The role of basal insulins in the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease: A narrative review.

The majority of cases of chronic kidney disease (CKD) worldwide are driven by the presence of type 2 diabetes (T2D), resulting in an increase in CKD rates over the past few decades. The existence of CKD alongside diabetes is associated with increased burden of cardiovascular disease and increased risk of death. Optimal glycaemic control is essential to prevent progression of CKD, but achieving glycaemic targets in people with CKD and diabetes can be challenging because of increased risk of hypoglycaemia and limitations on glucose-lowering therapeutic options. This review considers the challenges in management of T2D in people with impaired kidney function and assesses evidence for use of basal insulin analogues in people with CKD.

iGlarLixi versus basal plus Rapid-Acting insulin in adults with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin therapy: The SoliSimplify Real-World study.

AIM: For people with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin (BI), guidelines recommend several treatment advancement options. This study compared the clinical effectiveness of once-daily iGlarLixi versus a multiple-injection BI + rapid acting insulin (RAI) regimen in adults with T2D advancing from BI therapy in real-world clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic medical records from the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) database were analysed retrospectively using propensity score matching to compare therapy advancement with iGlarLixi or BI + RAI in US adults ≥18 years with T2D on BI who had ≥1 valid glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) value at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up. The primary objective was non-inferiority of iGlarLixi to BI + RAI in HbA1c change from baseline to 6 months (margin 0.3%). RESULTS: Propensity score matching generated cohorts with balanced baseline characteristics (N = 814 in each group). HbA1c reduction from baseline to 6 months with iGlarLixi was non-inferior to BI + RAI [mean difference (95% confidence interval): 0.1 (-0.1, 0.2)%; one-sided p = .0032]. At 6 months, weight gain was significantly lower with iGlarLixi than with BI + RAI [-0.8 (-1.3, -0.2) kg; two-sided p = .0069]. Achievement of HbA1c <7% without hypoglycaemia and weight gain were similar between groups [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.15 (0.81, 1.63); p = .4280]. Hypoglycaemia was low in both groups, probably because of underreporting. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world clinical practice, glycaemic outcomes 6 months after treatment advancement from BI are similar for people with T2D using iGlarLixi versus BI + RAI, with iGlarLixi leading to less weight gain.

Benefits of GLP-1 (Glucagon-Like Peptide 1) Receptor Agonists for Stroke Reduction in Type 2 Diabetes: A Call to Action for Neurologists.

People living with diabetes are at higher risk for stroke and have a poorer prognosis following a stroke event than those without diabetes. Data from cardiovascular outcome trials and meta-analyses indicate that GLP-1RAs (glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists) reduce the risk of stroke in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Accordingly, many guidelines now recommend the addition of GLP-1RAs to ongoing antihyperglycemic regimens to lower the risk of stroke in type 2 diabetes. The current work summarizes evidence supporting the use of GLP-1RAs for stroke reduction in people with type 2 diabetes and offers 2 new resources for neurologists who are considering GLP-1RAs for their patients-a list of frequently asked questions with evidence-based answers on safely initiating and managing GLP-1RAs, and a practical decision-making algorithm to assist in using GLP-1RAs as part of a stroke reduction strategy.

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and the intersection of cardio-renal-metabolic medicine #CaReMe.

Diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are important comorbidities in patients with heart failure (HF) that can complicate the clinical management and have major implications for morbidity and mortality. In addition, the presence of these comorbidities, particularly advanced CKD, is a limitation for the implementation of guideline-directed therapies in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Though clinical trials in patients with HFrEF trials included varying percentages of patients with diabetes and/or CKD, patients with advanced CKD have been excluded in most HF studies. Thus, management recommendations for these patients often have to be extrapolated from subgroup analyses. This article summarizes pathophysiological aspects of the interaction of HFrEF, CKD, and diabetes and addresses clinical aspects for the screening of these comorbidities. Moreover, current treatment options for patients with HFrEF and CKD and/or diabetes are discussed and novel strategies such as the use of the selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist Finerenone are addressed.

