Effects of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors by background cardiovascular medications: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To explore whether the beneficial cardiovascular (CV) effect of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors is consistent with or without concurrent use of CV medications in patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure (HF) or chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase up to September 2022 for CV outcomes trials. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for HF. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of CV death, hospitalization for HF, death from any cause, major adverse CV events or renal events, volume depletion and hyperkalaemia. We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We included 12 trials comprising 83 804 patients. SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced the risk of CV death or hospitalization for HF regardless of background use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), b-blockers, diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), or triple combination therapy of either an ACEI/ARB plus b-blocker plus MRA, or an ARNI plus b-blocker plus MRA (HRs ranged from 0.61 to 0.83; P > .1 for each subgroup interaction). Similarly, no subgroup differences were evident for most analyses for the secondary outcomes of CV death, hospitalization for HF, all-cause mortality, major adverse CV or renal events, hyperkalaemia and volume depletion rate. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors seems to be additive to background use of CV medications in a broad population of patients. These findings should be interpreted as hypothesis generating because most of the subgroups analysed were not prespecified.

Adjusting the Use of Glucose-Lowering Agents in the Real-World Clinical Management of People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review.

Despite the availability of new treatment classes, glycaemic control in patients with diabetes remains suboptimal globally. The latter is associated with high risk of premature mortality related to diabetes and its microvascular and macrovascular complications. Practice guidelines typically focus on glycated haemoglobin < 7.0% as a therapeutic goal in type 2 diabetes (T2D). Reducing glycated haemoglobin has been proven to reduce the risk of these complications while early attainment of glycaemic goal can have a legacy effect in later life. Both glucocentric and cardiorenal-centric treatment strategies have complementary effects in reducing the trajectory of cardiorenal diseases. In real-word settings, implementation of practice guidelines developed in the USA and Europe may not be applicable to regions such as Asia, where differences in epidemiology, patient phenotypes, cultures, resource availability, and treatment affordability are important considerations. In the present review, we discuss the need to use a pragmatic, albeit evidence-based approach, to combine glucocentric and cardiorenal risk reduction strategies to improve the outcomes in patients with T2D, with particular relevance to Asia Pacific.

Management of type 2 diabetes with the dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist tirzepatide: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) currently under review for marketing approval. Individual trials have assessed the clinical profile of tirzepatide vs different comparators. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov up until 27 October 2021 for randomised controlled trials with a duration of at least 12 weeks that compared once-weekly tirzepatide 5, 10 or 15 mg with placebo or other glucose-lowering drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes irrespective of their background glucose-lowering treatment. The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline. Secondary efficacy outcomes included change in body weight, proportion of individuals reaching the HbA1c target of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%), ≤48 mmol/mol (≤6.5%) or <39 mmol/mol (<5.7%), and proportion of individuals with body weight loss of at least 5%, 10% or 15%. Safety outcomes included hypoglycaemia, gastrointestinal adverse events, treatment discontinuation due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and mortality. We used version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials to assess risk of bias for the primary outcome. RESULTS: Seven trials (6609 participants) were included. A dose-dependent superiority in lowering HbA1c was evident with all three tirzepatide doses vs all comparators, with mean differences ranging from -17.71 mmol/mol (-1.62%) to -22.35 mmol/mol (-2.06%) vs placebo, -3.22 mmol/mol (-0.29%) to -10.06 mmol/mol (-0.92%) vs GLP-1 RAs, and -7.66 mmol/mol (-0.70%) to -12.02 mmol/mol (-1.09%) vs basal insulin regimens. Tirzepatide was more efficacious in reducing body weight; reductions vs GLP-1 RAs ranged from 1.68 kg with tirzepatide 5 mg to 7.16 kg with tirzepatide 15 mg. Incidence of hypoglycaemia with tirzepatide was similar vs placebo and lower vs basal insulin. Nausea was more frequent with tirzepatide vs placebo, especially with tirzepatide 15 mg (OR 5.60 [95% CI 3.12, 10.06]), associated with higher incidence of vomiting (OR 5.50 [95% CI 2.40, 12.59]) and diarrhoea (OR 3.31 [95% CI 1.40, 7.85]). Odds of gastrointestinal events were similar between tirzepatide and GLP-1 RAs, except for diarrhoea with tirzepatide 10 mg (OR 1.51 [95% CI 1.07, 2.15]). Tirzepatide 15 mg led to higher discontinuation rate of study medication due to adverse events regardless of comparator, while all tirzepatide doses were safe in terms of serious adverse events and mortality. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: A dose-dependent superiority on glycaemic efficacy and body weight reduction was evident with tirzepatide vs placebo, GLP-1 RAs and basal insulin. Tirzepatide did not increase the odds of hypoglycaemia but was associated with increased incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events. Study limitations include presence of statistical heterogeneity in the meta-analyses for change in HbA1c and body weight, assessment of risk of bias solely for the primary outcome, and generalisation of findings mainly to individuals who are overweight or obese and already on metformin-based background therapy. PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021283449.

