Position statements by the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of ...Endocrinology recommend sequential intensification therapy for patients recently diagnosed with diabetes and mild hyperglycaemia.1,2 A recent meta-analysis3 of 15 randomised controlled trials showed that early combination therapies were associated with greater reduction of glycaemia; however, there was heterogeneity in basal glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and median duration of follow-up was short. ...the long-term clinical benefits of early combination therapy are still not clear. A significant reduction in the relative risk (RR) for time to initial treatment failure was observed in the early combination treatment group compared with the monotherapy group over the 5-year study duration (hazard ratio 0·51 95% CI 0·45–0·58; p<0·0001). ...the effect of early combination treatment on glycaemic control and risk of secondary treatment failure strengthens the notion that early combination therapy could have long-term clinical benefits regarding glycaemic durability.
Establishing cardiovascular safety of new therapies for type 2 diabetes is important. Safety data are available for the subcutaneous form of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist semaglutide ...but are needed for oral semaglutide.
We assessed cardiovascular outcomes of once-daily oral semaglutide in an event-driven, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients at high cardiovascular risk (age of ≥50 years with established cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease, or age of ≥60 years with cardiovascular risk factors only). The primary outcome in a time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke). The trial was designed to rule out 80% excess cardiovascular risk as compared with placebo (noninferiority margin of 1.8 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio for the primary outcome).
A total of 3183 patients were randomly assigned to receive oral semaglutide or placebo. The mean age of the patients was 66 years; 2695 patients (84.7%) were 50 years of age or older and had cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease. The median time in the trial was 15.9 months. Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 61 of 1591 patients (3.8%) in the oral semaglutide group and 76 of 1592 (4.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.57 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Results for components of the primary outcome were as follows: death from cardiovascular causes, 15 of 1591 patients (0.9%) in the oral semaglutide group and 30 of 1592 (1.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.92); nonfatal myocardial infarction, 37 of 1591 patients (2.3%) and 31 of 1592 (1.9%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.90); and nonfatal stroke, 12 of 1591 patients (0.8%) and 16 of 1592 (1.0%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.57). Death from any cause occurred in 23 of 1591 patients (1.4%) in the oral semaglutide group and 45 of 1592 (2.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.84). Gastrointestinal adverse events leading to discontinuation of oral semaglutide or placebo were more common with oral semaglutide.
In this trial involving patients with type 2 diabetes, the cardiovascular risk profile of oral semaglutide was not inferior to that of placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; PIONEER 6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02692716.).
Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at increased risk for hospital admissions, and acute hospitalizations are associated with a worse prognosis. However, outcomes related to all‐cause hospital ...admissions (ACHAs) were often overlooked in trials that demonstrated the cardiovascular and kidney benefits of sodium‐glucose cotransporter‐2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (GLP‐1RAs). This review includes a contemporary literature summary of emerging data regarding the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP‐1RAs on ACHAs. The role of SGLT2 inhibitors in preventing ACHAs was shown in exploratory investigations of several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and was further supported by real‐world evidence (RWE). However, the association between GLP‐1RA use and lower ACHA risk was mainly shown through RWE, with minimal available RCT data. We also discuss the advantages and challenges of studying ACHAs. Finally, we propose an easily memorized (“ABCDE” acronym) clinical approach to evaluating T2D status and treatment in admitted patients, as they transition from hospital to community care. This systematic approach may assist clinicians in recognizing possible pitfalls in T2D management, thereby preventing subsequent hospitalizations and improving patient prognoses. While acute admission can sometimes be perceived as a management failure, it should also be viewed as an opportunity to take action to prevent the next hospitalization.
Obesity is a major public health issue, and new pharmaceuticals for weight management are needed. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue ...semaglutide in comparison with liraglutide and a placebo in promoting weight loss.
