Polygenic subtype identified in ACCORD trial displays a favorable type 2 diabetes phenotype in the UKBiobank population.

INTRODUCTION: We previously identified a genetic subtype (C4) of type 2 diabetes (T2D), benefitting from intensive glycemia treatment in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Here, we characterized the population of patients that met the C4 criteria in the UKBiobank cohort. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using our polygenic score (PS), we identified C4 individuals in the UKBiobank and tested C4 status with risk of developing T2D, cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes, and differences in T2D medications. RESULTS: C4 individuals were less likely to develop T2D, were slightly older at T2D diagnosis, had lower HbA1c values, and were less likely to be prescribed T2D medications (P < .05). Genetic variants in MAS1 and IGF2R, major components of the C4 PS, were associated with fewer overall T2D prescriptions. CONCLUSION: We have confirmed C4 individuals are a lower risk subpopulation of patients with T2D.

Elucidating the role of weight loss and glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To investigate the independent contributions of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction and weight loss to clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with antidiabetic drugs, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational, retrospective cohort study used deidentified electronic health record-derived data from patients evaluated at the Cleveland Clinic (1 January 2000-31 December 2020). Cohort A included 8876 patients with newly diagnosed T2D treated with any of six antidiabetic drug classes. Cohort B included 4161 patients with T2D initiating GLP-1RA treatment. The effects of body mass index (BMI) and HbA1c reduction, variability, and durability on clinical outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: In Cohort A, each 1% BMI reduction was associated with 3%, 1%, and 4% reduced risk of heart failure (p = 0.017), hypertension (p = 0.006), and insulin initiation (p = 0.001), respectively. Each 1% (~11 mmol/mol) HbA1c reduction was associated with 4% and 29% reduced risk of hypertension (p = 0.041) and insulin initiation (p = 0.001), respectively. In Cohort B, each 1% BMI reduction was associated with 4% and 3% reduced risk of cardiovascular disease (p = 0.008) and insulin initiation (p = 0.002), respectively. Each 1% (~11 mmol/mol) HbA1c reduction was associated with 4% and 16% reduced risk of chronic kidney disease (p = 0.014) and insulin initiation (p = 1 × 10-4), respectively. Lower BMI variability and greater BMI durability were associated with decreased risk of clinical outcomes in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Antidiabetic medication-associated, and specifically GLP-1RA-associated, weight loss and HbA1c reductions independently reduce real-world clinical outcome risk.

Endocrinology/Primary Care Pharmacy Collaboration vs Endocrinology Care Alone in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and A1c >9.

Background: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) requires close collaboration between patients and their care management team, often including endocrinology. Primary care pharmacist impact on diabetes management in collaboration with endocrinology is not well established. Objective: To assess if pharmacy and endocrinology collaboration results in a greater A1c reduction in patients with T2D vs endocrinology alone. Methods: This retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted in adult outpatients with T2D and baseline A1c >9% who saw endocrinology within 1 year preceding the study period (January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022). Patients were included if they had a follow-up A1c 6 months (±90 days) from index date and completed at least 1 endocrinology visit during the study period. Patients managed by endocrinology/primary care pharmacist collaboration (Endo/PharmD) were compared with those who received endocrinology care alone (Endo). Primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included total number of completed visits and percentage of patients achieving A1c <6.5%, <7%, <8%, and <9% between groups at 6 months. Results: A total of 418 patients were included (22 Endo/PharmD, 396 Endo). The change in follow-up A1c was not significantly different between groups, -0.481% (standard error [SE] = 0.396); P = 0.6179. Endo/PharmD patients had significantly more provider visits during the study period (5.3 ± 2.3 vs 2.3 ± 1.2; P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in odds of A1c goal attainment between groups at 6 months. Conclusion and Relevance: Endocrinology/primary care pharmacist collaboration occurred infrequently but was associated with a trend toward greater A1c reduction in patients with T2D and A1c >9%.

iGlarLixi versus premixed insulin initiation in adults with type 2 diabetes advancing from basal insulin therapy: The SoliComplex real-world study.

