Gender differences in cardiovascular risk, treatment, and outcomes: a post hoc analysis from the REWIND trial.

Objectives. To assess whether the use of cardioprotective therapies for type 2 diabetes varies by gender and whether the risk of cardiovascular events is higher in women versus men in the REWIND trial, including an international type 2 diabetes patient population with a wide range of baseline risk. Design. Gender differences in baseline characteristics, cardioprotective therapy, and the achieved clinical targets at baseline and two years were analyzed. Hazards for cardiovascular outcomes (fatal/nonfatal stroke, fatal/nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization), in women versus men were analyzed using two Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for randomized treatment and key baseline characteristics respectively. Time-to-event analyses were performed in subgroups with or without history of cardiovascular disease using Cox proportional hazards models that included gender, subgroup, randomized treatment, and gender-by-subgroup interactions. Results. Of 9901 participants, 46.3% were women. Significantly fewer women than men had a cardiovascular disease history. Although most women met treatment targets for blood pressure (96.7%) and lipids (72.8%), fewer women than men met the target for cardioprotective therapies at baseline and after two years, particularly those with prior cardiovascular disease, who used less renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, statins, and aspirin than men. Despite these differences, women had lower hazards than men for all outcomes except stroke. No significant gender and cardiovascular disease history interactions were identified for cardiovascular outcomes. Conclusions. In REWIND, most women met clinically relevant treatment targets, but in lower proportions than men. Women had a lower risk for all cardiovascular outcomes except stroke. Clinical trials.gov registration number: NCT01394952.

Clinical Outcomes by Albuminuria Status with Dulaglutide versus Insulin Glargine in Participants with Diabetes and CKD: AWARD-7 Exploratory Analysis.

Background: In the AWARD-7 trial of participants with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and moderate-to-severe CKD, dulaglutide (DU) treatment slowed decline in eGFR compared with insulin glargine (IG). Treatment with doses of either DU or IG resulted in similar levels of glycemic control and BP. The aim of this analysis was to determine the risk of clinical event outcomes between treatment groups. Methods: Participants with T2DM and CKD categories 3-4 were randomized (1:1:1) to 0.75 or 1.5 mg DU weekly or IG daily as basal therapy, with titrated insulin lispro, for 1 year. The time to occurrence of the composite outcome of ≥40% eGFR decline, ESKD, or death due to kidney disease was compared using a Cox proportional-hazards model. Results: Patients treated with 1.5 mg DU weekly versus IG daily for 1 year had a lower risk of ≥40% eGFR decline or ESKD events in the overall study population (5% versus 11%; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.97; P=0.04). Most events occurred in the subset of patients with macroalbuminuria, where risk of the composite outcome was substantially lower for 1.5 mg DU versus IG (7% versus 22%; hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.68; P=0.006). No deaths due to kidney disease occurred. Conclusions: Treatment with 1.5 mg DU weekly was associated with a clinically relevant risk reduction of ≥40% eGFR decline or ESKD compared with IG daily, particularly in the macroalbuminuria subgroup of participants with T2DM and moderate-to-severe CKD.

Defining estimands using a mix of strategies to handle intercurrent events in clinical trials.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluation of the efficacy and safety of investigational interventions. If every patient in an RCT were to adhere to the randomized treatment, one could simply analyze the complete data to infer the treatment effect. However, intercurrent events (ICEs) including the use of concomitant medication for unsatisfactory efficacy, treatment discontinuation due to adverse events, or lack of efficacy may lead to interventions that deviate from the original treatment assignment. Therefore, defining the appropriate estimand (the appropriate parameter to be estimated) based on the primary objective of the study is critical prior to determining the statistical analysis method and analyzing the data. The International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E9 (R1), adopted on November 20, 2019, provided five strategies to define the estimand: treatment policy, hypothetical, composite variable, while on treatment, and principal stratum. In this article, we propose an estimand using a mix of strategies in handling ICEs. This estimand is an average of the "null" treatment difference for those with ICEs potentially related to safety and the treatment difference for the other patients if they would complete the assigned treatments. Two examples from clinical trials evaluating antidiabetes treatments are provided to illustrate the estimation of this proposed estimand and to compare it with the estimates for estimands using hypothetical and treatment policy strategies in handling ICEs.

To adjust or not to adjust for baseline when analyzing repeated binary responses? The case of complete data when treatment comparison at study end is of interest.

The benefits of adjusting for baseline covariates are not as straightforward with repeated binary responses as with continuous response variables. Therefore, in this study, we compared different methods for analyzing repeated binary data through simulations when the outcome at the study endpoint is of interest. Methods compared included chi-square, Fisher's exact test, covariate adjusted/unadjusted logistic regression (Adj.logit/Unadj.logit), covariate adjusted/unadjusted generalized estimating equations (Adj.GEE/Unadj.GEE), covariate adjusted/unadjusted generalized linear mixed model (Adj.GLMM/Unadj.GLMM). All these methods preserved the type I error close to the nominal level. Covariate adjusted methods improved power compared with the unadjusted methods because of the increased treatment effect estimates, especially when the correlation between the baseline and outcome was strong, even though there was an apparent increase in standard errors. Results of the Chi-squared test were identical to those for the unadjusted logistic regression. Fisher's exact test was the most conservative test regarding the type I error rate and also with the lowest power. Without missing data, there was no gain in using a repeated measures approach over a simple logistic regression at the final time point. Analysis of results from five phase III diabetes trials of the same compound was consistent with the simulation findings. Therefore, covariate adjusted analysis is recommended for repeated binary data when the study endpoint is of interest.

Efficacy and safety of dulaglutide monotherapy versus metformin in type 2 diabetes in a randomized controlled trial (AWARD-3).

OBJECTIVE: Compare the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with dulaglutide, a once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist, to metformin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes. The primary objective compared dulaglutide 1.5 mg and metformin on change from baseline glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) at 26 weeks. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This 52-week double-blind study randomized patients to subcutaneous dulaglutide 1.5 mg, dulaglutide 0.75 mg, or metformin. Patients (N = 807) had HbA1c ≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/mol) and ≤9.5% (≤80 mmol/mol) with diet and exercise alone or low-dose oral antihyperglycemic medication (OAM) monotherapy; OAMs were discontinued at beginning of lead-in period. RESULTS: At 26 weeks, changes from baseline HbA1c (least squares [LS] mean ± SE) were: dulaglutide 1.5 mg, -0.78 ± 0.06% (-8.5 ± 0.70 mmol/mol); dulaglutide 0.75 mg, -0.71 ± 0.06% (-7.8 ± 0.70 mmol/mol); and metformin, -0.56 ± 0.06% (-6.1 ± 0.70 mmol/mol). Dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg were superior to metformin (LS mean difference): -0.22% (-2.4 mmol/mol) and -0.15% (-1.6 mmol/mol) (one-sided P < 0.025, both comparisons), respectively. Greater percentages reached HbA1c targets <7.0% (<53 mmol/mol) and ≤6.5% (≤48 mmol/mol) with dulaglutide 1.5 and 0.75 mg compared with metformin (P < 0.05, all comparisons). No severe hypoglycemia was reported. Compared with metformin, decrease in weight was similar with dulaglutide 1.5 mg and smaller with dulaglutide 0.75 mg. Over 52 weeks, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting were the most common adverse events; incidences were similar between dulaglutide and metformin. CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide improves glycemic control and is well tolerated as monotherapy in patients with early stage type 2 diabetes.