when added to statins. Colesevelam also reduced HbA1c by 4 mmol/mol (0.5%) when used alone and added to other hypoglycemic drugs in studies of patients with diabetes . EXPERT OPINION: Bile acid sequestrants reduce LDL-C and HbA1c and have some CVD outcome evidence. The uses of these agents are limited in patients with gastrointestinal disease or high triglycerides due to adverse effects on gut function and raising triglycerides and they interfere with the absorption of lipid-soluble drugs. Colesevelam has a higher bile acid binding capacity, and fewer adverse effects than other BAS. Colesevelam may be useful as a third line agent for treatment of hypercholesterolemia with some additional specific benefits on glycemic control.

The Place and Value of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in the Evolving Treatment Paradigm for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Narrative Review.

Over recent years, the expanding evidence base for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) therapies has revealed benefits beyond their glucose-lowering efficacy in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), resulting in their recognition as cardiorenal medicines. While SGLT2is continue to be recommended among the second-line therapies for the treatment of hyperglycaemia, their true value now extends to the prevention of debilitating and costly cardiovascular and renal events for high-risk individuals, with particular benefit shown in reducing major adverse cardiac events and heart failure (HF) and slowing the progression of chronic kidney disease. However, SGLT2i usage is still suboptimal among groups considered to be at greatest risk of cardiorenal complications. The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has intensified financial pressures on healthcare systems, which may hamper further investment in newer effective medicines. Emerging evidence indicates that glycaemic control should be prioritised for people with T2DM in the era of COVID-19 and practical advice on the use of T2DM medications during periods of acute illness remains important, particularly for healthcare professionals working in primary care who face multiple competing priorities. This article provides the latest update from the Improving Diabetes Steering Committee, including perspectives on the value of SGLT2is as cost-effective therapies within the T2DM treatment paradigm, with particular focus on the latest published evidence relating to the prevention or slowing of cardiorenal complications. The implications for ongoing and future approaches to diabetes care are considered in the light of the continuing coronavirus pandemic, and relevant aspects of international treatment guidelines are highlighted with practical advice on the appropriate use of SGLT2is in commonly occurring T2DM clinical scenarios. The 'SGLT2i Prescribing Tool for T2DM Management', previously published by the Steering Committee, has been updated to reflect the latest evidence and is provided in the Supplementary Materials to help support clinicians delivering T2DM care.

Comparative efficacy of non-statin lipid-lowering therapies in patients with hypercholesterolemia at increased cardiovascular risk: a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Network meta-analysis was used to derive estimates of the relative efficacy of inclisiran, evolocumab, alirocumab, bempedoic acid, and ezetimibe in patients with hypercholesterolemia and/or at increased cardiovascular risk due to elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol taking maximum tolerated dose statins. METHODS: Clinical trials published through February 2021 comparing percent change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were identified via a systematic review. Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and/or high cardiovascular risk on maximally tolerated statins in the base case, which included 23 trials. RESULTS: Results from the base-case analyses demonstrated that inclisiran, evolocumab, and alirocumab provide superior efficacy over placebo, bempedoic acid, and ezetimibe in terms of reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Inclisiran was also comparable to alirocumab (mean difference: 0.78% [95% CrI: -8.35, 9.88]) and evolocumab (8.16%, [95% CrI: -1.82, 18.49]). Findings of a scenario which also included trials conducted in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia were consistent with the base case. There was evidence of statistical heterogeneity across the included trials, roughly equivalent to variation of 5-10% change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, suggesting that any differences between treatments that were greater than 5-10% are generalizable. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight regarding the comparative efficacy of drugs for which no head-to-head trials exist and suggests that inclisiran, alirocumab, and evolocumab are expected to provide similar clinically meaningful improvements in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients with hypercholesterolemia on maximally tolerated statins who are at increased cardiovascular risk.

Meeting the Challenge of Virtual Diabetes Care: A Consensus Viewpoint on the Positioning and Value of Oral Semaglutide in Routine Clinical Practice.

While glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), such as semaglutide, are among the most effective drugs for treating people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), they are clinically under-utilised. Until recently, the only route for semaglutide administration was via subcutaneous injection. However, an oral formulation of semaglutide was recently licensed, with the potential to address therapy inertia and increase patient adherence to treatment, which is essential in controlling blood glucose and reducing complications. The availability of oral semaglutide provides a new option for both clinicians and patients who are reluctant to use an injectable agent. This has been of particular importance in addressing the challenge of virtual diabetes care during the COVID-19 pandemic, circumventing the logistical problems that are often associated with subcutaneous medication administration. However, there remains limited awareness of the clinical and economic value of oral semaglutide in routine clinical practice. In this article, we present our consensus opinion on the role of oral semaglutide in routine clinical practice and discuss its value in reducing the burden of delivering diabetes care in the post-COVID-19 pandemic period of chronic disease management.