AIM: To compare outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) suboptimally controlled with basal insulin who initiated treatment with iGlarLixi or premixed insulin. METHODS: This retrospective real-world analysis was conducted using data from adults (age ≥ 18 years) with T2D in the US Optum Clinformatics database who had previously received basal insulin and newly initiated iGlarLixi or premixed insulin. Cohorts were propensity-score matched on baseline characteristics using a greedy nearest neighbour-matching algorithm, and outcomes were assessed at 12 months. Subgroup analyses were performed for those aged 65 years or older and those with a baseline HbA1c of 9% or higher. The primary endpoint was treatment persistence in the overall population. Secondary endpoints were treatment adherence, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), costs, hypoglycaemia events and change in HbA1c from baseline. RESULTS: Each cohort comprised 834 participants. In the overall population, treatment persistence at 12 months was statistically significantly higher for iGlarLixi versus premixed insulin: 42.5% versus 39.1%; hazard ratio 0.88; 95% confidence interval 0.778-0.998; P = .0465. Adherence and HbA1c reduction were similar between groups, whereas hypoglycaemia events, HRU and costs were numerically lower for iGlarLixi. Outcomes in both the age 65 years or older subgroup and in those with an HbA1c of 9% or higher were consistent with those for the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study in people with T2D suboptimally controlled on basal insulin, once-daily iGlarLixi was an effective treatment alternative to premixed insulin with significantly higher treatment persistence, similar adherence and HbA1c reduction, and numerically lower hypoglycaemia events, HRU and costs, regardless of age or baseline HbA1c.

The impact of obesity on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes treated with finerenone: Post hoc analysis of the FIDELITY study.

AIM: To assess the effect of finerenone on the risk of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes, with and without obesity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A post hoc analysis of the prespecified pooled FIDELITY dataset assessed the association between waist circumference (WC), composite cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, and the effects of finerenone. Participants were stratified by WC risk groups (representing visceral obesity) as low-risk or high-very high-risk (H-/VH-risk). RESULTS: Of 12 986 patients analysed, 90.8% occupied the H-/VH-risk WC group. Incidence of the composite cardiovascular outcome was similar between finerenone and placebo in the low-risk WC group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.47); finerenone reduced the risk in the H-/VH-risk WC group (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.93). For the kidney outcome, the risk was similar in the low-risk WC group (HR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.66-1.46) and reduced within the H-/VH-risk WC group (HR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87) with finerenone versus placebo. There was no significant heterogeneity between the low-risk and H-/VH-risk WC groups for cardiovascular and kidney composite outcomes (P interaction = .26 and .34, respectively). The apparent greater benefit of finerenone on cardiorenal outcomes but lack of significant heterogeneity observed in H-/VH-risk WC patients may be because of the small size of the low-risk group. Adverse events were consistent across WC groups. CONCLUSION: In FIDELITY, benefits of finerenone in lowering the risk of cardiovascular and kidney outcomes were not significantly modified by patient obesity.

Association of Metformin, Dipeptidyl Dipeptidase-4 Inhibitors, and Insulin with Coronavirus Disease 2019-Related Hospital Outcomes in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: The effects of diabetes medications on COVID-19 hospitalization outcomes have not been consistent. We sought to determine the effect of metformin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), and insulin on admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), need for assisted ventilation, development of renal insufficiency, and mortality in patients admitted with COVID-19 infection after controlling for clinical variables and other relevant diabetes-related medications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from a single hospital system. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed that included demographic data, glycated hemoglobin, kidney function, smoking status, insurance, Charlson comorbidity index, number of diabetes medications, and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and statin prior to admission and glucocorticoids during admission. RESULTS: A total of 529 patients with type 2 DM were included in our final analysis. Neither metformin nor DPP4i prescription was associated with ICU admission, need for assisted ventilation, or mortality. Insulin prescription was associated with increased ICU admission but not with need for assisted ventilation or mortality. There was no association of any of these medications with development of renal insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, limited to type 2 DM and controlled for multiple variables that have not been consistently studied (such as a measure of general health, glycated hemoglobin, and insurance status), insulin prescription was associated with increased ICU admission. Metformin and DPP4i prescriptions did not have an association with the outcomes.

Initiation of iGlarLixi Versus Basal-Bolus Insulin in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Advancing From Basal Insulin Therapy: The SoliComplex Real-World Study.

