Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) remains one of the leading causes of reduced lifespan in diabetes. The quest for both prognostic and surrogate endpoint biomarkers for advanced DKD and end-stage renal ...disease has received major investment and interest in recent years. However, at present no novel biomarkers are in routine use in the clinic or in trials. This review focuses on the current status of prognostic biomarkers. First, we emphasise that albuminuria and eGFR, with other routine clinical data, show at least modest prediction of future renal status if properly used. Indeed, a major limitation of many current biomarker studies is that they do not properly evaluate the marginal increase in prediction on top of these routinely available clinical data. Second, we emphasise that many of the candidate biomarkers for which there are numerous sporadic reports in the literature are tightly correlated with each other. Despite this, few studies have attempted to evaluate a wide range of biomarkers simultaneously to define the most useful among these correlated biomarkers. We also review the potential of high-dimensional panels of lipids, metabolites and proteins to advance the field, and point to some of the analytical and post-analytical challenges of taking initial studies using these and candidate approaches through to actual clinical biomarker use.
Background The ODYSSEY COMBO I study ( http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01644175 ) evaluated efficacy and safety of alirocumab as add-on therapy to stable maximally tolerated daily statin with or ...without other lipid-lowering therapy in high cardiovascular risk patients with suboptimally controlled hypercholesterolemia. Methods This multicenter, phase 3, randomized (2:1 alirocumab vs placebo), double-blind, 52-week trial enrolled 316 patients with established coronary heart disease or coronary heart disease risk equivalents and hypercholesterolemia. Alirocumab (75 mg every 2 weeks Q2W) or placebo Q2W was self-administered subcutaneously via 1 mL prefilled pen. The alirocumab dose was increased to 150 mg Q2W (also 1 mL) at week 12 if week 8 low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was ≥70 mg/dL. The primary efficacy end point was percent change in LDL-C from baseline to week 24 (intention-to-treat analysis). Results At week 24, estimated mean (95% CI) changes in LDL-C from baseline were −48.2% (−52.0% to −44.4%) and −2.3% (−7.6% to 3.1%) for alirocumab and placebo, respectively, an estimated mean (95% CI) difference of −45.9% (−52.5% to −39.3%) ( P < .0001). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL was achieved by 75% alirocumab versus 9% placebo patients at week 24. At week 12, 83.2% of evaluable alirocumab-treated patients remained on 75-mg Q2W. Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between groups. Conclusions Alirocumab treatment achieved a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C and allowed a greater proportion of patients to achieve LDL-C goals, versus placebo after 24 weeks in high cardiovascular risk patients with suboptimally controlled hypercholesterolemia at baseline despite receiving maximally tolerated statin with or without other lipid-lowering therapy. The frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events and study medication discontinuations were generally comparable between treatment groups.
To compare the efficacy low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering and safety of alirocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9, compared with ...ezetimibe, as add-on therapy to maximally tolerated statin therapy in high cardiovascular risk patients with inadequately controlled hypercholesterolaemia.
COMBO II is a double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group, 104-week study of alirocumab vs. ezetimibe. Patients (n = 720) with high cardiovascular risk and elevated LDL-C despite maximal doses of statins were enrolled (August 2012-May 2013). This pre-specified analysis was conducted after the last patient completed 52 weeks. Patients were randomized to subcutaneous alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks (plus oral placebo) or oral ezetimibe 10 mg daily (plus subcutaneous placebo) on a background of statin therapy. At Week 24, mean ± SE reductions in LDL-C from baseline were 50.6 ± 1.4% for alirocumab vs. 20.7 ± 1.9% for ezetimibe (difference 29.8 ± 2.3%; P < 0.0001); 77.0% of alirocumab and 45.6% of ezetimibe patients achieved LDL-C <1.8 mmol/L (P < 0.0001). Mean achieved LDL-C at Week 24 was 1.3 ± 0.04 mmol/L with alirocumab and 2.1 ± 0.05 mmol/L with ezetimibe, and were maintained to Week 52. Alirocumab was generally well tolerated, with no evidence of an excess of treatment-emergent adverse events.