Sotagliflozin for patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of sotagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature sources up to August 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared sotagliflozin with placebo or other antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes. Our primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline. We additionally assessed three secondary efficacy and 15 safety outcomes. We synthesized data using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (ORs), along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs comprising 16 411 subjects in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, sotagliflozin reduced HbA1c (WMD -0.42%, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.29), body weight (WMD -1.33 kg, 95% CI -1.57 to -1.09), and systolic blood pressure (WMD -2.44 mmHg, 95% CI -2.81 to -2.07). No difference was evident against other active comparators. Sotagliflozin reduced myocardial infarction (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.97) and heart failure (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79) compared with placebo, and had a neutral effect on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke. Treatment with sotagliflozin was safe regarding the incidence of serious adverse events, hypoglycaemia, and diabetic ketoacidosis. Nevertheless, it was associated with an increased incidence of diarrhoea, genital infections, and volume depletion events. CONCLUSIONS: Sotagliflozin reduces blood glucose, body weight, and systolic blood pressure, and demonstrates a beneficial effect on heart failure and myocardial infarction. Its overall safety profile is comparable with other sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors.

Effects of canagliflozin on myocardial infarction: a post hoc analysis of the CANVAS programme and CREDENCE trial.

AIMS: Given the benefits of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibition (SGLT2i) in protecting against heart failure in diabetic patients, we sought to explore the potential impact of SGLT2i on the clinical features of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) through a post hoc analysis of CANVAS Programme and CREDENCE trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Individuals with type 2 diabetes and history or high risk of cardiovascular disease (CANVAS Programme) or type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CREDENCE) were included. The intervention was canagliflozin 100 or 300 mg (combined in the analysis) or placebo. MI events were adjudicated as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI, and type 1 MI or type 2 MI. A total of 421 first MI events in the CANVAS Programme and 178 first MI events in the CREDENCE trial were recorded (83 fatal, 128 STEMI, 431 non-STEMI, and 40 unknown). No benefit of canagliflozin compared with placebo on time to first MI event was observed [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75, 1.05]. Canagliflozin was associated with lower risk for non-STEMI (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.65, 0.95) but suggested a possible increase in STEMI (HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.06, 2.27), with no difference in risk of type 1 or type 2 MI. There was no change in fatal MI (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.78, 1.93). CONCLUSION: Canagliflozin was not associated with a reduction in overall MI in the pooled CANVAS Programme and CREDENCE trial population. The possible differential effect on STEMI and Non-STEMI observed in the CANVAS cohort warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01032629, NCT01989754, and NCT02065791.

Reasons for hospitalizations in patients with type 2 diabetes in the CANVAS programme: A secondary analysis.

AIM: To determine the reasons for hospitalizations in the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) programme and the effects of the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor canagliflozin on hospitalization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A secondary analysis was performed on the CANVAS programme that included 10 142 participants with type 2 diabetes randomized to canagliflozin or placebo. The primary outcome was the rate of total (first plus all recurrent) all-cause hospitalizations (ACH). Secondary outcomes were total hospitalizations categorized by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities hierarchy at the system organ class level, reported by investigators at each centre. Outcomes were assessed using negative binomial models. RESULTS: Of the 7115 hospitalizations reported, the most common reasons were cardiac disorders (23.7%), infections and infestations (15.0%), and nervous system disorders (9.0%). The rate of total ACH was lower in the canagliflozin group (n = 5795) compared with the placebo group (n = 4347): 197.9 versus 215.8 participants per 1000 patient-years, respectively (rate ratio [RR] 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86, 0.98). Canagliflozin reduced the rate of total hospitalizations because of cardiac disorders (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.75, 0.88). There was no significant difference between the canagliflozin and placebo groups in the rates of total hospitalizations because of infections and infestations (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.86, 1.02) or nervous system disorders (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.88, 1.05). CONCLUSIONS: In the CANVAS programme, the most common reasons for hospitalization were cardiac disorders, infections and infestations, and nervous system disorders. Canagliflozin, compared with placebo, reduced the rate of total ACH.