The role of icosapent ethyl in cardiovascular risk reduction.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Elevated levels of triglycerides, independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and statin therapy, are associated with heightened cardiovascular risk. RECENT FINDINGS: Mixed omega-3 fatty acid formulations, which contain varying amounts of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), lower triglycerides levels but trial results with omega-3 fatty acids combinations have generally been neutral for cardiovascular outcomes. In contrast, the REDUCE-IT trial with icosapent ethyl (IPE), a highly purified ethyl ester of EPA, demonstrated reduced cardiovascular risk in individuals with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetes with at least one additional risk factor, despite having relatively well controlled LDL-C levels but triglycerides at least 135 mg/dl while on statin therapy. IPE offers an important new avenue for cardiovascular risk management in statin-treated individuals with elevated triglycerides. SUMMARY: This review summarizes the results from outcome trials conducted with omega-3 fatty acids, differentiating between those with combinations of EPA/DHA and those with pure EPA, as well as imaging and preclinical data that help explain the different cardiovascular efficacy observed. A list of frequently asked questions with evidence-based responses is provided to assist our colleagues and their patients in the shared-decision process when considering if IPE is appropriate for cardiovascular risk reduction.

Impact of Living with Stigma in Persons with Type 1 Diabetes: A Patient-Physician Perspective.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by a complete deficiency in insulin due to the destruction of pancreatic beta cells. Globally, T1D accounts for nearly 5-10% of the total diabetes cases. Living with this life-long condition has a significant emotional, psychological, physical, mental, and social impact. Despite extensive research characterizing the underlying physiology of T1D, additional work is needed to address the psychosocial aspects associated with the condition and its effect on the quality of life (QoL) of people living with T1D. One area that warrants further exploration is the stigma-related stereotypes and prejudice of people living with T1D experience in real-life settings. Despite the acknowledgment of stigma for conditions such as obesity, mental illness, and epilepsy, its association with T1D and ensuing psychological distress remains relatively under-investigated. Health-related stigma is a huge barrier to seeking appropriate, timely support for enhanced healthcare management and engagement in such patients. Here, we provide the perspectives of an adult with over 33 years of living with T1D and an expert endocrinologist who details their experience of T1D-related stigma. The self-reported factors explored by the person living with T1D include (but are not limited to) blame, mockery of the condition/person, diabetes-related shame, exclusion, rejection, negative judgments, fear, stereotyping, and discrimination. The lived experience supported by the clinical insights of the endocrinologist highlights the urgent need to decipher the severity, extent, nature, determinants, and consequences of stigma faced by a person living with T1D. Raising societal awareness, increasing education for caregivers, access to counseling for people living with diabetes, and engaging in shared decision-making remain the path forward.

Emotional, Psychological, and Social Well-being Experience of Long-Term Living with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Patient-Psychiatrist-Endocrinologist Perspective.

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a chronic autoimmune disease that impacts blood glucose levels and can also lead to an increased prevalence of psychiatric conditions. Living with T1DM has been associated with a significant impact on a person's social, mental, and psychological quality of life (QoL). Stressors related to T1DM include the demands of managing the condition, acceptance of the diagnosis, and recognition of the sizeable personal responsibility involved in managing the condition. Participating in treatment designed to improve QoL can still take a psychological toll on individuals with T1DM and can lead to a wide range of psychological distress, including anxiety, fear, depression, stress, anger, frustration, and denial (among many others). Ongoing research seeks to investigate the range of psychiatric conditions that are common among people with T1DM. Bringing patient perspectives into research to design and implement workable solutions is the future of a novel holistic approach to managing T1DM-related mental health impact. Connecting with other people living with T1DM, clinicians, counselors/therapists, mental health professionals, and social workers might alleviate some of the challenges of managing the emotional issues and psychological distress associated with T1DM. Here, we provide the perspective of someone with over 33 years of living with T1DM, its impact on his mental health, QoL, the steps undertaken, and the path to successful management. This perspective is complemented by opinions from two expert clinicians-an endocrinologist and a psychiatrist. Sharing the real-life subjective burden experienced by the person living with diabetes could be one step towards increasing awareness of the toll of mental health disorders on people living with T1DM. This patient experience, complemented by expert endocrinologist and psychiatrist opinions, could pave the way for an effective two-way dialogue to manage the condition effectively.

