Impact of empagliflozin on insulin needs in patients with heart failure and diabetes: An EMPEROR-Pooled analysis.

AIM: To assess the effect of empagliflozin on patients with comorbid heart failure (HF) and diabetes with or without baseline insulin, and to study the impact of empagliflozin on insulin requirements over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of pooled patient-level data from two cardiovascular outcomes trials of empagliflozin in HF (EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials). We undertook a subgroup analysis stratified by baseline insulin use, including all patients with diabetes. The studied endpoints included the primary composite endpoint of first hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death, rate of decline of estimated glomerular filtration rate, composite renal outcome and rates of sustained insulin initiation. RESULTS: Among 4794 patients with diabetes, 1333 (658 in empagliflozin, 675 in placebo) were using insulin at baseline. The treatment effect of empagliflozin on the primary endpoint was consistent irrespective of insulin use [no insulin, hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.86; using insulin, hazard ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-1.00, pinteraction = .49], as was the effect on the rate of decline of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (pinteraction = .75). There was no effect of empagliflozin on the composite renal outcome in patients using or not using insulin (pinteraction = .30). Among patients not using insulin at baseline, those randomized to empagliflozin initiated insulin less frequently throughout the follow-up period compared with those receiving placebo (2.6% vs. 3.8%, odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin exerts a consistent benefit on cardiovascular outcomes and renal function decline, irrespective of baseline insulin use, and reduces the need for sustained insulin initiation in patients with HF and diabetes.

Randomized Trial of a Selective Aldose Reductase Inhibitor in Patients With Diabetic Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Progression to symptomatic heart failure is a complication of type 2 diabetes; heart failure onset in this setting is commonly preceded by deterioration in exercise capacity. OBJECTIVES: The study sought to determine whether AT-001, a highly selective aldose reductase inhibitor, can stabilize exercise capacity among individuals with diabetic cardiomyopathy (DbCM) and reduced peak oxygen uptake (Vo2). METHODS: A total of 691 individuals with DbCM meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized to receive placebo or ascending doses of AT-001 twice daily. Stratification at inclusion included region of enrollment, cardiopulmonary exercise test results, and use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. The primary endpoint was proportional change in peak Vo2 from baseline to 15 months. Subgroup analyses included measures of disease severity and stratification variables. RESULTS: The mean age was 67.5 ± 7.2 years, and 50.4% of participants were women. By 15 months, peak Vo2 fell in the placebo-treated patients by -0.31 mL/kg/min (P = 0.005 compared to baseline), whereas in those receiving high-dose AT-001, peak Vo2 fell by -0.01 mL/kg/min (P = 0.21); the difference in peak Vo2 between placebo and high-dose AT-001 was 0.30 (P = 0.19). In prespecified subgroup analyses among those not receiving sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists at baseline, the difference between peak Vo2 in placebo vs high-dose AT-001 at 15 months was 0.62 mL/kg/min (P = 0.04; interaction P = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with DbCM and impaired exercise capacity, treatment with AT-001 for 15 months did not result in significantly better exercise capacity compared with placebo. (Safety and Efficacy of AT-001 in Patients With Diabetic Cardiomyopathy [ARISE-HF]; NCT04083339).

Consistent glycaemic efficacy and safety of concomitant use of iGlarLixi and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor therapy for type 2 diabetes: A patient-level pooled analysis of three randomised clinical trials.

AIMS: Sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and/or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) with proven cardio- and reno-protective benefits are recommended in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high risk of cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and/or heart failure. This pooled analysis compared efficacy and safety outcomes of iGlarLixi with or without SGLT2is in people with T2D. METHODS: This post hoc analysis evaluated outcomes in participants who were receiving an SGLT2i when initiating iGlarLixi (SGLT2i users) and those who were not (SGLT2i non-users) in a pooled dataset from three trials: LixiLan-G (advancing from a GLP-1 RA), SoliMix and LixiLan ONE CAN (advancing from basal insulin). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were generally similar between 219 users and 746 non-users. Least squares mean changes in HbA1c from baseline to Week 26 were similar for users (-1.2 % [95 % confidence intervals: -1.4 %, -1.1 %]) and non-users (-1.2 % [-1.2 %, -1.1 %]). Changes in body weight, fasting glucose and post-prandial glucose were similar between groups, as were hypoglycaemic events. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled results from three studies of adults with T2D demonstrated that iGlarLixi provided similar clinically meaningful improvements in glycaemic control without increased hypoglycaemia risk, regardless of concomitant use of SGLT2is.

