Primary Care Physicians' Knowledge of the Cardiovascular Effects of Diabetes Medications: Findings from an Online Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular (CV) outcomes trial (CVOT) results have led to changes in indications for some glucose-lowering agents, with recommendations based on the presence of comorbidities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand internal medicine (IM) and family medicine (FM) physicians' knowledge of CVOTs and beliefs about type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medications, excluding insulin, for CV disease risk reduction. METHODS: WebMD, LLC, fielded a 23-item online survey from September 18 to 20, 2018, to 47,534 Medscape members (US IM and FM physicians) who were invited to participate via e-mail (quota = 500). RESULTS: Of the 702 physicians who responded, 503 were eligible and completed the survey. Overall, 39% of respondents were not familiar with the 2018 American Diabetes Association treatment recommendations for those with T2DM and atherosclerotic CV disease. Respondents reported they were most familiar with TECOS (42%), LEADER (39%), EMPA-REG OUTCOME (33%), and CANVAS (30%). Many respondents did not know which CVOT showed superiority for major adverse CV events (26%) or CV mortality (31%). When provided with a list of seven treatment priorities, 33% of respondents ranked using T2DM medications with CV benefits as least important. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this 2018 survey suggest that there are knowledge gaps among IM and FM physicians regarding the results from CVOTs, with implications for the treatment of patients with T2DM and CV disease.

Once-Weekly Efpeglenatide Dose-Range Effects on Glycemic Control and Body Weight in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes on Metformin or Drug Naive, Referenced to Liraglutide.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of once-weekly efpeglenatide, a long-acting glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), in early type 2 diabetes (T2D) (drug naive or on metformin monotherapy). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: EXCEED 203 was a 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-ranging study of efpeglenatide once weekly referenced to open-label liraglutide 1.8 mg (exploratory analysis). Participants, ∼90% on metformin monotherapy, were randomized to one of five efpeglenatide doses (0.3, 1, 2, 3, or 4 mg q.w.; n = 181), placebo (n = 37), or liraglutide (≤1.8 mg daily; n = 36). The primary efficacy end point was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 13. RESULTS: From a baseline HbA1c of 7.7-8.0% (61.0-63.9 mmol/mol), all efpeglenatide doses ≥1 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus placebo (placebo-adjusted least squares [LS] mean changes 0.6-1.2%, P < 0.05 for all) to a final HbA1c of 6.3-6.8% (45.4-50.6 mmol/mol); masked efpeglenatide 4 mg was noninferior to open-label liraglutide. Greater proportions treated with efpeglenatide ≥1 mg than placebo achieved HbA1c <7% (61-72% vs. 24%, P < 0.05 for all), and greater reductions in body weight were observed with efpeglenatide 3 and 4 mg versus placebo (placebo-adjusted LS mean differences -1.4 and -2.0 kg, respectively, P < 0.05 for both). Rates of nausea and vomiting were consistent with other GLP-1 RAs and rapidly subsided after the initial 2 weeks. No neutralizing antibodies were detected with efpeglenatide. CONCLUSIONS: Efpeglenatide once weekly led to significant reductions in HbA1c and weight, with a safety profile consistent with the GLP-1 RA class in patients with early T2D mostly on metformin monotherapy.

Post hoc efficacy and safety analysis of insulin glargine/lixisenatide fixed- ratio combination in North American patients compared with the rest of world.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi (titratable fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine (iGlar) and lixisenatide) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) living in North America (NA; USA and Canada) compared with the rest of the world (RoW). Research design and methods: Post hoc analysis included patient-level data from 509 sites/centers across two phase III trials: LixiLan-O (NCT02058147; insulin-naive patients; NA, n=371; RoW, n=796) and LixiLan-L (NCT02058160; inadequately controlled patients on basal insulin; NA, n=196; RoW, n=535). Efficacy outcomes were: change from baseline to Week 30 in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), postprandial glucose (PPG), PPG excursions, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and body weight; proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <42 mmol/mol (<7.0%); proportion of patients achieving composite endpoint: HbA1c <42 mmol/mol (<7.0%), no weight gain or symptomatic hypoglycemia (blood glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L (≤70 mg/dL)). Safety endpoints included incidence of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events. Results: Significantly larger reductions (p≤0.003) in HbA1c from baseline to Week 30 were achieved with iGlarLixi, compared with iGlar or lixisenatide, in NA and RoW patients in LixiLan-O (iGlarLixi vs iGlar: -0.31 and -0.29, respectively; iGlarLixi vs lixisenatide: -0.84 and -0.69, respectively) and in LixiLan-L (iGlarLixi vs iGlar: -0.5 and -0.51, respectively). Documented symptomatic hypoglycemia was similar between NA and RoW patients. iGlarLixi resulted in significant weight benefits versus iGlar (change from baseline -1.58 and -1.29 kg for NA and RoW patients, respectively; p<0.001). GI adverse events were similar for iGlarLixi and iGlar, but significantly higher for lixisenatide. Conclusions: iGlarLixi improved glycemic parameters versus iGlar or lixisenatide alone in both NA and RoW patients, with beneficial weight effects versus iGlar. iGlarLixi treatment responses, hypoglycemia risk and GI adverse events in NA patients were comparable with patients in the RoW. Trial registry: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02058147 and NCT02058160.