In patients at high cardiovascular risk with inadequately controlled LDL-C, alirocumab achieved significantly greater reductions in LDL-C compared with ezetimibe, with a similar safety profile.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01644188.
Randomized controlled trials have shown the importance of tight glucose control in type 1 diabetes (T1DM), but few recent studies have evaluated the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause ...mortality among adults with T1DM. We evaluated these risks in adults with T1DM compared with the non-diabetic population in a nationwide study from Scotland and examined control of CVD risk factors in those with T1DM.
The Scottish Care Information-Diabetes Collaboration database was used to identify all people registered with T1DM and aged ≥20 years in 2005-2007 and to provide risk factor data. Major CVD events and deaths were obtained from the national hospital admissions database and death register. The age-adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) for CVD and mortality in T1DM (n = 21,789) versus the non-diabetic population (3.96 million) was estimated using Poisson regression. The age-adjusted IRR for first CVD event associated with T1DM versus the non-diabetic population was higher in women (3.0: 95% CI 2.4-3.8, p<0.001) than men (2.3: 2.0-2.7, p<0.001) while the IRR for all-cause mortality associated with T1DM was comparable at 2.6 (2.2-3.0, p<0.001) in men and 2.7 (2.2-3.4, p<0.001) in women. Between 2005-2007, among individuals with T1DM, 34 of 123 deaths among 10,173 who were <40 years and 37 of 907 deaths among 12,739 who were ≥40 years had an underlying cause of death of coma or diabetic ketoacidosis. Among individuals 60-69 years, approximately three extra deaths per 100 per year occurred among men with T1DM (28.51/1,000 person years at risk), and two per 100 per year for women (17.99/1,000 person years at risk). 28% of those with T1DM were current smokers, 13% achieved target HbA(1c) of <7% and 37% had very poor (≥9%) glycaemic control. Among those aged ≥40, 37% had blood pressures above even conservative targets (≥140/90 mmHg) and 39% of those ≥40 years were not on a statin. Although many of these risk factors were comparable to those previously reported in other developed countries, CVD and mortality rates may not be generalizable to other countries. Limitations included lack of information on the specific insulin therapy used.
Although the relative risks for CVD and total mortality associated with T1DM in this population have declined relative to earlier studies, T1DM continues to be associated with higher CVD and death rates than the non-diabetic population. Risk factor management should be improved to further reduce risk but better treatment approaches for achieving good glycaemic control are badly needed. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.
Studies using claims databases reported that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection >30 days earlier was associated with an increase in the incidence of type 1 ...diabetes. Using exact dates of diabetes diagnosis from the national register in Scotland linked to virology laboratory data, we sought to replicate this finding.
A cohort of 1,849,411 individuals aged <35 years without diabetes, including all those in Scotland who subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, was followed from 1 March 2020 to 22 November 2021. Incident type 1 diabetes was ascertained from the national registry. Using Cox regression, we tested the association of time-updated infection with incident diabetes. Trends in incidence of type 1 diabetes in the population from 2015 through 2021 were also estimated in a generalized additive model.
There were 365,080 individuals who had at least one detected SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up and 1,074 who developed type 1 diabetes. The rate ratio for incident type 1 diabetes associated with first positive test for SARS-CoV-2 (reference category: no previous infection) was 0.86 (95% CI 0.62, 1.21) for infection >30 days earlier and 2.62 (95% CI 1.81, 3.78) for infection in the previous 30 days. However, negative and positive SARS-CoV-2 tests were more frequent in the days surrounding diabetes presentation. In those aged 0-14 years, incidence of type 1 diabetes during 2020-2021 was 20% higher than the 7-year average.
Type 1 diabetes incidence in children increased during the pandemic. However, the cohort analysis suggests that SARS-CoV-2 infection itself was not the cause of this increase.
The objectives of this study were to identify risk factors for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to lay the basis for risk stratification based on demographic data and health records.