Elevated Lipoprotein(a): Background, Current Insights and Future Potential Therapies.

Lipoprotein(a) forms a subfraction of the lipid profile and is characterized by the addition of apolipprotein(a) (apo(a)) to apoB100 derived particles. Its levels are mostly genetically determined inversely related to the number of protein domain (kringle) repeats in apo(a). In epidemiological studies, it shows consistent association with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and most recently with extent of aortic stenosis. Issues with standardizing the measurement of Lp(a) are being resolved and consensus statements favor its measurement in patients at high risk of, or with family histories of CVD events. Major lipid-lowering therapies such as statin, fibrates, and ezetimibe have little effect on Lp(a) levels. Therapies such as niacin or cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors lower Lp(a) as well as reducing other lipid-related risk factors but have failed to clearly reduce CVD events. Proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin-9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduce cholesterol and Lp(a) as well as reducing CVD events. New antisense therapies specifically targeting apo(a) and hence Lp(a) have greater and more specific effects and will help clarify the extent to which intervention in Lp(a) levels will reduce CVD events.

An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg.

AIM: To compare the effects of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg on HbA1c and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Bucher indirect comparison was conducted to compare efficacy outcomes of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg using published results from the SUSTAIN 7 and AWARD-11 trials. Sensitivity analyses using individual patient data from SUSTAIN 7 and aggregate data from AWARD-11 were conducted to explore the impact of adjustment for cross-trial imbalances in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.24%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.43, -0.05), with comparable reductions in HbA1c versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg with an ETD of -0.07%-points (95% CI -0.26, 0.12). Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg with an ETD of -2.65 kg (95% CI -3.57, -1.73) and -1.95 kg (95% CI -2.87, -1.03), respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis findings. CONCLUSIONS: This indirect comparison showed significantly greater reductions in HbA1c with semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg and comparable HbA1c reductions versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg. Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus both dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg. With several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists available, information regarding their comparative efficacy can be valuable to clinicians.

Semaglutide 2·4 mg once a week in adults with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes (STEP 2): a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of the GLP-1 analogue once a week subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg versus semaglutide 1·0 mg (the dose approved for diabetes treatment) and placebo for weight management in adults with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, superiority study enrolled adults with a body-mass index of at least 27 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin 7-10% (53-86 mmol/mol) who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at least 180 days before screening. Patients were recruited from 149 outpatient clinics in 12 countries across Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Africa, and Asia. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1) via an interactive web-response system and stratified by background glucose-lowering medication and glycated haemoglobin, to subcutaneous injection of semaglutide 2·4 mg, or semaglutide 1·0 mg, or visually matching placebo, once a week for 68 weeks, plus a lifestyle intervention. Patients, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. Coprimary endpoints were percentage change in bodyweight and achievement of weight reduction of at least 5% at 68 weeks for semaglutide 2·4 mg versus placebo, assessed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03552757 and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: From June 4 to Nov 14, 2018, 1595 patients were screened, of whom 1210 were randomly assigned to semaglutide 2·4 mg (n=404), semaglutide 1·0 mg (n=403), or placebo (n=403) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Estimated change in mean bodyweight from baseline to week 68 was -9·6% (SE 0·4) with semaglutide 2·4 mg vs -3·4% (0·4) with placebo. Estimated treatment difference for semaglutide 2·4 mg versus placebo was -6·2 percentage points (95% CI -7·3 to -5·2; p<0·0001). At week 68, more patients on semaglutide 2·4 mg than on placebo achieved weight reductions of at least 5% (267 [68·8%] of 388 vs 107 [28·5%] of 376; odds ratio 4·88, 95% CI 3·58 to 6·64; p<0·0001). Adverse events were more frequent with semaglutide 2·4 mg (in 353 [87·6%] of 403 patients) and 1·0 mg (329 [81·8%] of 402) than with placebo (309 [76·9%] of 402). Gastrointestinal adverse events, which were mostly mild to moderate, were reported in 256 (63·5%) of 403 patients with semaglutide 2·4 mg, 231 (57·5%) of 402 with semaglutide 1·0 mg, and 138 (34·3%) of 402 with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In adults with overweight or obesity, and type 2 diabetes, semaglutide 2·4 mg once a week achieved a superior and clinically meaningful decrease in bodyweight compared with placebo. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Impact of patient characteristics on efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide: SUSTAIN 7 post hoc analyses.