Characterizing diabetic cardiomyopathy: baseline results from the ARISE-HF trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic cardiomyopathy (DbCM) is a form of Stage B heart failure (HF) at high risk for progression to overt disease. Using baseline characteristics of study participants from the Aldose Reductase Inhibition for Stabilization of Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure (ARISE-HF) Trial we sought to characterize clinical characteristics of individuals with findings consistent with DbCM. METHODS: Among study participants meeting inclusion criteria, clinical characteristics, laboratory testing, imaging, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), Physical Activity Scale of the Elderly (PASE) and cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) results were tabulated. Cluster phenogroups were identified. RESULTS: Among 691 study participants (mean age 67.4 years; 50% were female), mean duration of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was 14.5 years. The median (Q1, Q3) N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide and high sensitivity cardiac troponin T were 71 (35, 135) ng/L and 9 [6, 12] ng/L. The most common echocardiographic abnormalities were reduced global longitudinal strain in 25.3% and impaired diastolic relaxation in 17.7%. Despite rather well-preserved KCCQ scores the average PASE score was markedly impaired at 155 accompanied by an average maximal oxygen consumption of 15.7 mL/Kg/minute on CPET. In K-means clustering, 4 phenogroups were identified including a higher-risk group with more advanced age, greater elevation of cardiac biomarkers, and more prevalent evidence for diastolic dysfunction and left ventricular hypertrophy. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline data from the ARISE-HF Trial provide clinical characterization of individuals with T2DM and features of stage B HF, and may help clarify the diagnosis of DbCM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ARISE-HF, NCT04083339.

The Basis for Weekly Insulin Therapy: Evolving Evidence With Insulin Icodec and Insulin Efsitora Alfa.

Basal insulin continues to be a vital part of therapy for many people with diabetes. First attempts to prolong the duration of insulin formulations were through the development of suspensions that required homogenization prior to injection. These insulins, which required once- or twice-daily injections, introduced wide variations in insulin exposure contributing to unpredictable effects on glycemia. Advances over the last 2 decades have resulted in long-acting, soluble basal insulin analogues with prolonged and less variable pharmacokinetic exposure, improving their efficacy and safety, notably by reducing nocturnal hypoglycemia. However, adherence and persistence with once-daily basal insulin treatment remains low for many reasons including hypoglycemia concerns and treatment burden. A soluble basal insulin with a longer and flatter exposure profile could reduce pharmacodynamic variability, potentially reducing hypoglycemia, have similar efficacy to once-daily basal insulins, simplify dosing regimens, and improve treatment adherence. Insulin icodec (Novo Nordisk) and insulin efsitora alfa (basal insulin Fc [BIF], Eli Lilly and Company) are 2 such insulins designed for once-weekly administration, which have the potential to provide a further advance in basal insulin replacement. Icodec and efsitora phase 2 clinical trials, as well as data from the phase 3 icodec program indicate that once-weekly insulins provide comparable glycemic control to once-daily analogues, with a similar risk of hypoglycemia. This manuscript details the technology used in the development of once-weekly basal insulins. It highlights the clinical rationale and potential benefits of these weekly insulins while also discussing the limitations and challenges these molecules could pose in clinical practice.