Efficacy and safety of lixisenatide as add-on therapy to basal insulin in older adults with type 2 diabetes in the GetGoal-O Study.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide with placebo as add-on therapy to basal insulin (BI) in adults aged ≥70 years with type 2 diabetes (T2D), with or without moderate renal insufficiency. METHODS: This post hoc analysis evaluated data from non-frail patients with T2D inadequately controlled on BI with or without oral antidiabetic drugs (n = 108), randomized to once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg or placebo for 24 weeks (GetGoal-O Study). The primary endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to Week 24. Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in fasting plasma glucose, 2-hour postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), average seven-point self-monitored plasma glucose (SMPG), area under the curve for SMPG, daily BI dose, body weight, proportion of patients achieving HbA1c > 0.5%, and composite endpoints. Safety outcomes included the incidence of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (plasma glucose <60 mg/dL) and gastrointestinal treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Outcomes were also analyzed by the occurrence of moderate renal insufficiency. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, lixisenatide-treated patients had significantly greater reductions in HbA1c, 2-hour PPG, average seven-point SMPG, and body weight. Documented symptomatic hypoglycemia was approximately two-fold higher in patients treated with placebo than lixisenatide (12.7% vs 5.7%). GI TEAEs occurred more frequently in the lixisenatide- than placebo-treated group (34% vs 9.1%). Moderate renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate between ≥30 and <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 ) did not negatively affect lixisenatide efficacy or safety. A greater proportion of patients treated with lixisenatide than placebo achieved composite endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Add-on therapy with lixisenatide in non-frail patients aged ≥70 years with T2D uncontrolled with BI is effective, safe, and well tolerated and should be considered in this population.

Improved glycaemic control and lower hypoglycaemia risk with reduced prior oral antidiabetes drug therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin glargine 300 U/mL.

AIMS: Data from the EDITION 3 randomized study and the Clinformatics claims database were analysed to determine whether insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) could provide insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) with reductions in prior OAD therapy without compromising glycaemic control, and while preserving its known low incidence of hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100). METHODS: Patient-level data from EDITION 3 and de-identified data from the Clinformatics real-world claims database were analysed. RESULTS: At baseline, 70% of patients in EDITION 3 were on a background of ≥2 OADs. Among the 435 and 437 patients who initiated basal insulin with Gla-300 and Gla-100, respectively, at Month 6, 336 (77%) and 338 (77%) were using ≤1 OAD. Adding Gla-300 or Gla-100 similarly allowed for a reduction in background OAD medication in the Clinformatics dataset (N = 6430), such that, at 6 months postbasal insulin initiation, 14% of patients were no longer taking any OADs. In the analysis of the EDITION 3 study, reduction in OAD burden did not compromise glycaemic benefit, and the low incidence of hypoglycaemia associated with Gla-300 compared with Gla-100 was also preserved. Documented symptomatic hypoglycaemia (blood glucose ≤70 mg/dL) occurred in 30.5% vs 41.0% of patients treated with Gla-300 and Gla-100, respectively (P = 0.0442). CONCLUSION: Patients with T2D who initiate basal insulin with Gla-300 could potentially reduce their prior OAD use without compromising glycaemic control and with less hypoglycaemia than with Gla-100.