OBJECTIVE: In SUSTAIN 7, once-weekly semaglutide demonstrated superior glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight (BW) reductions versus once-weekly dulaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This post hoc analysis investigated the impact of clinically relevant subject characteristics on treatment effects of semaglutide versus dulaglutide. DESIGN: Analyses by baseline age (<65, ≥65 years), sex (male, female), diabetes duration (≤5, >5-10, >10 years), HbA1c (≤7.5, >7.5-8.5, >8.5% (≤58, >58-69, >69 mmol/mol)) and body mass index (BMI) (<30, 30-<35, ≥35 kg/m2). SETTING: 194 sites; 16 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects with T2D (n=1199) exposed to treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Semaglutide 0.5 mg versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg (low-dose comparison); semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg (high-dose comparison), all subcutaneously once weekly. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in HbA1c (primary endpoint) and BW (confirmatory secondary endpoint) from baseline to week 40; proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c targets (<7%, ≤6.5% (<53, ≤48 mmol/mol)) and weight-loss responses (≥5%, ≥10%) at week 40; and safety. RESULTS: HbA1c and BW reductions (estimated treatment difference ranges: -0.22 to -0.70%-point; -1.76 to -3.84 kg) and proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c targets and weight-loss responses were statistically significantly greater for the majority of comparisons of semaglutide versus dulaglutide within each subgroup category and, excepting glycaemic control within the low-dose comparison in HbA1c subgroups, this was irrespective of subgroup or dose comparison. Gastrointestinal adverse events, the most common with both treatments, were reported by more women than men and, with semaglutide, decreased with increasing BMI. CONCLUSIONS: Consistently greater improvements in HbA1c and BW with semaglutide versus dulaglutide, regardless of age, sex, diabetes duration, glycaemic control and BMI, support the efficacy of semaglutide across the continuum of care in a heterogeneous population with T2D. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02648204.

SGLT2 Inhibitors: Slowing of Chronic Kidney Disease Progression in Type 2 Diabetes.

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a topic of increasing concern among clinicians involved in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). It is a progressive and costly complication associated with increased risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) and renal outcomes and mortality. Ongoing monitoring of the estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) rate alongside the urine albumin:creatinine ratio (ACR) is recommended during regular T2DM reviews to enable a prompt DKD diagnosis or to assess disease progression, providing an understanding of adverse risk for each individual. Many people with DKD will progress to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT), typically haemodialysis or kidney transplantation. A range of lifestyle and pharmacological interventions is recommended to help lower CV risk, slow the advancement of DKD and prevent or delay the need for RRT. Emerging evidence concerning sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) agents suggests a role for these medicines in slowing eGFR decline, enabling regression of albuminuria and reducing progression to ESKD. Improvements in renal end points observed in SGLT2i CV outcome trials (CVOTs) highlighted the possible impact of these agents in the management of DKD. Data from the canagliflozin CREDENCE trial (Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation) have since demonstrated the effectiveness of this medicine in reducing the risk of kidney failure and CV events in a population comprising individuals with T2DM and renal disease. CREDENCE was the first SGLT2i study to examine renal outcomes as the primary end point. Real-world studies have reaffirmed these outcomes in routine clinical practice. This article summarises the evidence regarding the use of SGLT2i medicines in slowing the progression of DKD and examines the possible mechanisms underpinning the renoprotective effects of these agents. The relevant national and international guidance for monitoring and treatment of DKD is also highlighted to help clinicians working to support this vulnerable group.

Low cholesterol syndrome and drug development.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Low cholesterol syndromes were considered curiosities. The present article reviews some hypolipidaemic disorders and the drugs developed from the insights they provided. RECENT FINDINGS: Abetalipopoproteinaemia and hypobetalipoproteinaemia are associated with low cholesterol concentrations and caused by mutations in apolipoprotein (apo) B or microsomal transfer protein. This led to the development of mipomersen and lomitapide which are used to treat homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. Mutations in proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin-9 (PCSK9) can cause either high or low cholesterol. Loss of function PCSK9 mutations prompted the development of antibody therapies to PCSK9 which are now widely used to treat hypercholesterolaemia. Mutations in apolipoprotein C-3 and angiopoietin-like protein 3 (ANGPTL3) cause hypolipoproteinaemia and reduced triglycerides. Antisense therapies to apolipoprotein C-3 and antibodies to ANGPTL3 are in development to treat familial chylomicronaemia syndrome. Activating mutations in apoA-1 result in hyper-functioning high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and suggest that modifying HDL turnover may reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. SUMMARY: Orphan lipid disorders have provided insights into mechanisms involved in lowering cholesterol levels and the potential safety and efficacy of interventional processes. They have been not only enabled development of drugs to treat rare lipid disorders but also those finding wider use in general lowering of CVD risk.