Hypoglycemia and Cardiovascular Outcomes in the CARMELINA and CAROLINA Trials of Linagliptin: A Secondary Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Previous studies have reported an association between hypoglycemia and cardiovascular (CV) events in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), but it is unclear if this association is causal or identifies a high-risk patient phenotype. Objective: To evaluate the associations between hypoglycemia and CV outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis was a post hoc assessment of the multinational, double-blind CARMELINA (Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin; 2013-2016) and CAROLINA (Cardiovascular Outcome Trial of Linagliptin vs Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes; 2010-2018) randomized clinical trials of the antihyperglycemic drug, linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. Participants were adults with T2D at high CV risk with or without high kidney risk. By design, participants in the CARMELINA trial had longer duration of T2D and had a higher CV risk than participants in the CAROLINA trial. Data analyses were conducted between June 2021 and June 2023. Intervention: Linagliptin or placebo in the CARMELINA trial, and linagliptin or glimepiride in the CAROLINA trial. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome for both trials was CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke (3-point major adverse CV events [3P-MACE]). For the present analyses, hospitalization for heart failure (HF) was added. Hypoglycemia was defined as plasma glucose less than 54 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia (episodes requiring the assistance of another person). Associations between the first hypoglycemic episode and subsequent CV events and between nonfatal CV events (MI, stroke, hospitalization for HF) and subsequent hypoglycemic episodes were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Sensitivity analyses explored the risk of CV events within 60 days after each hypoglycemic episode. Results: In the CARMELINA trial (6979 patients; 4390 males [62.9%]; mean [SD] age, 65.9 [9.1] years), there was an association between hypoglycemia and subsequent 3P-MACE plus hospitalization for HF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.04-1.46) as well as between nonfatal CV events and subsequent hypoglycemia (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83). In the CAROLINA trial (6033 patients; 3619 males (60.0%); mean [SD] age, 64.0 [9.5] years), there was no association between hypoglycemia and subsequent 3P-MACE plus hospitalization for HF (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.76-1.32) and between nonfatal CV events and subsequent hypoglycemia (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.96-2.16). In analyses of CV events occurring within 60 days after hypoglycemia, there was either no association or too few events to analyze. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found bidirectional associations between hypoglycemia and CV outcomes in the CARMELINA trial but no associations in either direction in the CAROLINA trial, challenging the notion that hypoglycemia causes adverse CV events. The findings from the CARMELINA trial suggest that both hypoglycemia and CV events more likely identify patients at high risk for both. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01897532 (CARMELINA) and NCT01243424 (CAROLINA).

Greater time spent with HbA1c less than 7.0% with oral semaglutide versus oral comparators: An exploratory analysis of the PIONEER studies.

AIM: To assess how long participants with type 2 diabetes spent with HbA1c less than 7.0% and how likely they were to maintain this target with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg or oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg or subcutaneous liraglutide 1.8 mg. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analyses used on-treatment data without rescue medication for all randomized participants (semaglutide [approved maintenance doses], n = 1880; comparators [not including placebo], n = 1412). Duration of time with HbA1c less than 7.0% was calculated using an HbA1c time curve. A binary endpoint of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% at weeks 26 (week 24 for PIONEER 7) and 52 of each trial (and week 78 for PIONEER 3) was analysed. RESULTS: Mean duration of time with HbA1c less than 7.0% was greater with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin in PIONEER 3 (27 vs. 22 weeks) and with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin (27-34 vs. 19 vs. 22 weeks, respectively), and similar versus subcutaneous liraglutide. A greater proportion of participants achieved and maintained HbA1c less than 7.0% for more than 75% of the trial with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus oral comparators. The odds of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% at weeks 24/26 and 52/78 were significantly greater with oral semaglutide 14 mg versus oral comparators or subcutaneous liraglutide, and with oral semaglutide 7 mg versus sitagliptin. CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg resulted in greater time spent with HbA1c less than 7.0%, and a greater likelihood of achieving and maintaining HbA1c less than 7.0% versus oral comparators.