Perspectives and Behaviors of People with Diabetes toward Time in Range and Glucose Control in Diabetes Management: An Online Survey.

INTRODUCTION: This study assessed experiences, attitudes, and behaviors of people with diabetes (PwD) regarding diabetes self-management and glucose control, and their level of awareness, knowledge, and attitudes toward time in range (TIR). METHODS: This quantitative survey was conducted using an online questionnaire across seven countries. Respondents were PwD classified into three subgroups: type 1 (T1), type 2 insulin (T2 insulin), and type 2 not on insulin (T2 N/insulin). RESULTS: Respondents included 621 people in the T1, 780 people in the T2 insulin, and 735 people in the T2 N/insulin subgroups. Awareness of TIR was low, particularly in the T2 N/insulin subgroup (T1 53%, T2 insulin 29%, T2 N/insulin 9%). Despite a lower current use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) among the T2 insulin and T2 N/insulin participants (38% and 9%, respectively), versus T1 participants (64%), most (> 70%) were positive toward utilizing new tools and measures to self-manage blood glucose. Recommendations from their healthcare professionals (HCPs) were cited as a strong motivator to try new measures for analyzing glucose levels. The main barriers cited were limited access to CGM and lack of understanding of TIR benefits. Cost was the main reason given by ≥ 40% of respondents for stopping CGM use. CONCLUSIONS: There is an unmet need in diabetes management, and TIR and CGM offer a potential solution. PwD are motivated to manage their blood glucose levels and are positive toward utilizing new tools and measures to achieve this goal. HCPs play a pivotal role in informing and guiding PwD on new measures for analyzing glucose.

Effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure outcomes and cardiovascular death across the cardiometabolic disease spectrum: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have been studied in patients with heart failure, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and acute myocardial infarction. Individual trials were powered to study composite outcomes in one disease state. We aimed to evaluate the treatment effect of SGLT2 inhibitors on specific clinical endpoints across multiple demographic and disease subgroups. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we queried online databases (PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and SCOPUS) up to Feb 10, 2024, for primary and secondary analyses of large trials (n>1000) of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (including acute myocardial infarction). Outcomes studied included composite of first hospitalisation for heart failure or cardiovascular death, first hospitalisation for heart failure, cardiovascular death, total (first and recurrent) hospitalisation for heart failure, and all-cause mortality. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effects models. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42024513836. FINDINGS: We included 15 trials (N=100 952). Compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of first hospitalisation for heart failure by 29% in patients with heart failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% CI 0·67-0·77]), 28% in patients with type 2 diabetes (0·72 [0·67-0·77]), 32% in patients with chronic kidney disease (0·68 [0·61-0·77]), and 28% in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (0·72 [0·66-0·79]). SGLT2 inhibitors reduced cardiovascular death by 14% in patients with heart failure (HR 0·86 [95% CI 0·79-0·93]), 15% in patients with type 2 diabetes (0·85 [0·79-0·91]), 11% in patients with chronic kidney disease (0·89 [0·82-0·96]), and 13% in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (0·87 [0·78-0·97]). The benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors on both first hospitalisation for heart failure and cardiovascular death was consistent across the majority of the 51 subgroups studied. Notable exceptions included acute myocardial infarction (22% reduction in first hospitalisation for heart failure; no effect on cardiovascular death) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (26% reduction in first hospitalisation for heart failure; no effect on cardiovascular death). INTERPRETATION: SGLT2 inhibitors reduced heart failure events and cardiovascular death in patients with heart failure, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. These effects were consistent across a wide range of subgroups within these populations. This supports the eligibility of a large population with cardiorenal-metabolic diseases for treatment with SGLT2 inhibitors. FUNDING: None.

Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge of and Attitudes Towards the Use of Time in Range in Diabetes Management: Online Survey Across Seven Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Time in range (TIR) is a metric of glycaemic target management derived from continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data. This study aimed to understand knowledge of and attitudes towards use of TIR among healthcare professionals (HCPs), and gain insights into benefits and barriers to its use in clinical practice. METHODS: An online survey was disseminated across seven countries. Participants were sampled from online HCP panels and were aware of TIR (defined as amount of time in, below, and above target range). Participants were HCPs classified as specialists (SP), generalists (GP), or allied HCPs (AP; diabetes nurse specialists, diabetes educators, general nurses, nurse practitioners/physician assistants). RESULTS: Respondents included 741 SP, 671 GP and 307 AP. Most HCPs (approximately 90%) agreed TIR is likely/somewhat likely to become the standard of diabetes management. Perceived benefits of TIR included helping to optimise medication regimen (SP, 71%; GP, 73%; AP, 74%), giving HCPs the knowledge and insights to make informed clinical decisions (SP, 66%; GP, 61%; AP, 72%), and empowering people with diabetes with information to successfully manage their diabetes (SP, 69%; GP, 77%; AP, 78%). Barriers to wider adoption included limited CGM access (SP, 65%; GP, 74%; AP, 69%) and lack of HCP training/education (SP, 45%; GP, 59%; AP, 51%). Most participants considered integration of TIR into clinical guidelines, recognition of TIR by regulators as a primary clinical endpoint, and recognition of TIR by payers as a parameter for diabetes treatment evaluation as key factors for increased use. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, HCPs agreed on the benefits of using TIR for diabetes management. Besides raising awareness among HCPs and people with diabetes, more training and healthcare system updates are needed to facilitate increased TIR use. In addition, integration into clinical guidelines and recognition by regulators and payers are needed.