Polygenic risk scores predict diabetes complications and their response to intensive blood pressure and glucose control.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Type 2 diabetes increases the risk of cardiovascular and renal complications, but early risk prediction could lead to timely intervention and better outcomes. Genetic information can be used to enable early detection of risk. METHODS: We developed a multi-polygenic risk score (multiPRS) that combines ten weighted PRSs (10 wPRS) composed of 598 SNPs associated with main risk factors and outcomes of type 2 diabetes, derived from summary statistics data of genome-wide association studies. The 10 wPRS, first principal component of ethnicity, sex, age at onset and diabetes duration were included into one logistic regression model to predict micro- and macrovascular outcomes in 4098 participants in the ADVANCE study and 17,604 individuals with type 2 diabetes in the UK Biobank study. RESULTS: The model showed a similar predictive performance for cardiovascular and renal complications in different cohorts. It identified the top 30% of ADVANCE participants with a mean of 3.1-fold increased risk of major micro- and macrovascular events (p = 6.3 × 10-21 and p = 9.6 × 10-31, respectively) and a 4.4-fold (p = 6.8 × 10-33) higher risk of cardiovascular death. While in ADVANCE overall, combined intensive blood pressure and glucose control decreased cardiovascular death by 24%, the model identified a high-risk group in whom it decreased the mortality rate by 47%, and a low-risk group in whom it had no discernible effect. High-risk individuals had the greatest absolute risk reduction with a number needed to treat of 12 to prevent one cardiovascular death over 5 years. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: This novel multiPRS model stratified individuals with type 2 diabetes according to risk of complications and helped to target earlier those who would receive greater benefit from intensive therapy.

Ultra-rapid-acting insulins for adults with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel, ultra-rapid-acting insulins aspart and lispro in adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Our primary outcome was change in HbA1c from baseline. We additionally assessed eight efficacy and six safety endpoints. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We additionally assessed statistical heterogeneity among studies with the I2 statistic, considering values greater than 60% as indicative of substantial heterogeneity. Nine studies comprising 5931 patients were included in the systematic review; eight active-controlled studies could be synthesized in terms of a meta-analysis. Treatment with ultra-rapid-acting insulins had a similar effect on change in HbA1c compared with rapid-acting insulins (WMD -0.02%, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.05, I2  = 61% for patients with type 1 diabetes and -0.02%, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04, I2  = 19% for patients with type 2 diabetes). Similarly, no difference was evident in terms of change in fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose, body weight, basal or bolus insulin dose, incidence of serious adverse events and hypoglycaemia. Compared with rapid-acting insulins, ultra-rapid-acting insulins reduced 1- and 2-hour postprandial glucose (PPG) increment based on a liquid meal test, both in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (WMD -0.94 mmol/L, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.72, I2  = 0% and -0.56 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.32, I2  = 0%, respectively, for change in 1-hour PPG increment). In conclusion, ultra-rapid-acting insulins were as efficacious and safe as rapid-acting insulins, showing a favourable effect solely on PPG control.

Comparative efficacy of glucose-lowering medications on body weight and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: To compare the effects of glucose-lowering drugs on body weight and blood pressure in adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature sources until 29 September 2020 for randomized controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration assessing the effects of glucose-lowering drugs on body weight and blood pressure in adults with type 2 diabetes. We performed frequentist network meta-analyses and calculated weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals combining trial arms of different approved doses of a given intervention into a single group. We evaluated the confidence in pooled estimates using the CINeMA (Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis) framework. RESULTS: In total, 424 trials (276 336 patients) assessing 21 antidiabetic medications from nine drug classes were included. Subcutaneous semaglutide was the most efficacious in reducing body weight followed by oral semaglutide, exenatide twice-daily, liraglutide, and the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors empagliflozin, canagliflozin, dapagliflozin and ertugliflozin. The same agents also conferred the greatest reductions in systolic blood pressure. Metformin had a modest effect in reducing body weight and systolic blood pressure. Diastolic blood pressure was reduced with the SGLT-2 inhibitors pioglitazone, exenatide twice-daily and semaglutide. In subgroup analyses of trials with over 52 weeks' duration, semaglutide and SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced both body weight and systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide and SGLT-2 inhibitors conferred reductions both in body weight and blood pressure that were sustainable for over 1 year of treatment. These agents may be preferable treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes who are overweight/obese and/or hypertensive.

GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors for older people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To assess the cardiovascular effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in older people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched up to November 2020 for cardiovascular outcomes trials with GLP-1 RAs or SGLT2 inhibitors that reported results for older patients with type 2 diabetes. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for different age subgroup categories. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies (93,502 patients) were included. Consistent with their effect in the overall population, in patients ≥65 years, GLP-1 RAs reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.92), cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. In the same age subgroup, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced MACE (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) but had a neutral effect on its components. They also reduced heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.76), an effect that was not evident in patients <65 years, and the composite renal endpoint (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.77). Meta-analyses for patients ≥75 years yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with diabetes, GLP-1 RAs reduced MACE and its components. SGLT2 inhibitors reduced MACE, and heart failure and renal outcomes.

Relative and Absolute Risk Reductions in Cardiovascular and Kidney Outcomes With Canagliflozin Across KDIGO Risk Categories: Findings From the CANVAS Program.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Canagliflozin reduces the risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to assess the relative and absolute effects of canagliflozin on clinical outcomes across different KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) risk categories based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio. STUDY DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program. SETTINGS & PARTICIPANTS: The CANVAS Program randomly assigned 10,142 participants with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk and with eGFR≥30mL/min/1.73m2 to treatment with canagliflozin or placebo. INTERVENTION(S): Canagliflozin or matching placebo. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, with a set of other cardiovascular and kidney prespecified outcomes. RESULTS: Of 10,142 participants, 10,031 (98.9%) had available baseline eGFR and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio data. The proportion of participants in low-, moderate-, high-, and very high-risk KDIGO categories was 58.6%, 25.8%, 10.6%, and 5.0%, respectively. The relative effect of canagliflozin on the primary outcome (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.97) was consistent across KDIGO risk categories (P trend=0.2), with similar results for other cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. Absolute reductions in the primary outcome were greater within higher KDIGO risk categories (P trend=0.03) with a similar pattern of effect for the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (P trend=0.06) and for chronic eGFR slope (P trend = 0.04). LIMITATIONS: Predominantly a low kidney risk population, relatively few participants in higher KDIGO risk categories, and exclusion of individuals with eGFR<30mL/min/1.73m2. CONCLUSIONS: Although the relative effects of canagliflozin are similar across KDIGO risk categories, absolute risk reductions are likely greater for individuals at higher KDIGO risk. The KDIGO classification system may be able to identify individuals who might derive greater benefits for end-organ protection from treatment with canagliflozin. FUNDING: This post hoc analysis was not specifically funded. The original CANVAS Program trials were funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC and were conducted as a collaboration between the funder, an academic steering committee, and an academic research organization, George Clinical. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The original trials of the CANVAS Program were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study numbers NCT01032629 and NCT01989754.

Early combination therapy delayed treatment escalation in newly diagnosed young-onset type 2 diabetes: A subanalysis of the VERIFY study.

We analysed glycaemic durability (sustained glycaemic control) with early combination therapy (metformin plus vildagliptin) versus metformin monotherapy, among patients with type 2 diabetes diagnosed before (young-onset [YOD]) and after (late-onset [LOD]) the age of 40 years, enrolled in the VERIFY trial. The primary endpoint was time to initial treatment failure (TF), defined as HbA1c of 7.0% or higher at two consecutive scheduled visits after randomization. The time to secondary TF was assessed when both groups were receiving and failing on the combination. A total of 186 (9.3%) patients had YOD and 1815 (90.7%) had LOD with a mean age difference of 20.4 years. Compared with metformin monotherapy, early combination reduced the risk of time to initial TF for both YOD (48%, P < .0006) and LOD (46%, P < .0001). With early combination, risk for time to secondary TF was reduced by 48% (P < .0035) in YOD and 24% (P < .0009) in LOD. Both treatment approaches were well tolerated with no unexpected safety concerns. In treatment-naïve patients with YOD (HbA1c 6.5%-7.5%), an early combination strategy improved attainment of the glycaemic target with durability and delayed treatment escalation compared with initial metformin monotherapy.