Dose-response effects on HbA1c and bodyweight reduction of survodutide, a dual glucagon/GLP-1 receptor agonist, compared with placebo and open-label semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes: a randomised clinical trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the dose-response effects of the subcutaneous glucagon receptor/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor dual agonist survodutide (BI 456906) on HbA1c levels and bodyweight reduction. METHODS: This Phase II, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, conducted in clinical research centres, assessed survodutide in participants aged 18-75 years with type 2 diabetes, an HbA1c level of 53-86 mmol/mol (7.0-10.0%) and a BMI of 25-50 kg/m2 on a background of metformin therapy. Participants were randomised via interactive response technology to receive survodutide (up to 0.3, 0.9, 1.8 or 2.7 mg once weekly [qw; dose group (DG) 1-4, respectively] or 1.2 or 1.8 mg twice weekly [DG 5 and 6, respectively]), placebo or semaglutide (up to 1.0 mg qw). Participants and all those involved in the trial conduct/analysis were blinded; the semaglutide arm was open-label. The primary endpoint was absolute change from baseline in HbA1c after 16 weeks' treatment. The key secondary endpoint was relative change from baseline in bodyweight after 16 weeks' treatment. RESULTS: A total of 413 participants were randomised (DG1, n=50; DG2, n=50; DG3, n=52; DG4, n=50; DG5, n=51; DG6, n=50; semaglutide, n=50; placebo, n=60). The full analysis set comprised 411 treated participants (DG6, n=49; placebo, n=59). Adjusted mean (95% CI) HbA1c decreased from baseline (mean ± SD 64.7±9.2 mmol/mol [8.07±0.84%] after 16 weeks' treatment: DG1 (n=41), -9.92 mmol/mol (-12.27, -7.56; -0.91% [-1.12, -0.69]); DG2 (n=46), -15.95 mmol/mol (-18.27, -13.63; -1.46% [-1.67, -1.25]); DG3 (n=36), -18.72 mmol/mol (-21.15, -16.29; -1.71% [-1.94, -1.49]); DG4 (n=33), -17.01 mmol/mol (-19.59, -14.43; -1.56% [-1.79, -1.32]); DG5 (n=44), -17.84 mmol/mol (-20.18, -15.51; -1.63% [-1.85, -1.42]); DG6 (n=36), -18.38 mmol/mol (-20.90, -15.87; -1.68% [-1.91, -1.45]). The mean reduction in HbA1c was similar with low-dose survodutide (DG2: -15.95 mmol/mol [-1.46%]; n=46) and semaglutide (-16.07 mmol/mol [-1.47%]; n=45). Mean (95% CI) bodyweight decreased dose-dependently up to -8.7% (-10.1, -7.3; DG6, n=37); survodutide ≥1.8 mg qw produced greater bodyweight reductions than semaglutide (-5.3% [-6.6, -4.1]; n=45). Adverse events (AEs) were reported for 77.8% of survodutide-treated participants (mainly gastrointestinal), 52.5% receiving placebo and 52.0% receiving semaglutide. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Survodutide reduced HbA1c levels and bodyweight after 16 weeks' treatment in participants with type 2 diabetes. Dose-related gastrointestinal AEs could be mitigated with slower dose escalations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04153929 and EudraCT 2019-002390-60. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim, Germany.