Lixisenatide Therapy in Older Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled on Their Current Antidiabetic Treatment: The GetGoal-O Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide versus placebo on glycemic control in older patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on their current antidiabetic treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-arm, parallel-group, multicenter trial, patients aged ≥70 years were randomized to receive once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg or placebo before breakfast concomitantly with their existing antidiabetic therapy (including insulin) for 24 weeks. Patients at risk for malnutrition or with moderate to severe cognitive impairment were excluded. The primary end point was absolute change in HbA1c from baseline to week 24. Secondary end points included change from baseline to week 24 in 2-h postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) and body weight. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were randomized. HbA1c decreased substantially with lixisenatide (-0.57% [6.2 mmol/mol]) compared with placebo (+0.06% [0.7 mmol/mol]) from baseline to week 24 (P < 0.0001). Mean reduction in 2-h PPG was significantly greater with lixisenatide (-5.12 mmol/L) than with placebo (-0.07 mmol/L; P < 0.0001). A greater decrease in body weight was observed with lixisenatide (-1.47 kg) versus placebo (-0.16 kg; P < 0.0001). The safety profile of lixisenatide in this older population, including rates of nausea and vomiting, was consistent with that observed in other lixisenatide studies. Hypoglycemia was reported in 17.6% of patients with lixisenatide versus 10.3% with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In nonfrail older patients uncontrolled on their current antidiabetic treatment, lixisenatide was superior to placebo in HbA1c reduction and in targeting postprandial hyperglycemia, with no unexpected safety findings.

A novel option for prandial insulin therapy: inhaled insulin.

Many adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) do not achieve or maintain glycemic targets on oral antidiabetes drugs (OADs) alone and require insulin therapy. Although initiating basal insulin is common when treatment needs to be intensified, individualization of therapy (in line with current guidelines) may lead more health care professionals (HCPs) to add rapid-acting insulin (RAI) to OAD regimens for treatment of postprandial hyperglycemia to achieve glycated hemoglobin (A1C) targets. HCPs and patients are concerned about the burden associated with injections. Inhaled Technosphere® insulin (inhaled TI) - as an alternative to injectable bolus doses of prandial insulin - may increase patient and HCP willingness to intensify therapy and improve compliance with more complex regimens. Clinical studies have shown that inhaled TI is effective and well tolerated as a prandial insulin, and has the potential to improve treatment satisfaction and quality of life in adults with T2D. The favorable pharmacokinetic profile of inhaled TI (i.e., a very rapid onset of action and a short duration of anti-hyperglycemic effect) may reduce the risk of insulin stacking (overlapping effects of RAI injections taken < 4 hours apart) and postprandial hypoglycemia. In this review, we present inhaled TI as an alternative to OADs or injected insulin as adjunctive therapy, for consideration by HCPs striving to achieve glycemic targets for their patients.

Recognizing and minimizing hypoglycemia: The need for individualized care.

Hypoglycemia is a condition known to disrupt many everyday activities and is associated with increased risks of hospitalization, falls, motor vehicle accidents and mortality. Many patients with diabetes have an increased risk of hypoglycemia due to interventions targeting glycemic control. In these patients, hypoglycemia and fear of hypoglycemia may further reduce adherence to glucose-lowering regimens, contributing to the further aggravation of diabetes-related complications. Avoiding hypoglycemia should be one of the principal goals of any treatment strategies employing agents that can induce hypoglycemia in order to prevent the occurrence of associated symptoms and consequences. The education of patients and their families is an important feature of individualized management strategies in order to prevent, mitigate and treat hypoglycemic episodes. Patients with diabetes need to be made aware of how to recognize the signs of hypoglycemia and of the simple, highly effective steps that they can take to self-manage hypoglycemic episodes. Clinicians should be familiar with the risk factors for hypoglycemia, especially the profiles of the different classes of glucose-lowering medications such as the sulfonylureas and insulin. This article aims to review the risk factors for hypoglycemia and its implications for patients and healthcare systems, and provide practical advice for minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia and its consequences.

Empagliflozin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: An overview of safety and efficacy based on Phase 3 trials.