Background: When type 2 diabetes is suboptimally controlled with basal insulin, prandial insulin injections are commonly added (i.e., a basal-bolus insulin regimen), which can increase treatment burden and hypoglycemia risk. The once-daily injectable iGlarLixi is an alternative treatment. Methods: This retrospective analysis of the U.S. Optum Clinformatics database compared outcomes in adults (≥18 years of age) with type 2 diabetes who previously received basal insulin and were newly initiated on iGlarLixi or basal-bolus insulin therapy. Cohorts were propensity score-matched in a 1:1 ratio on baseline characteristics, and imbalances were adjusted in multivariate analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed for people ≥65 years of age and those with a baseline A1C ≥9%. The primary end point was persistence with therapy at 12 months in the overall population. Secondary end points were treatment adherence, health care resource utilization (HCRU), costs, any hypoglycemia, and A1C change at 12 months. Results: Cohorts each comprised 1,070 participants. Treatment persistence at 12 months was statistically significantly higher for iGlarLixi versus basal-bolus insulin therapy (43.7 vs. 22.3%, hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.46-0.57, adjusted P <0.001). Adherence was numerically higher for iGlarLixi, and hypoglycemia events, HCRU, and costs were numerically lower for iGlarLixi. A1C reduction from baseline was slightly greater for basal-bolus insulin. Results for both subgroups (≥65 years of age and baseline A1C ≥9%) were similar to those of the overall population. Conclusion: In this observational study, initiation of once-daily iGlarLixi versus basal-bolus insulin was associated with higher persistence, lower hypoglycemia, and similar A1C reduction without increasing HCRU or costs regardless of age or A1C. iGlarLixi could be an alternative to basal-bolus insulin, particularly for older adults with type 2 diabetes who require treatment simplification with lower hypoglycemia risk.

Erratum: Addressing Therapeutic Inertia: Development and Implementation of an Electronic Health Record-Based Diabetes Intensification Tool. Diabetes Spectrum 2023;36:161-170 (https://doi.org/10.2337/ds22-0031).

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2337/ds22-0031.].

Addressing Therapeutic Inertia: Development and Implementation of an Electronic Health Record-Based Diabetes Intensification Tool.

Objective: To assess whether an electronic health record (EHR)-based diabetes intensification tool can improve the rate of A1C goal attainment among patients with type 2 diabetes and an A1C ≥8%. Methods: An EHR-based tool was developed and sequentially implemented in a large, integrated health system using a four-phase, stepped-wedge design (single pilot site [phase 1] and then three practice site clusters [phases 2-4]; 3 months/phase), with full implementation during phase 4. A1C outcomes, tool usage, and treatment intensification metrics were compared retrospectively at implementation (IMP) sites versus nonimplementation (non-IMP) sites with sites matched on patient population characteristics using overlap propensity score weighting. Results: Overall, tool utilization was low among patient encounters at IMP sites (1,122 of 11,549 [9.7%]). During phases 1-3, the proportions of patients achieving the A1C goal (<8%) were not significantly improved between IMP and non-IMP sites at 6 months (range 42.9-46.5%) or 12 months (range 46.5-53.1%). In phase 3, fewer patients at IMP sites versus non-IMP sites achieved the goal at 12 months (46.7 vs. 52.3%, P = 0.02). In phases 1-3, mean changes in A1C from baseline to 6 and 12 months (range -0.88 to -1.08%) were not significantly different between IMP and non-IMP sites. Times to intensification were similar between IMP and non-IMP sites. Conclusion: Utilization of a diabetes intensification tool was low and did not influence rates of A1C goal attainment or time to treatment intensification. The low level of tool adoption is itself an important finding highlighting the problem of therapeutic inertia in clinical practice. Testing additional strategies to better incorporate, increase acceptance of, and improve proficiency with EHR-based intensification tools is warranted.

Efficacy of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

AIM: To conduct an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (aITC) of the efficacy of tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary analysis was a Bucher aITC of the change from baseline at week 40 in HbA1c (%) and body weight (kg). Aggregate data from the SURPASS-2 study that met the HbA1c inclusion criterion of the SUSTAIN FORTE study and from SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only treated patients were used for primary analysis. RESULTS: The SURPASS-2 refined population comprised 238/245/240 and 240 participants for tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg and semaglutide 1 mg, respectively. The SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only population comprised 222 and 227 participants for semaglutide 1 and 2 mg, respectively. In this aITC, tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus semaglutide 2 mg with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.63, -0.09) and -0.4% (95% CI -0.67, -0.13), respectively. Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced body weight versus semaglutide 2 mg with an ETD of -3.15 kg (95% CI -4.84, -1.46) and -5.15 kg (95% CI -6.85, -3.45), respectively. There were no significant differences between tirzepatide 5 mg and semaglutide 2 mg on change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight. CONCLUSIONS: In this aITC, HbA1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg and were similar for tirzepatide 5 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg. These findings provide comparative effectiveness insights in the absence of a head-to-head clinical trial.