'Time in range' is the proportion of time in a day that a person's glucose level is within a particular range. The purpose of this study was to understand knowledge of and attitudes towards use of TIR among healthcare professionals. The study was carried out using an online survey and participants from seven countries were included. Participants were healthcare professionals classified as specialists (SP), generalists (GP), or allied healthcare professionals (AP; diabetes nurse specialists, diabetes educators, general nurses, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants). Overall, 1719 participants were included in the study. Most healthcare professionals (approximately 90%) agreed that time in range is likely/somewhat likely to become the standard of diabetes management. Participants reported the following benefits of time in range: helping to optimise medication regimen, giving healthcare professionals the knowledge and insights to make informed clinical decisions, and empowering people with diabetes with information to successfully manage their diabetes. The most common barrier to wider time in range adoption was limited access to continuous glucose monitoring (SP, 65%; GP, 74%; AP, 69%), followed by lack of healthcare professionals' training/education (SP, 45%; GP, 59%; AP, 51%). Most participants considered integration of time in range into clinical guidelines, recognition of time in range by regulators as a primary clinical endpoint, and recognition of time in range by payers as a parameter for evaluation of diabetes treatment as key factors for the increased use of time in range.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Care and Clinical Parameters in a Primary Care Setting in Ontario, Canada: A Cross-sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes requires ongoing monitoring and care to prevent long-term adverse health outcomes. In Canada, quarantine restrictions were put into place to address the coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in March 2020. Primary care diabetes clinics limited their in-person services and were advised to manage type 2 diabetes (T2D) through virtual visits and reduce the frequency of routine diabetes-related lab tests and screening. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study used de-identified patient records from a primary care electronic medical records database in Ontario, Canada, to identify people with T2D who had at least 1 health-care touchpoint between March 1, 2018, and February 28, 2021. Outcomes were described on a monthly or yearly basis: 1) number of people with primary care visits (in-person vs virtual); 2) number of people with referrals; 3) number of people with each of the vital/lab measures; and 4) results of the vital/lab measures. RESULTS: A total of 16,845 individuals with T2D were included. Compared with the pre-pandemic period, the COVID-19 period had a 16.8% reduction in the T2D population utilizing any primary care and an increase of 330.4% in the number of people with at least 1 virtual visit. Compared with the pre-pandemic period, fewer people had vital/lab measures in the pandemic period. However, among the people with the test results available, the average values for all tests were similar in the pre- and pandemic periods. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to understand the impact of the reduction of in-person clinical care on the entire population with T2D.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Antihyperglycemic Prescriptions for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in Canada: A Cross-sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes is a major public health problem in Canada and requires multifactorial, consistent clinical management. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased challenges in the management of many chronic ailments, including diabetes. Diabetes was associated with a higher risk of severe illness in the context of COVID-19. Pandemic restrictions also impacted diabetes care continuity, which may have contributed to an increased risk of diabetes-related complications and mortality. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of prescription patterns of antihyperglycemic medications claimed by individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic using the IQVIA Canada Longitudinal Prescription Claims database. The study period was from March 1, 2018, to February 28, 2021. The study outcomes are described on a monthly, quarterly, and yearly basis and overall, and by medication, medication class, and insurance coverage type. "New-to-molecule" patients were defined as those claiming a medication during the analysis period that they had no history of claiming in the database. Adults with at least 1 year of prescription history available and claiming their first prescription for an antihyperglycemic drug during the analysis period were classified as newly diagnosed with T2D. RESULTS: A similar number of people had at least 1 non-insulin antihyperglycemic prescription during the baseline, prepandemic, and pandemic periods in Canada (1,778,155, 1,822,403, and 1,797,272, respectively). However, the number of people initiating newer antihyperglycemic medications decreased at the beginning of the pandemic, in contrast to older medications, which remained consistent across the pandemic period. The number of people diagnosed with T2D decreased in the early months of the pandemic but recovered by October 2020. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 epidemic in Canada impacted clinical care for at-risk Canadians, with fewer being prescribed newer antihyperglycemic drugs and a reduction in the number of diagnoses of T2D.

Insulin: evolution of insulin formulations and their application in clinical practice over 100 years.

The first preparation of insulin extracted from a pancreas and made suitable for use in humans after purification was achieved 100 years ago in Toronto, an epoch-making achievement, which has ultimately provided a life-giving treatment for millions of people worldwide. The earliest animal-derived formulations were short-acting and contained many impurities that caused adverse reactions, thereby limiting their therapeutic potential. However, since then, insulin production and purification improved with enhanced technologies, along with a full understanding of the insulin molecule structure. The availability of radio-immunoassays contributed to the unravelling of the physiology of glucose homeostasis, ultimately leading to the adoption of rational models of insulin replacement. The introduction of recombinant DNA technologies has since resulted in the era of both rapid- and long-acting human insulin analogues administered via the subcutaneous route which better mimic the physiology of insulin secretion, leading to the modern basal-bolus regimen. These advances, in combination with improved education and technologies for glucose monitoring, enable people with diabetes to better meet individual glycaemic goals with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. While the prevalence of diabetes continues to rise globally, it is important to recognise the scientific endeavour that has led to insulin remaining the cornerstone of diabetes management, on the centenary of its first successful use in humans.

2022 Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guideline for Use of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and SGLT2 Inhibitors for Cardiorenal Risk Reduction in Adults.