In the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a relatively new class of oral agents inhibits sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), reducing reabsorption of filtered glucose and increasing urinary glucose excretion. Numerous SGLT2 inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of T2DM in adults, most recently empagliflozin, which was approved in Europe and the US in 2014. The Phase 3 program has enrolled >14,000 patients and has assessed the efficacy and safety of empagliflozin as monotherapy and in combination. These studies have demonstrated improvements in glycemic control, and modest reductions in body weight and blood pressure. Empagliflozin was generally well tolerated, with no increased risk of hypoglycemia versus placebo as monotherapy or as add-on therapy, except when given with sulfonylurea. The studies showed an increased risk of urinary tract and genital infections with empagliflozin, although most infections were mild to moderate in intensity. Furthermore, small (but clinically insignificant) increases in hematocrit and lipid levels have been observed for empagliflozin. Due to the mode of action of empagliflozin, care should be exercised when treating patients at risk of volume depletion. The risks and benefits must be weighed for each patient, but the data reviewed herein show promise for empagliflozin as a treatment for patients with T2DM.

A review of cardiovascular outcomes in the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a common and serious complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often linked to the increased morbidity and mortality associated with T2DM. Monitoring and treating risk factors for CVD are important elements of diabetes management. This review aims to examine CV risk in people with relatively early and mild diabetes who are at substantial risk of CVD; it considers the impact of insulin therapy on this risk by focusing on key studies in patients with diabetes. METHODS: A literature search was carried out using PubMed to identify key publications, between 2008 and 2013, related to insulin and its possible effect on CVD. This review examines CV risk in diabetes and the impact of insulin therapy on this risk. RESULTS: Studies have shown that treatment with insulin glargine is associated with marked improvement in the lipid profile of people with T2DM. Intensive insulin therapy has been shown to lower mortality rates in people with diabetes following acute myocardial infarction after 1 year. Retrospective data also indicate that insulin reduces the risk of CVD events, regardless of whether people had comorbidities known to increase CV risk. The prospective ORIGIN (Outcome Reduction with Initial Glargine Intervention) trial found that treatment with insulin glargine had a neutral effect with regard to CV outcomes in people with prediabetes or early diabetes, compared with standard care. CONCLUSIONS: Other ongoing, large-scale studies of insulin therapy should provide further insights into whether or not insulin therapy can influence long-term CV outcomes.

Weight change in patients with type 2 diabetes starting basal insulin therapy: correlates and impact on outcomes.

BACKGROUND: An increase in body weight is a commonly perceived effect of insulin therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus, and this may serve as a barrier to insulin initiation and usage. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the baseline clinical and demographic factors associated with weight gain during insulin glargine therapy, and the implications of weight change on clinical outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of patient-level data from phase 3 or 4 randomized controlled, treat-to-target (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] ≤ 100 mg/dL) trials evaluating basal insulin glargine for ≥ 24 weeks. The Pearson correlation coefficient and Cochran-Armitage trend statistic were used to calculate the existence of a trend between absolute and relative weight change, and relative glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline; likelihood of achieving target HbA1c < 7.0%; change from baseline FPG; insulin dose requirements; incidence of hypoglycemia; and adverse events. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included, encompassing a total of 2140 patients. Patients starting insulin glargine treatment gained a mean ± standard deviation 1.8 ± 3.7 kg (4.0 ± 8.2 lb). Most patients had limited weight change (± 2.5 kg or 5.5 lb). Younger age, higher baseline HbA1c, and higher baseline FPG were predictive of greater weight gain (P < 0.0001). Those who gained more weight experienced the largest decrease from baseline in HbA1c and FPG. More weight gain was associated with higher insulin dose requirements, an increased risk of experiencing either symptomatic or glucose-confirmed (< 70 mg/dL) hypoglycemia, and more adverse events. Older patients (> 65 years) were less likely to gain weight or to experience glucose-confirmed hypoglycemia, but more likely to experience severe hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis of patient-level data, most patients had a stable weight (defined as ± 2.5 kg) after 24 weeks of insulin glargine, and weight gain varied with patient demographics. Therefore, insulin glargine can be used in these patient groups with type 2 diabetes without expectation of significant weight gain.