A model-based simulation of glycaemic control and body weight when switching from semaglutide to 3.0- and 4.5-mg doses of once-weekly dulaglutide.

AIM: To evaluate HbA1c and body weight changes when semaglutide 0.5- or 1.0-mg once-weekly (QW) is switched to dulaglutide 3.0- or 4.5-mg QW via exposure-response modelling. METHODS: HbA1c and body weight time-course models were developed and validated with data from the SUSTAIN 1 to 10 trials for semaglutide and the AWARD-11 trial for dulaglutide. Simulations were conducted for HbA1c and body weight over 52 weeks. In the initial 26 weeks, semaglutide was initiated at 0.25-mg and titrated to 0.5- or 1.0-mg QW via 4-weekly stepwise titration, followed by 26 weeks of dulaglutide initiated at 0.75- or 1.5-mg QW and escalated to 3.0- or 4.5-mg QW via 4-weekly stepwise titration. RESULTS: At 26 weeks, model-predicted mean changes from baseline in HbA1c and weight for semaglutide 0.5 mg were up to -1.55% and -3.44 kg, respectively. After switching to dulaglutide 3.0 mg, further reductions were 0.19% and 1.40 kg, respectively, at 52 weeks. Predicted mean HbA1c and weight changes for semaglutide 1.0 mg at 26 weeks were -1.84% and -4.96 kg, respectively; after switching to dulaglutide 4.5 mg, HbA1c was maintained with additional weight reduction of up to 0.57 kg at 52 weeks. Glycaemic control was preserved when switching from semaglutide 1.0 mg to dulaglutide 3.0 mg. CONCLUSION: Switching from semaglutide 0.5 mg to dulaglutide 3.0 or 4.5 mg with dose escalation potentially yields additional HbA1c and weight reductions; switching from semaglutide 1.0 mg to dulaglutide 4.5 mg may enhance weight loss.

Association of obesity with postacute sequelae of COVID-19.

Obesity is a major risk factor for the development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and mortality. However, it is not known whether patients with obesity are at a greater risk of developing postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC). In a median follow-up time of 8 months and counting from 30 days following a positive viral test of 2839 patients who did not require intensive care unit admission and survived the acute phase of COVID-19, 1230 (43%) patients required medical diagnostic tests, 1255 (44%) patients underwent hospital admission, and 29 (1%) patients died. Compared with patients with a normal body mass index (BMI), the risk of hospital admission was 28% and 30% higher in patients with moderate and severe obesity, respectively. The need for diagnostic tests to assess different medical problems, compared with patients with normal BMI, was 25% and 39% higher in patients with moderate and severe obesity, respectively. The findings of this study suggest that moderate and severe obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 ) are associated with a greater risk of PASC.

Strategies for overcoming therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To systematically investigate the effect of interventions to overcome therapeutic inertia on glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We electronically searched for randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies published between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2019 evaluating the effect of interventions on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) control. Characteristics of included studies and HbA1c difference between intervention and control arms (main outcome) were extracted. Interventions were grouped as: care management and patient education; nurse or certified diabetes educator (CDE); pharmacist; or physician-based. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies including 22 243 individuals were combined in nonlinear random-effects meta-regressions; the median (range) duration of intervention was 1 year (0.9 to 36 months). Compared to the control arm, HbA1c reduction ranged from: -17.7 mmol/mol (-1.62%) to -4.4 mmol/mol (-0.40%) for nurse- or CDE-based interventions; -13.1 mmol/mol (-1.20%) to 3.3 mmol/mol (0.30%) for care management and patient education interventions; -9.8 mmol/mol (-0.90%) to -6.6 mmol/mol (-0.60%) for pharmacist-based interventions; and -4.4 mmol/mol (-0.40%) to 2.8 mmol/mol (0.26%) for physician-based interventions. Across the included studies, a reduction in HbA1c was observed only during the first year (6 months: -4.2 mmol/mol, 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.2, -2.2 [-0.38%, 95% CI -0.56, -0.20]; 1 year: -1.6 mmol/mol, 95% CI -3.3, 0.1 [-0.15%, 95% CI -0.30, 0.01]) and in individuals with preintervention HbA1c >75 mmol/mol (9%). CONCLUSIONS: The most effective approaches to mitigating therapeutic inertia and improving HbA1c were those that empower nonphysician providers such as pharmacists, nurses and diabetes educators to initiate and intensify treatment independently, supported by appropriate guidelines.