Advancing type 2 diabetes therapy with iGlarLixi in older people: Pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi in older people (≥65 years) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) advancing or switching from oral agents, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), or basal insulin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of participants aged <65 years and ≥65 years from four LixiLan trials (LixiLan-O, LixiLan-G, LixiLan-L, SoliMix) were evaluated over 26 or 30 weeks. RESULTS: Participants aged <65/≥65 years (n = 1039/n = 497) had a mean baseline body mass index of 31.4 and 30.7 kg/m2 and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration of 66 mmol/mol (8.2%) and 65 mmol/mol (8.1%), respectively. Least squares mean HbA1c change from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) was -14.32 mmol/mol (-1.31%) (95% confidence interval [CI] -14.97, -13.77 [-1.37%, -1.26%]) for those aged <65 years and -13.66 mmol/mol (-1.25%) (95% CI -14.54, -12.79 [-1.33%, -1.17%]) for those aged ≥65 years. At EOT, achievement of HbA1c targets was similar between the group aged <65 years and the group aged ≥65 years: <53 mmol/mol (<7%) (59.0% and 56.5%, respectively), <59 mmol/mol (<7.5%) (75.5% and 73.0%, respectively) and <64 mmol/mol (<8%) (83.8% and 84.1%, respectively). The incidence and event rate of American Diabetes Association Level 1 hypoglycaemia during the studies were also comparable between the two groups: 26.7% and 28.2% and 1.7 and 2.1 events per patient-year for the group aged <65 years and the group aged ≥65 years, respectively. A clinically relevant reduction in HbA1c (>1% from baseline for HbA1c ≥64 mmol/mol [≥8%] or ≥0.5% from baseline for HbA1c <64 mmol/mol [<8%]) without hypoglycaemia was attained by 50.0% and 47.6% of participants aged <65 years and ≥65 years, respectively. Adverse events were similar between the two age groups. CONCLUSIONS: iGlarLixi is a simple, well-tolerated, once-daily alternative for treatment advancement in older people with T2D that provides significant improvements in glycaemic control without increasing hypoglycaemia risk, thus reducing the treatment burden.

Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with varying degrees of kidney disease in high-risk people with type 2 diabetes: An epidemiological analysis of data from the AMPLITUDE-O trial.

AIMS: To estimate the incidence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and a composite kidney outcome across estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) levels, and to determine whether efpeglenatide's effect varies with these indices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AMPLITUDE-O trial data were used to estimate the relationship of eGFR, UACR, and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) category to the hazard of MACE and the kidney composite. Interactions on these outcomes between eGFR and the UACR, and between each of these variables and efpeglenatide were also assessed. RESULTS: Baseline eGFR and UACR were available for 3983 participants (mean age 64.5 years). During a median follow-up of 1.8 years, the hazards of MACE and the kidney composite for the lowest versus highest eGFR third were 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2, 2.2) and 2.3 (95% CI 1.9, 2.8), respectively. The hazards for the highest versus the lowest UACR third were 2.3 (95% CI 1.8, 3.1) and 18.0 (95% CI 12.7, 25.5), respectively, and for the high- versus low-risk KDIGO categories the hazards were 2.4 (95% CI 1.8, 3.1) and 16.0 (95% CI 11.6, 22.0), respectively. eGFR and UACR were independent determinants of both outcomes, but negatively interacted with each other for the kidney outcome. Efpeglenatide's effect on both outcomes did not vary with any kidney disease measure (all interaction p values ≥0.26). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk people with diabetes, eGFR, UACR, and KDIGO category have different relationships to incident cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. The beneficial effect of efpeglenatide on these outcomes is independent of kidney-related risk category.

The cardiovascular effects of novel weight loss therapies.

The prevalence of overweight and obesity has reached pandemic proportions. Obesity is known to increase the risk for Type 2 diabetes and hypertension, as well as the risk for overt cardiovascular (CV) disease, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke. The rising prevalence of obesity may counteract the recent advances in primary and secondary prevention of CV disease. Overweight and obesity are common in patients with CV disease; however, cardiologists face several challenges in managing body weight in this population. Many may not consider obesity as a therapeutic target probably because there were no previous highly effective and safe pharmacologic interventions to consider. In addition, they may not have the expertise or resources to implement lifestyle interventions and may have limited familiarity with obesity pharmacotherapy. Moreover, the long-term CV effects of obesity pharmacotherapy remain uncertain due to limited CV outcome data with weight loss as the primary intervention. Although current CV guidelines recognize the importance of weight loss, they primarily focus on lifestyle modifications, with fewer details on strategies to utilize obesity pharmacotherapy and surgery. However, the recent 2022 American Diabetes Association/European Association for the Study of Diabetes consensus on the management of Type 2 diabetes has moved up weight management to the front of the treatment algorithm, by prioritizing the use of pharmacologic interventions such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, which have potent weight-lowering effects, in addition to glucose-lowering effects. This review appraises the current evidence regarding the CV effects of weight-loss interventions. Considering this evidence, practical guidance is provided to assist cardiologists in developing and implementing treatment plans, which may allow optimal weight management while maximizing CV benefits and minimizing side effects to improve the overall well-being of people with CV disease.