...The design was a matched case-control study. Severe COVID-19 was defined as either a positive nucleic acid test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the national database followed by entry to a critical care unit or death within 28 days or a death certificate with COVID-19 as underlying cause. Up to 10 controls per case matched for sex, age, and primary care practice were selected from the national population register. For this analysis-based on ascertainment of positive test results up to 6 June 2020, entry to critical care up to 14 June 2020, and deaths registered up to 14 June 2020-there were 36,948 controls and 4,272 cases, of which 1,894 (44%) were care home residents. All diagnostic codes from the past 5 years of hospitalisation records and all drug codes from prescriptions dispensed during the past 240 days were extracted. Rate ratios for severe COVID-19 were estimated by conditional logistic regression. In a logistic regression using the age-sex distribution of the national population, the odds ratios for severe disease were 2.87 for a 10-year increase in age and 1.63 for male sex. In the case-control analysis, the strongest risk factor was residence in a care home, with rate ratio 21.4 (95% CI 19.1-23.9, p = 8 × 10-644). Univariate rate ratios for conditions listed by public health agencies as conferring high risk were 2.75 (95% CI 1.96-3.88, p = 6 × 10-9) for type 1 diabetes, 1.60 (95% CI 1.48-1.74, p = 8 × 10-30) for type 2 diabetes, 1.49 (95% CI 1.37-1.61, p = 3 × 10-21) for ischemic heart disease, 2.23 (95% CI 2.08-2.39, p = 4 × 10-109) for other heart disease, 1.96 (95% CI 1.83-2.10, p = 2 × 10-78) for chronic lower respiratory tract disease, 4.06 (95% CI 3.15-5.23, p = 3 × 10-27) for chronic kidney disease, 5.4 (95% CI 4.9-5.8, p = 1 × 10-354) for neurological disease, 3.61 (95% CI 2.60-5.00, p = 2 × 10-14) for chronic liver disease, and 2.66 (95% CI 1.86-3.79, p = 7 × 10-8) for immune deficiency or suppression. Seventy-eight percent of cases and 52% of controls had at least one listed condition (51% of cases and 11% of controls under age 40). Severe disease was associated with encashment of at least one prescription in the past 9 months and with at least one hospital admission in the past 5 years (rate ratios 3.10 95% CI 2.59-3.71 and 2.75 95% CI 2.53-2.99, respectively) even after adjusting for the listed conditions. In those without listed conditions, significant associations with severe disease were seen across many hospital diagnoses and drug categories. Age and sex provided 2.58 bits of information for discrimination. A model based on demographic variables, listed conditions, hospital diagnoses, and prescriptions provided an additional 1.07 bits (C-statistic 0.804). A limitation of this study is that records from primary care were not available.
We have shown that, along with older age and male sex, severe COVID-19 is strongly associated with past medical history across all age groups. Many comorbidities beyond the risk conditions designated by public health agencies contribute to this. A risk classifier that uses all the information available in health records, rather than only a limited set of conditions, will more accurately discriminate between low-risk and high-risk individuals who may require shielding until the epidemic is over.
Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, has been shown to reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes. Whether semaglutide can reduce cardiovascular ...risk associated with overweight and obesity in the absence of diabetes is unknown.
In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven superiority trial, we enrolled patients 45 years of age or older who had preexisting cardiovascular disease and a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 27 or greater but no history of diabetes. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg or placebo. The primary cardiovascular end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke in a time-to-first-event analysis. Safety was also assessed.
A total of 17,604 patients were enrolled; 8803 were assigned to receive semaglutide and 8801 to receive placebo. The mean (±SD) duration of exposure to semaglutide or placebo was 34.2±13.7 months, and the mean duration of follow-up was 39.8±9.4 months. A primary cardiovascular end-point event occurred in 569 of the 8803 patients (6.5%) in the semaglutide group and in 701 of the 8801 patients (8.0%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 0.90; P<0.001). Adverse events leading to permanent discontinuation of the trial product occurred in 1461 patients (16.6%) in the semaglutide group and 718 patients (8.2%) in the placebo group (P<0.001).
In patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease and overweight or obesity but without diabetes, weekly subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 2.4 mg was superior to placebo in reducing the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke at a mean follow-up of 39.8 months. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; SELECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03574597.).
Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease in general population studies. However, its contribution to risk for cardiovascular events in patients with established ...cardiovascular disease or on statin therapy is uncertain.