Comparison of three algorithms for initiation and titration of insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Several titration algorithms can be used to adjust insulin dose and attain blood glucose targets. We compared clinical outcomes using three initiation and titration algorithms for insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); focusing on those receiving both metformin and sulfonylurea (SU) at baseline. METHODS: This was a pooled analysis of patient-level data from prospective, randomized, controlled 24-week trials. Patients received algorithm 1 (1 IU increase once daily, if fasting plasma glucose [FPG] > target), algorithm 2 (2 IU increase every 3 days, if FPG > target), or algorithm 3 (treat-to-target, generally 2-8 IU increase weekly based on 2-day mean FPG levels). Glycemic control, insulin dose, and hypoglycemic events were compared between algorithms. RESULTS: Overall, 1380 patients were included. In patients receiving metformin and SU at baseline, there were no significant differences in glycemic control between algorithms. Weight-adjusted dose was higher for algorithm 2 vs algorithms 1 and 3 (P = 0.0037 and P < 0.0001, respectively), though results were not significantly different when adjusted for reductions in HbA1c (0.36 IU/kg, 0.43 IU/kg, and 0.31 IU/kg for algorithms 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Yearly hypoglycemic event rates (confirmed blood glucose <56 mg/dL) were higher for algorithm 3 than algorithms 1 (P = 0.0003) and 2 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Three algorithms for initiation and titration of insulin glargine in patients with T2DM resulted in similar levels of glycemic control, with lower rates of hypoglycemia for patients treated using simpler algorithms 1 and 2.

Diabetes duration and the efficacy and safety of insulin glargine versus comparator treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of diabetes duration on efficacy and safety in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using insulin glargine versus comparator (oral antidiabetic drugs [OADs], dietary changes, or other insulins). METHODS: Data were pooled from randomized controlled clinical trials conducted in adults with T2DM with at least 24-week treatment with insulin glargine or a comparator, where predefined insulin titration algorithms were utilized to achieve fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations of ≤100 mg/dL. Glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C), FPG, and insulin dose and safety (hypoglycemia) outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the analysis of 2,930 patients. Patients with shorter duration of diabetes were more likely to have greater reductions in A1C compared with those who had longer-duration disease (P<.0001). Disease duration did not affect change in FPG concentrations (P = .9017), but lower weight-adjusted insulin dose was correlated with longer-duration disease (P<.0001). Patients with longer-duration diabetes had increased risks of symptomatic hypoglycemia, confirmed hypoglycemia (self-monitored blood glucose <50 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL), and nocturnal hypoglycemia (all P<.001). No significant relationship was found between severe hypoglycemia and duration of diabetes. However, treatment with insulin glargine lowered A1C values more effectively than comparator treatments with fewer hypoglycemic episodes. CONCLUSION: Patients with shorter-duration T2DM better achieved target A1C levels and had less hypoglycemia than those with longer disease duration. Insulin glargine was associated with reduced A1C and fewer hypoglycemic events than comparators, regardless of disease duration.

Sensor-augmented pump therapy for A1C reduction (STAR 3) study: results from the 6-month continuation phase.

OBJECTIVE To examine the effects of crossing over from optimized multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy to sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy for 6 months, and the effects of 18 months' sustained use of SAP. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The 6-month, single-crossover continuation phase of Sensor-Augmented Pump Therapy for A1C Reduction (STAR 3) provided SAP therapy to 420 subjects who completed the 1-year randomized study. The primary outcome was change in A1C in the crossover group. RESULTS A1C values were initially lower in the continuing-SAP group than in the crossover group (7.4 vs. 8.0%, P < 0.001). A1C values remained reduced in the SAP group. After 3 months on the SAP system, A1C decreased to 7.6% in the crossover group (P < 0.001); this was a significant and sustained decrease among both adults and children (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Switching from optimized MDI to SAP therapy allowed for rapid and safe A1C reductions. Glycemic benefits of SAP therapy persist for at least 18 months.

Overall mortality in diabetes mellitus: where do we stand today?

Life expectancy for a patient with type 2 diabetes remains substantially shorter than an equivalent individual without diabetes, largely because of a greater risk of cardiovascular disease. Diabetes is also associated with an increased incidence of many types of cancer, suggesting that malignancy may also contribute to higher rates of mortality. Hyperglycemia is one of the key risk factors for diabetes-associated macro- and microvascular disease, and as such, intensive glycemic control is associated with improved outcomes for patients, including a reduction in this risk of death from any cause, when initiated early in the disease course. Recent trials in patients with more advanced disease have failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit with intensive glycemic control, although this may reflect their short observation period. Intensive multifactorial therapy, including lifestyle intervention and control of hyperglycemia, hypertension, lipids, thrombosis, and microalbuminuria, is likely to be the best strategy against diabetes-associated macrovascular mortality. However, analysis of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial indicates that there may be a subpopulation of patients who are unable to achieve glycemic targets with intensive therapy and that aggressive intensification of treatment in this group may increase mortality risk. It remains to be determined whether the relationship between diabetes and malignancy is causal or whether they share common risk factors. Current recommendations for a healthy lifestyle based on good diet, physical exercise, and weight management in order to control diabetes-related complications are likely to apply in reducing the risk of many forms of cancer and should be advocated for all patients.