Once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec as part of a basal-bolus regimen in individuals with type 1 diabetes (ONWARDS 6): a phase 3a, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target trial.

BACKGROUND: ONWARDS 6 compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly subcutaneous insulin icodec (icodec) and once-daily insulin degludec (degludec) in adults with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: This 52-week (26-week main phase plus a 26-week safety extension), randomised, open-label, treat-to-target, phase 3a trial was done at 99 sites across 12 countries. Adults with type 1 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] <10·0% [86 mmol/mol]) were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-weekly icodec or once-daily degludec, both in combination with insulin aspart (two or more daily injections). The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26, tested for non-inferiority (0·3 percentage point margin) in all randomly assigned participants. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04848480, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between April 30 and Oct 15, 2021, of 655 participants screened, 582 participants were randomly assigned to icodec (n=290) or degludec (n=292). At week 26, from baseline values of 7·59% (icodec) and 7·63% (degludec), estimated mean changes in HbA1c were -0·47 percentage points and -0·51 percentage points, respectively (estimated treatment difference 0·05 percentage points [95% CI -0·13 to 0·23]), confirming non-inferiority of icodec to degludec (p=0·0065). Overall rate of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia (baseline to week 26) was statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec (19·9 vs 10·4 events per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio 1·9 [95% CI 1·5 to 2·3]; p<0·0001). The rate was also statistically significantly higher with icodec than degludec when evaluated over 57 weeks (52 weeks plus a 5-week follow-up period). 39 serious adverse events were reported in 24 (8%) participants receiving icodec, and 25 serious adverse events were reported in 20 (7%) participants receiving degludec. One participant in the icodec group died; this was judged unlikely to be due to the trial product. INTERPRETATION: In adults with type 1 diabetes, once-weekly icodec showed non-inferiority to once-daily degludec in HbA1c reduction at week 26, with statistically significantly higher rates of combined clinically significant or severe hypoglycaemia. For icodec, time below 3·0 mmol/L (<54 mg/dL) was at the threshold of the internationally recommended target (<1%) during weeks 22-26 and below target during weeks 48-52. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Tirzepatide vs Insulin Lispro Added to Basal Insulin in Type 2 Diabetes: The SURPASS-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Tirzepatide is a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Efficacy and safety of adding tirzepatide vs prandial insulin to treatment in patients with inadequate glycemic control with basal insulin have not been described. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide vs insulin lispro as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, phase 3b clinical trial was conducted at 135 sites in 15 countries (participants enrolled from October 19, 2020, to November 1, 2022) in 1428 adults with type 2 diabetes taking basal insulin. Interventions: Participants were randomized (in a 1:1:1:3 ratio) to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) vs insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine, in HbA1c change from baseline at week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary end points included change in body weight and percentage of participants achieving hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target of less than 7.0%. Results: Among 1428 randomized participants (824 [57.7%] women; mean [SD] age, 58.8 [9.7] years; mean [SD] HbA1c, 8.8% [1.0%]), 1304 (91.3%) completed the trial. At week 52, estimated mean change from baseline in HbA1c with tirzepatide (pooled cohort) was -2.1% vs -1.1% with insulin lispro, resulting in mean HbA1c levels of 6.7% vs 7.7% (estimated treatment difference, -0.98% [95% CI, -1.17% to -0.79%]; P < .001); results met noninferiority criteria and statistical superiority was achieved. Estimated mean change from baseline in body weight was -9.0 kg with tirzepatide and 3.2 kg with insulin lispro (estimated treatment difference, -12.2 kg [95% CI, -13.4 to -10.9]). The percentage of participants reaching HbA1c less than 7.0% was 68% (483 of 716) with tirzepatide and 36% (256 of 708) with insulin lispro (odds ratio, 4.2 [95% CI, 3.2-5.5]). The most common adverse events with tirzepatide were mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea: 14%-26%; diarrhea: 11%-15%; vomiting: 5%-13%). Hypoglycemia event rates (blood glucose level <54 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia) were 0.4 events per patient-year with tirzepatide (pooled) and 4.4 events per patient-year with insulin lispro. Conclusions and Relevance: In people with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin, weekly tirzepatide compared with prandial insulin as an additional treatment with insulin glargine demonstrated reductions in HbA1c and body weight with less hypoglycemia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04537923.