A Retrospective Observational Study to Determine Baseline Characteristics and Early Prescribing Patterns for Patients Receiving Alirocumab in UK Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Alirocumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) and has been previously shown, in the phase III ODYSSEY clinical trial program, to provide significant lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and reduction in risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. However, real-world evidence to date is limited. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to describe baseline characteristics, clinical history, and prior lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) use of patients initiated on alirocumab in UK clinical practice following publication of health technology appraisal (HTA) body recommendations. Secondary objectives included description of alirocumab use and lipid parameter outcomes over a 4-month follow-up period. METHODS: In this retrospective, single-arm, observational, multicenter study, data were collected for 150 patients initiated on alirocumab. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation; SD) age of patients was 61.4 (10.5) years and baseline median (interquartile range; IQR) LDL-C level was 4.8 (4.2-5.8) mmol/l. Alirocumab use occurred predominantly in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) (n = 100/150, 66%) and those with statin intolerance (n = 123/150, 82%). Most patients started on alirocumab 75 mg (n = 108/150 [72%]) and 35 (23.3%) were up-titrated to 150 mg. Clinically significant reductions in atherogenic lipid parameters were observed with alirocumab, including LDL-C (median [IQR] change from baseline, - 53.6% [- 62.9 to - 34.9], P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the unmet need for additional LLT in patients with uncontrolled hyperlipidemia and demonstrates the clinical utility of alirocumab in early real-world practice, where dosing flexibility is an important attribute of this therapeutic option.

HEART UK consensus statement on Lipoprotein(a): A call to action.

Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), is a modified atherogenic low-density lipoprotein particle that contains apolipoprotein(a). Its levels are highly heritable and variable in the population. This consensus statement by HEART UK is based on the evidence that Lp(a) is an independent cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor, provides recommendations for its measurement in clinical practice and reviews current and emerging therapeutic strategies to reduce CVD risk. Ten statements summarise the most salient points for practitioners and patients with high Lp(a). HEART UK recommends that Lp(a) is measured in adults as follows: 1) those with a personal or family history of premature atherosclerotic CVD; 2) those with first-degree relatives who have Lp(a) levels >200 nmol/l; 3) patients with familial hypercholesterolemia; 4) patients with calcific aortic valve stenosis and 5) those with borderline (but <15%) 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event. The management of patients with raised Lp(a) levels should include: 1) reducing overall atherosclerotic risk; 2) controlling dyslipidemia with a desirable non-HDL-cholesterol level of <100 mg/dl (2.5 mmol/l) and 3) consideration of lipoprotein apheresis.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus daily canagliflozin as add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 8): a double-blind, phase 3b, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines for management of type 2 diabetes recommend a patient-centred approach to guide the choice of pharmacological agents. Although glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are increasingly used as second-line agents, direct comparisons between these treatments are insufficient. In the SUSTAIN 8 trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of semaglutide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) with canagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor) in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This was a double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3b, randomised controlled trial done at 111 centres in 11 countries. Eligible patients were at least 18 years old and had uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (HbA1c 7·0-10·5% [53-91 mmol/mol]) on stable daily metformin therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of an interactive web response system to subcutaneous semaglutide 1·0 mg once weekly or oral canagliflozin 300 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c, and the confirmatory secondary endpoint was change from baseline in bodyweight, both at week 52. The primary analysis population included all randomly assigned patients, using on-treatment data collected before initiation of rescue medication. The safety analysis was done on a population that included all patients exposed to at least one dose of trial product. The trial was powered for HbA1c and bodyweight superiority under reasonable assumptions. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03136484. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2017, and Nov 16, 2018, 788 patients were randomly assigned to semaglutide 1·0 mg (394 patients) or canagliflozin 300 mg (394 patients). 739 patients completed the trial (367 in the semaglutide group and 372 in the canagliflozin group). From overall baseline mean, patients receiving semaglutide had significantly greater reductions in HbA1c and bodyweight than those receiving canagliflozin (HbA1c estimated treatment difference [ETD] -0·49 percentage points, 95% CI -0·65 to -0·33; -5·34 mmol/mol, 95% CI -7·10 to -3·57; p<0·0001; and bodyweight ETD -1·06 kg, 95% CI -1·76 to -0·36; p=0·0029). Gastrointestinal disorders, most commonly nausea, were the most frequently reported adverse events with semaglutide, occurring in 184 (47%) of 392 patients; whereas infections and infestations (defined using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, version 21.0), most commonly urinary tract infections, occurred more frequently with canagliflozin, in 136 (35%) of 394 patients. Premature treatment discontinuation because of adverse events occurred in 38 (10%) of 392 patients with semaglutide and in 20 (5%) of 394 patients with canagliflozin. One fatal adverse event confirmed unlikely to be caused by treatment occurred in the semaglutide group. INTERPRETATION: Once-weekly semaglutide 1·0 mg was superior to daily canagliflozin 300 mg in reducing HbA1c and bodyweight in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin therapy. These outcomes might guide treatment intensification choices. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.