Patient-level data from seven randomised, placebo-controlled, statin outcomes trials were collated and harmonised to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for cardiovascular events, defined as fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease, stroke, or revascularisation procedures. HRs for cardiovascular events were estimated within each trial across predefined lipoprotein(a) groups (15 to <30 mg/dL, 30 to <50 mg/dL, and ≥50 mg/dL, vs <15 mg/dL), before pooling estimates using multivariate random-effects meta-analysis.
Analyses included data for 29 069 patients with repeat lipoprotein(a) measurements (mean age 62 years SD 8; 8064 28% women; 5751 events during 95 576 person-years at risk). Initiation of statin therapy reduced LDL cholesterol (mean change −39% 95% CI −43 to −35) without a significant change in lipoprotein(a). Associations of baseline and on-statin treatment lipoprotein(a) with cardiovascular disease risk were approximately linear, with increased risk at lipoprotein(a) values of 30 mg/dL or greater for baseline lipoprotein(a) and 50 mg/dL or greater for on-statin lipoprotein(a). For baseline lipoprotein(a), HRs adjusted for age and sex (vs <15 mg/dL) were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·18) for 15 mg/dL to less than 30 mg/dL, 1·11 (1·00–1·22) for 30 mg/dL to less than 50 mg/dL, and 1·31 (1·08–1·58) for 50 mg/dL or higher; respective HRs for on-statin lipoprotein(a) were 0·94 (0·81–1·10), 1·06 (0·94–1·21), and 1·43 (1·15–1·76). HRs were almost identical after further adjustment for previous cardiovascular disease, diabetes, smoking, systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol. The association of on-statin lipoprotein(a) with cardiovascular disease risk was stronger than for on-placebo lipoprotein(a) (interaction p=0·010) and was more pronounced at younger ages (interaction p=0·008) without effect-modification by any other patient-level or study-level characteristics.
In this individual-patient data meta-analysis of statin-treated patients, elevated baseline and on-statin lipoprotein(a) showed an independent approximately linear relation with cardiovascular disease risk. This study provides a rationale for testing the lipoprotein(a) lowering hypothesis in cardiovascular disease outcomes trials.
Novartis Pharma AG.
Abstract Objective To compare lipid-lowering efficacy of adding alirocumab to rosuvastatin versus other treatment strategies (NCT01730053). Methods Patients receiving baseline rosuvastatin regimens ...(10 or 20 mg) were randomized to: add-on alirocumab 75 mg every-2-weeks (Q2W) (1-mL subcutaneous injection via pre-filled pen); add-on ezetimibe 10 mg/day; or double-dose rosuvastatin. Patients had cardiovascular disease (CVD) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL–C) ≥70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) or CVD risk factors and LDL–C ≥100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L). In the alirocumab group, dose was blindly increased at Week 12 to 150 mg Q2W (also 1-mL volume) in patients not achieving their LDL–C target. Primary endpoint was percent change in calculated LDL–C from baseline to 24 weeks (intent-to-treat). Results 305 patients were randomized. In the baseline rosuvastatin 10 mg group, significantly greater LDL–C reductions were observed with add-on alirocumab (−50.6%) versus ezetimibe (−14.4%; p < 0.0001) and double-dose rosuvastatin (−16.3%; p < 0.0001). In the baseline rosuvastatin 20 mg group, LDL–C reduction with add-on alirocumab was −36.3% compared with −11.0% with ezetimibe and −15.9% with double-dose rosuvastatin ( p = 0.0136 and 0.0453, respectively; pre-specified threshold for significance p < 0.0125). Overall, ∼80% alirocumab patients were maintained on 75 mg Q2W. Of alirocumab-treated patients, 84.9% and 66.7% in the baseline rosuvastatin 10 and 20 mg groups, respectively, achieved risk-based LDL–C targets. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 56.3% of alirocumab patients versus 53.5% ezetimibe and 67.3% double-dose rosuvastatin (pooled data). Conclusions The addition of alirocumab to rosuvastatin provided incremental LDL–C lowering versus adding ezetimibe or doubling the rosuvastatin dose.
PDF