Early and intensive therapy for management of hyperglycemia and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) results in significant morbidity and mortality. Results of recent randomized controlled trials demonstrated the ability of early and intensive therapy to reduce the risk of microvascular complications. However, controversy surrounds the ability of such therapy to reduce the risk for macrovascular complications. OBJECTIVES: This article reviews results from recent clinical trials in patients with T2DM as well as extended follow-up of earlier trials to determine if early, intensive, and individualized therapy aimed at the underlying pathogenesis of the disease could decrease the risk for long-term complications, including cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Information was obtained by a search of the PUBMED and EMBASE databases using the search terms type 2 diabetes mellitus, glycosylated hemoglobin, pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes, glycemic control, early intervention, multifactorial intervention, cardiovascular disease, ß-cell function, and antidiabetes therapy for the period between 1995 and 2010. Articles dealing with outcomes trials, impact of therapy on microvascular and macrovascular complications, effects of therapeutic agents on the pathophysiology of T2DM, and the impact of agents on CV risk factors were then preferentially selected for in-depth review. RESULTS: Large-scale clinical trials in patients with T2DM, although largely negative at 5 years for macrovascular end points, suggested benefit for patients with a shorter duration of T2DM (ie, <10 years) and still supported a treatment strategy of early, intensive, and individualized therapy to prevent long-term complications of the disease. In Steno-2, after 13 years of follow-up, early, intensive, multifactorial therapy was associated with a 56% lower risk of all-cause death (P = 0.02) and a 57% lower risk of death from CVD (P = 0.04). In the 10-year follow-up to the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study, intensive therapy was associated with a significant 15% reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction (P = 0.01) and a significant 13% reduction in the risk of death from any cause (P = 0.007). Therapy should be aimed at correcting underlying pathophysiologic defects, including ß-cell failure and insulin resistance, and should also correct underlying risk factors for CVD whenever possible. CONCLUSIONS: Early and intensive antidiabetes treatment was recommended in patients with T2DM, particularly those with a shorter duration of disease and without a history of CVD. The goal was to safely lower glycosylated hemoglobin to <7%, therefore providing beneficial effects on the risk for complications. Hypoglycemia should be avoided. In addition, less aggressive treatment might be suitable for older patients with longstanding diabetes and a history of CVD events. Clinical trial results also provided support for a second important aspect of individualized treatment for patients with T2DM-multifactorial intervention aimed at controlling CVD risk factors.

Baseline predictors of A1C reduction in adults using sensor-augmented pump therapy or multiple daily injection therapy: the STAR 3 experience.

BACKGROUND: Baseline characteristics from the adult cohort of a randomized controlled trial comparing sensor-augmented pump (SAP) and multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy were analyzed for significant relationships with -0.5% A1C change at 1 year of therapy without incidence of severe hypoglycemia (defined as A1C benefit). METHODS: Baseline characteristics were compared with A1C benefit. Statistically significant predictors were analyzed further to determine appropriate cutpoints of relative A1C benefit. RESULTS: Baseline A1C ≥9.1%, age at randomization ≥36 years, and age at diabetes diagnosis of ≥17 years were associated with a greater SAP benefit relative to MDI than other cutpoints. CONCLUSIONS: People with type 1 diabetes who had a high A1C and who were older at diagnosis and older at randomization experienced the most benefit from SAP therapy.

Consensus report: the current role of self-monitoring of blood glucose in non-insulin-treated type 2 diabetes.