Comparative efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering drugs as adjunctive therapy for adults with type 1 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering drugs used as an adjunct to insulin therapy in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 24 January 2020 for randomized controlled trials. Our primary outcome was change in HbA1c. We additionally assessed eight efficacy and six safety secondary endpoints. We performed random effects frequentist network meta-analysis to estimate mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs), alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias and evaluated confidence in the evidence for the primary outcome. RESULTS: We included 58 trials comprising 13 216 participants. Overall, sodium-glucose co-transporter (SGLT) inhibitors, liraglutide, glibenclamide, acarbose and metformin reduced HbA1c compared with placebo (MDs ranging from -0.46% [95% CI -0.64% to -0.29%] for empagliflozin to -0.20% [-0.35% to -0.06%] for metformin). SGLT inhibitors, exenatide daily, liraglutide and metformin reduced body weight and total daily insulin dose, while liraglutide and SGLT inhibitors reduced blood pressure. Diabetic ketoacidosis and genital infections were more frequent with SGLT inhibitors, while exenatide, liraglutide, pramlintide and metformin increased the incidence of nausea. No drug increased the incidence of severe hypoglycaemia. Confidence in evidence was mainly moderate to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Specific drugs may improve glycaemic control and reduce body weight, blood pressure and total daily insulin dose in patients with type 1 diabetes. However, low quality of evidence and an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis, genital infections or gastrointestinal adverse events should be taken into consideration by healthcare providers and patients. Future long-term trials are needed to clarify their benefit-to-risk profile and elucidate their role in clinical practice.

An exploration of the heterogeneity in effects of SGLT2 inhibition on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS Program, DECLARE-TIMI 58, and CREDENCE trials.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale outcome trials of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes have identified consistent effects on major adverse cardiovascular events, heart failure, and progression of kidney disease. However, the magnitude of effects on cardiovascular and all-cause death appeared to vary between some of the studies. METHODS: We explored the impact of differences in trial methodologies, participant characteristics, types of deaths, follow-up duration, effects on intermediate markers of risk, and drug selectivity for SGLT2 on the magnitude of the protective effect against fatal events achieved in the 4 trials. RESULTS: The trial populations differed substantively in the proportions with baseline atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease history (99.2% in EMPA-REG OUTCOME to 40.6% in DECLARE-TIMI 58), and macroalbuminuria (88.0% in CREDENCE to 7.6% in the CANVAS Program). Meta-regression analyses identified no clear effect of these (both P > 0.09) or other participant characteristics on mortality benefits (all P > 0.55). Other differences between the trials (duration, selectivity of the SGLT2 inhibitor, or effects on intermediate markers of risk) also did not explain the heterogeneity in effects on mortality observed (all P > 0.30). CONCLUSION: No clear explanation for the statistical evidence of heterogeneity in effects of SGLT2 inhibition on fatal outcomes between the trials could be identified. While the analyses had limited statistical power, these results raise the possibility that the observed variations in treatment effects on fatal outcomes between trials may be at least partly due to chance.

Different eGFR Decline Thresholds and Renal Effects of Canagliflozin: Data from the CANVAS Program.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, clinical trials evaluating effects of a new therapy with creatinine-based renal end points use doubling of serum creatinine (equivalent to a 57% eGFR reduction), requiring large sample sizes. METHODS: To assess whether eGFR declines <57% could detect canagliflozin's effects on renal outcomes, we conducted a post hoc study comparing effects of canagliflozin versus placebo on composite renal outcomes using sustained 57%, 50%, 40%, or 30% eGFR reductions in conjunction with ESKD and renal death. Because canagliflozin causes an acute reversible hemodynamic decline in eGFR, we made estimates using all eGFR values as well as estimates that excluded early measures of eGFR influenced by the acute hemodynamic effect. RESULTS: Among the 10,142 participants, 93 (0.9%), 161 (1.6%), 352 (3.5%), and 800 (7.9%) participants recorded renal outcomes on the basis of 57%, 50%, 40%, or 30% eGFR reduction, respectively, during a mean follow-up of 188 weeks. Compared with a 57% eGFR reduction (risk ratio [RR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.34 to 0.77), the effect sizes were progressively attenuated when using 50% (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.83), 40% (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.86), or 30% (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.93) eGFR reductions. In analyses that controlled for the acute hemodynamic fall in eGFR, effect sizes were comparable, regardless of whether a 57%, 50%, 40%, or 30% eGFR reduction was used. Estimated sample sizes for studies on the basis of lesser eGFR reductions were much reduced by controlling for this early hemodynamic effect. CONCLUSIONS: Declines in eGFR <57% may provide robust estimates of canagliflozin's effects on renal outcomes if the analysis controls for the drug's acute hemodynamic effect. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS), NCT01032629 and CANVAS-R, NCT01989754.

Effects of canagliflozin on initiation of insulin and other antihyperglycaemic agents in the CANVAS Program.