This guideline synthesizes clinical trial data supporting the role of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) for treatment of heart failure (HF), chronic kidney disease, and for optimizing prevention of cardiorenal morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is on the basis of a companion systematic review and meta-analysis guided by a focused set of population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) questions that address priority cardiorenal end points. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system and a modified Delphi process were used. We encourage comprehensive assessment of cardiovascular (CV) patients with routine measurement of estimated glomerular filtration rate, urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, glycosylated hemoglobin (A1c), and documentation of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) when evaluating symptoms of HF. For patients with HF, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy for the reduction of hospitalization for HF when LVEF is > 40% and for the reduction of all-cause and CV mortality, hospitalization for HF, and renal protection when LVEF is ≤ 40%. In patients with albuminuric chronic kidney disease, we recommend integration of SGLT2i with other guideline-directed pharmacotherapy to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for HF. We provide recommendations and algorithms for the selection of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2i for patients with type 2 diabetes and either established atherosclerotic CV disease or risk factors for atherosclerotic CV disease to reduce all-cause and CV mortality, nonfatal stroke, and for the prevention of hospitalization for HF and decline in renal function. We offer practical advice for safe use of these diabetes-associated agents with profound cardiorenal benefits.

Assessing the Effect of Quality-Improvement Strategies for Organization of Care in Type 2 Diabetes Outcomes in Adults: Aim-Strait.

OBJECTIVES: To observe the effect of an organization-of-care improvement process on the achievement of therapeutic goals for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This single-arm cohort study analyzed the electronic medical records of patients with T2DM in 5 primary care practices in Ontario, Canada, before and 2 years after implementation of an individualized quality-improvement program. The primary outcome was the change in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) between baseline and follow up, with secondary analyses including change in other metabolic parameters, medication patterns and clinic visits. Prespecified subgroup analysis of patients with baseline values above guideline therapeutic targets was performed. RESULTS: In the overall population of 1,886 patients, A1C improved from 7.1% (baseline) to 7.0% (follow up) (p<0.001); low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) improved from 2.1 to 1.9 mmol/L (p<0.001); and diastolic blood pressure (BP) improved from 75 to 74 mmHg (p<0.001), with no significant change observed in systolic BP. Of those patients who were above guideline-recommended therapeutic targets at baseline, improvements were observed at follow-up: A1C 8.3±1.3% to 7.8±1.3% (p<0.001), LDL-C 2.9±0.7 mmol/L to 2.4±0.9 mmol/L (p<0.001), systolic BP 144±11 to 134±16 mmHg (p<0.001) and diastolic BP 80±10 to 75±11 mmHg (p<0.001), with the percentages of patients achieving target at follow up being 32% for A1C, 40% for LDL-C and 49% for systolic BP. Overall, 22% of patients achieved all 3 targets at baseline compared to 28% at follow up (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an organization-of-care improvement program in primary care was associated with improved metabolic control, which was most pronounced in patients with baseline levels above guideline-recommended therapeutic targets.

Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes With and Without Chronic Kidney Disease Before Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter Protein 2 Inhibitors: Insights From the Diabetes Mellitus Status in Canada Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Optimal control of cardiovascular risk factors in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is challenging. Limited data are available from the primary care setting on achievement of guideline-recommended targets in this population before the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. METHODS: The Diabetes Mellitus Status in Canada survey included 5,172 patients with T2D seen by primary care physicians (PCPs) in November 2012. We compared treatment targets and therapeutic interventions in patients with and without CKD. RESULTS: Compared with those without CKD (n=3,804), patients with CKD (n=1,368) were older, more likely to be female, had a longer duration of diabetes and had more vascular complications. Patients with CKD more frequently had a less stringent glycated hemoglobin (A1C) target of ≤8.0% set by PCPs (10.3% vs 20%, p<0.001), and fewer patients with CKD met the A1C target of ≤7.0% (50.9% vs 47.1%, p=0.016) than those without CKD. Both groups had a similar likelihood of achieving the blood pressure (BP) target of ≤130/80 mmHg (36.8% vs 34.8%, p=0.20), whereas patients with CKD more frequently achieved a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target of ≤2.0 mmol/L (54.8% vs 61.3%, p<0.001). Overall, only 12.5% in both groups achieved all 3 targets (12.3% vs 13.3%, p=0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Only 1 of 8 patients with T2D achieved optimal glycemic, BP and cholesterol targets, regardless of the presence or absence of CKD. Although more medical interventions were used in patients with CKD, a lower proportion achieved guideline-recommended targets for A1C. These findings provide a benchmark for future comparison.