The Coalition for Clinical Research--Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Scientific Board convened a meeting in San Francisco, CA, July 20-21, 2011, to discuss the current practice of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in non-insulin-treated (NIT) type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Twelve physician panel members from academia, practice, and government attended this meeting. These experts came from the United States, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. In addition, three consultants from Australia, Germany, and the United States contributed to the group's final report. This coalition was organized by Diabetes Technology Society. Self-monitoring of blood glucose was studied from eight perspectives related to patients with NIT T2DM: (1) epidemiological studies; (2) randomized controlled trials (RCT)s and meta-analyses; (3) targets, timing, and frequency of SMBG use; (4) incidence and role of SMBG in preventing hypoglycemia with single-drug regimens and combination regimens consisting of antihyperglycemic agents other than secretagogues and insulin; (5) comparison of SMBG with continuous glucose monitoring; (6) technological capabilities and limitations of SMBG; (7) barriers to appropriate use of SMBG; and (8) methods and end points for appropriate future clinical trials. The panel emphasized recent studies, which reflect the current approach for applying this intervention. Among the participants there was consensus that: SMBG is an established practice for patients with NIT T2DM, and to be most effective, it should be performed in a structured format where information obtained from this measurement is used to guide treatment; New, high-quality efficacy data from RCTs have demonstrated efficacy of SMBG in NIT T2DM in trials reported since 2008; Both patients and health care professionals require education on how to respond to the data for SMBG to be effective; and Additional well-defined studies are needed to assess the benefits and costs of SMBG with end points not limited to hemoglobin A1c.

Relationship of insulin dose, A1c lowering, and weight in type 2 diabetes: comparing insulin glargine and insulin detemir.

BACKGROUND: A pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials of individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was conducted to compare dosing and impact of two basal insulin analogs, insulin glargine (glargine) and insulin detemir (detemir), on weight and hemoglobin A1c (A1c). METHODS: Twenty-two studies of at least 20 weeks in duration in individuals with T2DM initiating glargine/detemir were included. Results were combined using a weighted-average method and a bivariate random effect model. Outcomes included changes in weight, A1c, and insulin dose from study start to end. RESULTS: One study was head-to-head comparison of glargine and detemir. Detemir (four studies) was administered once or twice daily, with 50% starting on detemir once daily but needing therapy intensification. Glargine was used once daily in all 22 studies. The Egger test was borderline significant for change in weight over the course of the treatment for glargine (0.29; 90% confidence interval [CI] -0.01, 0.58), and heterogeneity was not observed for detemir (-0.18; 90% CI -0.59, 0.23). Heterogeneity was observed for change in A1c over the course of the treatment (glargine, -1.19, 90% CI -1.74, -0.63; detemir, -2.65, 90% CI -4.86, -0.45). Nonheterogeneity for change in A1c over the course of the treatment was achieved by excluding five studies for glargine and one study for detemir; however, all studies were included in subsequent analyses. In the unadjusted model, glargine and detemir showed similar results for mean A1c change (-1.4% vs. -1.4%), weight gain (2.5 vs. 1.7 kg), and weight/A1c (1.8 vs. 1.2 kg/%). A significantly higher detemir dose was needed to achieve the same A1c change (51.5 vs. 38.8 U/day). CONCLUSIONS: Although absolute weight gain was higher with glargine versus detemir, weight gain per A1c change was similar. A higher detemir dose was required to achieve a similar A1c reduction.

Effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin-pump therapy in type 1 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Recently developed technologies for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus include a variety of pumps and pumps with glucose sensors. METHODS: In this 1-year, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we compared the efficacy of sensor-augmented pump therapy (pump therapy) with that of a regimen of multiple daily insulin injections (injection therapy) in 485 patients (329 adults and 156 children) with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. Patients received recombinant insulin analogues and were supervised by expert clinical teams. The primary end point was the change from the baseline glycated hemoglobin level. RESULTS: At 1 year, the baseline mean glycated hemoglobin level (8.3% in the two study groups) had decreased to 7.5% in the pump-therapy group, as compared with 8.1% in the injection-therapy group (P<0.001). The proportion of patients who reached the glycated hemoglobin target (<7%) was greater in the pump-therapy group than in the injection-therapy group. The rate of severe hypoglycemia in the pump-therapy group (13.31 cases per 100 person-years) did not differ significantly from that in the injection-therapy group (13.48 per 100 person-years, P=0.58). There was no significant weight gain in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In both adults and children with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes, sensor-augmented pump therapy resulted in significant improvement in glycated hemoglobin levels, as compared with injection therapy. A significantly greater proportion of both adults and children in the pump-therapy group than in the injection-therapy group reached the target glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by Medtronic and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00417989.)