Achieving Normoglycemia With Tirzepatide: Analysis of SURPASS 1-4 Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Tirzepatide is a novel single-molecule glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide/glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, which demonstrated unprecedented improvements in glycemic control and body weight reduction, in the SURPASS phase 3 program. In this exploratory analysis, we aimed to characterize tirzepatide-treated participants who achieved HbA1c <5.7% and evaluate changes in clinical markers associated with long-term cardiometabolic health. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Baseline characteristics and change from baseline to week 40 for several efficacy and safety parameters were analyzed according to HbA1c attainment category (<5.7%, 5.7-6.5%, and >6.5%) using descriptive statistics in participants taking ≥75% of treatment doses, without rescue medication, in the SURPASS 1-4 trials (N = 3,229). Logistic regression models with tirzepatide doses adjusted as a covariate were used to obtain odds ratios and assess the impact of patient characteristics achieving an HbA1c <5.7%. RESULTS: Tirzepatide-treated participants who achieved HbA1c <5.7% were slightly younger, with a shorter duration of diabetes and lower HbA1c value at baseline compared with those who did not achieve HbA1c <5.7%. In addition, they showed greater improvements in HbA1c, body weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, liver enzymes, and lipid parameters without increasing hypoglycemia risk. CONCLUSIONS: Normoglycemia was unprecedently achieved in a significant proportion of participants in the SURPASS clinical program, without increasing hypoglycemia risk, and was associated with an overall improvement in metabolic health.

Baseline Cardiovascular Risk Factor Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Coronary Disease Versus Stroke: Secondary Analysis of Cardiovascular Outcome Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease are at increased risk for recurrent ischemic events. Cardiovascular risk factor control is vital for secondary prevention, but how this compares among individuals with different T2D macrovascular complications is unknown. We aimed to determine if there might be differences in risk factor control in patients with T2D with previous stroke versus coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses were performed on 12 856 patients with T2D with prior history of stroke with or without CAD from 3 diabetes cardiovascular outcome trials: CARMELINA (The Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin), EMPA-REG OUTCOME (Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients), and CAROLINA (The Cardiovascular Outcome Study of Linagliptin vs Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes). Risk factors at baseline assessed included dyslipidemia, hypertension, smoking, and current antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy. Control, respectively, was defined as LDL (low-density lipoprotein)-C <100 mg/dL or statin use, systolic blood pressure <140 and diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, not currently smoking, and use of an antiplatelet/anticoagulant medication. The odds ratio of 3 to 4 (or good) versus 0 to 2 (or suboptimal) risk factors controlled was analyzed by logistic regression models. RESULTS: The odds for good versus suboptimal risk factor control in patients with CAD alone was higher than in those with stroke alone across all 3 trials odds ratios (95% CI): CARMELINA, 2.05 (1.67-2.51), EMPA-REG OUTCOME, 2.50 (2.10-2.99), and CAROLINA, 1.63 (1.21-2.20). The respective odds ratios were lower (and rendered nonsignificant in CAROLINA) when cardiovascular risk factor control in patients with both CAD and stroke were compared with those with stroke alone: CARMELINA, 1.45 (1.13-1.87); EMPA-REG OUTCOME, 1.62 (1.25-2.08); and CAROLINA, 1.16 (0.74-1.83). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary populations of patients with T2D, there was significant discordance in control of cardiovascular risk factors between patients with stroke versus CAD, with the former having less optimal control. The intermediate results in patients with both CAD and stroke suggest that these differences could be related at least in part to clinician factors. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01243424, NCT01131676, NCT01897532.