Associations of weight loss with obesity-related comorbidities in a large integrated health system.

AIMS: To determine the health outcomes associated with weight loss in individuals with obesity, and to better understand the relationship between disease burden (disease burden; ie, prior comorbidities, healthcare utilization) and weight loss in individuals with obesity by analysing electronic health records (EHRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a case-control study using deidentified EHR-derived information from 204 921 patients seen at the Cleveland Clinic between 2000 and 2018. Patients were aged ≥20 years with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 and had ≥7 weight measurements, over ≥3 years. Thirty outcomes were investigated, including chronic and acute diseases, as well as psychological and metabolic disorders. Weight change was investigated 3, 5 and 10 years prior to an event. RESULTS: Weight loss was associated with reduced incidence of many outcomes (eg, type 2 diabetes, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis/nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, obstructive sleep apnoea, hypertension; P < 0.05). Weight loss >10% was associated with increased incidence of certain outcomes including stroke and substance abuse. However, many outcomes that increased with weight loss were attenuated by disease burden adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the most comprehensive real-world evaluation of the health impacts of weight change to date. After comorbidity burden and healthcare utilization adjustments, weight loss was associated with an overall reduction in risk of many adverse outcomes.

Development and Internal Validation of A Prediction Tool To Assist Clinicians Selecting Second-Line Therapy Following Metformin Monotherapy For Type 2 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) face increased risk of many long-term adverse outcomes. While managing patients with T2D, clinicians are challenged to stay informed regarding all new therapies and must consider potential risks and benefits resultant to their use. Metformin (MET) is typically prescribed as first-line therapy, but a second line is often needed, given MET can be insufficient for maintaining long-term glycemic control. Our objective was to develop a predictive decision-making tool to help clinicians use an outcome-based approach to select second-line therapies for patients when MET monotherapy is insufficient for glycemic control. METHODS: Electronic health records of 19 277 adults with T2D on MET monotherapy and ≥3 months of either GLP-1RA, DPP-4i, Insulin, SGLT-2i, SFU, or TZD therapy were reviewed at Cleveland Clinic from patient visits occurring between 2005 and 2019. Separate models were developed to predict likelihood of each main outcome measure (stroke, myocardial infarction, worsening hypertension, renal failure, and death). Discrimination and calibration were assessed with bootstrapping. RESULTS: The median follow-up time for those without an event was 3.6 years (interquartile range 1.9, 6.3). Model discrimination ability was evaluated by concordance indices (goodness of fit metric with values ranging between 0 and 1: 1 indicates perfect discrimination ability; 0.5 reflects same discrimination ability as chance) demonstrating strong discrimination ability, with concordance index values for outcomes as follows: myocardial infarction (0.786), stroke (0.805), worsening hypertension (0.855), renal failure (0.808), and death (0.827). CONCLUSION: A decision-making tool has been developed that may afford clinicians a more objective and individualized approach to choosing a second-line therapy to control glycemia for persons with T2D.

RESULTS OF A 24-WEEK TRIAL OF TECHNOSPHERE INSULIN VERSUS INSULIN ASPART IN TYPE 2 DIABETES.

OBJECTIVE: To compare glycemic efficacy of Technosphere insulin (TI) versus that of insulin aspart (IA), each added to basal insulin, in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This randomized, 24-week trial included subjects aged from 18 to 80 years who were treated with subcutaneous insulin for 3 months and had glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) levels of 7.0% to 11.5%. After receiving stabilized insulin glargine doses during a 4-week lead in, the subjects were randomized to TI or IA. The primary end point was an HbA1C change from baseline, with the differences analyzed by equivalence analyses. RESULTS: In the overall cohort (N = 309; males, 23.3%), mean (SD) age was 58.5 (8.4) years, body mass index was 30.8 (4.7) kg/m2, weight was 82.2 (13.6) kg, and duration of diabetes was 12.2 (7.1) years. An intention-to-treat cohort had 150 subjects randomized to TI (mean [SD] HbA1C: 8.9% [1.1%]) and 154 randomized to IA (mean [SD] HbA1C: 9.0% [1.3%]). At 24 weeks, mean (SD) HbA1C value declined to 7.9% (1.3%) and 7.7% (1.1%) in the TI and IA cohorts, respectively. A treatment difference of 0.26% was not statistically significant, but the predefined equivalency margin was not met. Subjects receiving TI lost 0.78 kg compared to baseline; subjects receiving IA gained 0.23 kg (P =.0007). The incidence of mild/moderate hypoglycemia was lower for the TI cohort, though not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Both TI and IA resulted in significant and clinically meaningful HbA1C reductions. TI also resulted in significant and clinically meaningful weight reductions. These data support the use of inhaled insulin as a treatment option for individuals with type 2 diabetes.