This study compared initiation of insulin and other antihyperglycaemic agents (AHAs) with canagliflozin versus placebo for participants with type 2 diabetes and a history/high risk of cardiovascular disease in the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program. After 1 year, fewer participants treated with canagliflozin versus placebo initiated any AHA (7% vs. 16%), insulin (3% vs. 9%) or any non-insulin AHA (5% vs. 12%) (P < .001 for all); overall AHA initiation rates increased over time but were consistently lower with canagliflozin compared with placebo. During the study, the likelihood of initiating insulin was 2.7 times lower for participants treated with canagliflozin compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.43; P < .001). The time difference between 10% of patients in the canagliflozin and placebo groups being initiated on insulin from the beginning of the trial was about 2 years. Time to initiation of other AHAs, including metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sulphonylureas, was also delayed for canagliflozin versus placebo (P < .001 for each). Compared with placebo, canagliflozin delayed the need for initiation of other AHAs and delayed time to insulin therapy, an outcome that is important to many people with diabetes.

Comparative Effectiveness of Glucose-Lowering Drugs for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several pharmacologic options for type 2 diabetes are available. PURPOSE: To compare benefits and harms of glucose-lowering drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Several databases from inception through 18 December 2019 and ClinicalTrials.gov on 10 April 2020. STUDY SELECTION: English-language randomized trials that had at least 24 weeks of intervention and assessed the effects of glucose-lowering drugs on mortality, glycemic, and vascular outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers extracted data and appraised risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: 453 trials assessing 21 antidiabetic interventions from 9 drug classes were included. Interventions included monotherapies (134 trials), add-on to metformin-based therapies (296 trials), and monotherapies versus add-on to metformin therapies (23 trials). There were no differences between treatments in drug-naive patients at low cardiovascular risk. Insulin regimens and specific glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) added to metformin-based background therapy produced the greatest reductions in hemoglobin A1c level. In patients at low cardiovascular risk receiving metformin-based background treatment (298 trials), there were no clinically meaningful differences between treatments for mortality and vascular outcomes. In patients at increased cardiovascular risk receiving metformin-based background treatment (21 trials), oral semaglutide, empagliflozin, liraglutide, extended-release exenatide, and dapagliflozin reduced all-cause mortality. Oral semaglutide, empagliflozin, and liraglutide also reduced cardiovascular death. Odds of stroke were lower with subcutaneous semaglutide and dulaglutide. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors reduced heart failure hospitalization and end-stage renal disease. Subcutaneous semaglutide and canagliflozin increased diabetic retinopathy and amputation, respectively. LIMITATION: Inconsistent definitions of cardiovascular risk and low-level confidence in some estimates for patients at low cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: In diabetic patients at low cardiovascular risk, no treatment differs from placebo for vascular outcomes. In patients at increased cardiovascular risk receiving metformin-based background therapy, specific GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2 inhibitors have a favorable effect on certain cardiovascular outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes, supported by an unrestricted educational grant from AstraZeneca. (PROSPERO: CRD42019122043).

Prevention and management of COVID-19 among patients with diabetes: an appraisal of the literature.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has emerged as one of the greatest challenges faced by humankind in the recent past. People with diabetes and related comorbidities are at increased risk of its complications and of COVID-19-related death. Older age, multi-morbidity, hyperglycaemia, cardiac injury and severe inflammatory response are predictors of poor outcome. The complex interplay between COVID-19, diabetes and the effects of related therapies is being explored. Most patients experience a mild illness with COVID-19, while people with diabetes are at increased risk of severe disease. Optimising glycaemic control and adopting measures to prevent disease spread are critical aspects. The management of mild disease is supportive, while very many immunomodulatory and antiviral therapies are being investigated for the treatment of severe disease. Several of these agents have specific considerations for use in people with diabetes. Since mass population lockdowns are considered a key step in controlling disease spread, it follows that, in addition to the direct vulnerability to severe COVID-19, people with diabetes can be affected by limited access to healthcare, insulin, other medications and blood glucose monitoring equipment. Measures to prevent disease spread at the individual and community level are the key to mitigating the rapidly escalating pandemic, while agents for chemoprophylaxis and vaccines are being explored. People with diabetes should be recognised as a vulnerable group for complicated disease and are at risk during times of disturbed social systems. Strategies are needed to safeguard the health of patients with diabetes during the pandemic. This review summarises the current knowledge and perceived challenges for prevention and management of COVID-19 in people with diabetes.