Glycated Albumin Correlates With Time-in-Range Better Than HbA1c or Fructosamine.

CONTEXT: Intermediate-term glycemic control metrics may represent a viable alternative to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in patients without access to CGM. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to compare the relationship between CGM parameters and glycated albumin (GA), glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and fructosamine for 24 weeks. METHODS: We conducted exploratory comparative analyses of CGM subgroup data from a previously published 24-week prospective study of assay performance in 8 US clinics. Participants included 34 individuals with type 1 (n = 18) and type 2 diabetes (n = 16) undergoing changes to improve glycemic control (n = 22; group 1) or with stable diabetes therapy (n = 12; group 2). Main outcome measures included Pearson correlations between CGM and glycemic indices and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of glycemic index values predictive of time in range (TIR) greater than 70%. RESULTS: At weeks 4 and 8, GA correlations with TIR were higher than HbA1c correlations in group 1. In group 2, GA correlations with TIR were statistically significant, whereas HbA1c correlations were not. In both groups over the first 12 weeks, GA correlations with TIR were higher than fructosamine-TIR correlations. In the ROC analysis, GA predicted a TIR greater than 70% during weeks 2 to 24 (area under the curve >0.80); HbA1c was predictive during weeks 12 to 24. Cutoff values for TIR greater than 70% were 17.5% (sensitivity and specificity, 0.88) for GA and 7.3% (0.86) for HbA1c. CONCLUSION: GA is the most accurate predictor of TIR over 8 weeks compared with other glycemic indices, which may assist in clinical evaluation of changes in treatment where CGM is not possible and it is too early to use HbA1c (NCT02489773).

Oral semaglutide 50 mg taken once per day in adults with overweight or obesity (OASIS 1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy and safety of the oral glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue, semaglutide 50 mg, taken once per day versus placebo for the treatment of overweight or obesity in adults without type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, superiority trial enrolled adults with a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2, or at least 27 kg/m2 with bodyweight-related complications and comorbidities, without type 2 diabetes. The trial was done at 50 outpatient clinics in nine countries across Asia, Europe, and North America. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) via an interactive web-response system to oral semaglutide escalated to 50 mg, or visually matching placebo, once per day for 68 weeks, plus lifestyle intervention. Group assignment was masked for participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes. Coprimary endpoints were the percentage change in bodyweight and whether participants reached a bodyweight reduction of at least 5% at week 68 for oral semaglutide 50 mg versus placebo, assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation or use of other bodyweight-lowering therapies (an intention-to-treat analysis). Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of trial drug. This trial, registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05035095), is now complete. FINDINGS: From Sept 13 to Nov 22, 2021, 709 participants were screened, of whom 667 were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 50 mg (n=334) or placebo (n=333). The estimated mean bodyweight change from baseline to week 68 was -15·1% (SE 0·5) with oral semaglutide 50 mg versus -2·4% (0·5) with placebo (estimated treatment difference -12·7 percentage points, 95% CI -14·2 to -11·3; p<0·0001). More participants reached bodyweight reductions of at least 5% (269 [85%] of 317 vs 76 [26%] of 295; odds ratio [OR] 12·6, 95% CI 8·5 to 18·7; p<0·0001), 10% (220 [69%] vs 35 [12%]; OR 14·7, 9·6 to 22·6), 15% (170 [54%] vs 17 [6%]; OR 17·9, 10·4 to 30·7), and 20% (107 [34%] vs 8 [3%]; OR 18·5, 8·8 to 38·9) at week 68 with oral semaglutide 50 mg versus placebo. Adverse events were more frequent with oral semaglutide 50 mg (307 [92%] of 334) than with placebo (285 [86%] of 333). Gastrointestinal adverse events (mostly mild to moderate) were reported in 268 (80%) participants with oral semaglutide 50 mg and 154 (46%) with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In adults with overweight or obesity without type 2 diabetes, oral semaglutide 50 mg once per day led to a superior and clinically meaningful decrease in bodyweight compared with placebo. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.