When to Suspect Hidden Hypercortisolism in Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the available literature helps to identify the characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) more frequently associated with hidden hypercortisolism (HidHyCo). METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed using studies that assessed both the prevalence of HidHyCo in patients with T2D and the characteristics of these patients with and without HidHyCo. The DerSimonian and Laird (DSL) and Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) methods were utilized. RESULTS: Among the 18 available studies, 6 provided the necessary data. The association between HidHyCo and advanced T2D (based on the patients' description given in each study in the presence of microvascular/macrovascular complications or insulin treatment plus hypertension or hypertension treated with 2 or more drugs), hypertension, insulin treatment, and dyslipidemia was reported in 5 (2184 patients), 6 (2283 patients), 3 (1440 patients), and 3 (987 patients) studies, respectively. HidHyCo was associated with advanced T2D as assessed by both the DSL (odds ratio [OR], 3.4; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.12-5.67) and HKSJ (OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 2.03-6.41) methods and with the prevalence of hypertension or insulin treatment as assessed by the DSL method (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.05-3.50 and OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.07-4.91, respectively) but not as assessed by the HKSJ method. CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced T2D have a higher prevalence of HidHyCo. These data inform about the selection of patients with T2D for HidHyCo screening.

Cardiovascular outcomes trials with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: A comparison of study designs, populations and results.

Despite treatment advances leading to improved outcomes over the past 2 decades, cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes. People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have a 2- to 4-fold increased risk of CVD and CV death. Individuals with T2D have not seen the same improvements in CV morbidity and mortality as those without T2D. Given this, it is important to understand the CV impact of drugs used to treat T2D. In patients with T2D, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have shown a reduction in HbA1c and body weight regardless of their differences in chemical structure and pharmacokinetic variables. Glycaemic efficacy, accompanied by the potential for weight reduction and a low risk of hypoglycaemia, has moved GLP-1 RAs to the first treatment of choice following metformin monotherapy in the latest American Diabetes Association treatment guidelines. Additionally, all GLP-1 RAs have shown CV safety and several have proven CV benefit. GLP-1 RAs have been evaluated in cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) of varying sizes, designs and patient populations with differing reported effects on CV outcomes. The purpose of this article is to review the completed GLP-1 RA CVOTs with special attention to how their design, size, patient populations and conduct may influence the interpretation of results.

Relative contribution of basal and postprandial hyperglycaemia stratified by HbA1c categories before and after treatment intensification with dulaglutide.

AIM: To assess the effect of dulaglutide on the relative contribution of basal hyperglycaemia (BHG) and postprandial hyperglycaemia (PPHG) to overall hyperglycaemia across HbA1c categories in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Data from five phase 3 studies (N = 673) were pooled to assess the change in relative contributions of BHG and PPHG to overall hyperglycaemia across different HbA1c categories after 6 months of treatment intensification with dulaglutide 1.5 mg as monotherapy or with 1 or 2 oral medication(s) in patients with type 2 diabetes. BHG and PPHG were calculated using the area under the curve (AUC) of 7-point self-monitored plasma glucose concentration profiles. As a secondary objective, relative contribution of BHG and PPHG for dulaglutide versus liraglutide, exenatide BID and insulin glargine was assessed by individual studies at 6 months. RESULTS: In pooled data, after 6 months of treatment intensification with dulaglutide 1.5 mg, there was a significant reduction from baseline in overall hyperglycaemia (AUCoverall ) [(mean ± SE) -466.31 ± 18.32 mg*h/dL (P < 0.001)], BHG (AUCbasal ) [(mean ± SE) -371.46 ± 16.36 mg*h/dL (P < 0.001)] and PPHG (AUCpostprandial ) [(mean ± SE) -94.84 ± 7.97 mg*h/dL (P < 0.001)]. At baseline, relative contributions of BHG increased and PPHG decreased with increasing HbA1c levels. This pattern was maintained at 6 months, even as overall glycaemia improved with decreasing HbA1c values. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, dulaglutide reduces HbA1c by lowering both basal and postprandial hyperglycaemia across various HbA1c levels.