We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo and active controlled, multicentre, dose-ranging, phase 2 trial. The study was done in eight countries involving 71 clinical sites. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years) without diabetes and with a body-mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or more. We randomly assigned participants (6:1) to each active treatment group (ie, semaglutide 0·05 mg, 0·1 mg, 0·2 mg, 0·3 mg, or 0·4 mg; initiated at 0·05 mg per day and incrementally escalated every 4 weeks or liraglutide 3·0 mg; initiated at 0·6 mg per day and escalated by 0·6 mg per week) or matching placebo group (equal injection volume and escalation schedule to active treatment group) using a block size of 56. All treatment doses were delivered once-daily via subcutaneous injections. Participants and investigators were masked to the assigned study treatment but not the target dose. The primary endpoint was percentage weight loss at week 52. The primary analysis was done using intention-to-treat ANCOVA estimation with missing data derived from the placebo pool. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02453711.
Between Oct 1, 2015, and Feb 11, 2016, 957 individuals were randomly assigned (102–103 participants per active treatment group and 136 in the pooled placebo group). Mean baseline characteristics included age 47 years, bodyweight 111·5 kg, and BMI 39·3 kg/m2. Bodyweight data were available for 891 (93%) of 957 participants at week 52. Estimated mean weight loss was −2·3% for the placebo group versus −6·0% (0·05 mg), −8·6% (0·1 mg), −11·6% (0·2 mg), −11·2% (0·3 mg), and −13·8% (0·4 mg) for the semaglutide groups. All semaglutide groups versus placebo were significant (unadjusted p≤0·0010), and remained significant after adjustment for multiple testing (p≤0·0055). Mean bodyweight reductions for 0·2 mg or more of semaglutide versus liraglutide were all significant (−13·8% to −11·2% vs −7·8%). Estimated weight loss of 10% or more occurred in 10% of participants receiving placebo compared with 37–65% receiving 0·1 mg or more of semaglutide (p<0·0001 vs placebo). All semaglutide doses were generally well tolerated, with no new safety concerns. The most common adverse events were dose-related gastrointestinal symptoms, primarily nausea, as seen previously with GLP-1 receptor agonists.
In combination with dietary and physical activity counselling, semaglutide was well tolerated over 52 weeks and showed clinically relevant weight loss compared with placebo at all doses.
Novo Nordisk A/S.
The magnitude of effect of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) on specific cardiovascular and renal outcomes and whether heterogeneity is based on key baseline characteristics remains ...undefined.
We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, placebo-controlled, cardiovascular outcome trials of SGLT2i in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched PubMed and Embase for trials published up to Sept 24, 2018. Data search and extraction were completed with a standardised data form and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Efficacy outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death), the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure, and progression of renal disease. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were pooled across trials, and efficacy outcomes were stratified by baseline presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and degree of renal function.
We included data from three identified trials and 34 322 patients (60·2% with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), with 3342 major adverse cardiovascular events, 2028 cardiovascular deaths or hospitalisation sfor heart failure events, and 766 renal composite outcomes. SGLT2i reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 11% (HR 0·89 95% CI 0·83–0·96, p=0·0014), with benefit only seen in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (0·86 0·80–0·93) and not in those without (1·00 0·87–1·16, p for interaction=0·0501). SGLT2i reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure by 23% (0·77 0·71–0·84, p<0·0001), with a similar benefit in patients with and without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and with and without a history of heart failure. SGLT2i reduced the risk of progression of renal disease by 45% (0·55 0·48–0·64, p<0·0001), with a similar benefit in those with and without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The magnitude of benefit of SGLT2i varied with baseline renal function, with greater reductions in hospitalisations for heart failure (p for interaction=0·0073) and lesser reductions in progression of renal disease (p for interaction=0·0258) in patients with more severe kidney disease at baseline.
SGLT2i have moderate benefits on atherosclerotic major adverse cardiovascular events that seem confined to patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, they have robust benefits on reducing hospitalisation for heart failure and progression of renal disease regardless of existing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or a history of heart failure.
None.
Background Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) aim to evaluate the quality of care based on the perspectives of patients rather than clinical indicators. Qualitative research is needed to ...identify these perspectives in people with type 2 diabetes. Objective To identify, for the first time in Israel, aspects valuable for people with type 2 diabetes that can be relevant for PROMs in diabetes care. Methods A qualitative study included three focus groups totalling 19 people with type 2 diabetes. Inclusion criteria were: (1)type 2 diabetes, (2)diabetes duration of at least six months, and (3)adults aged 45-80 years. Purposive sampling enabled recruitment of heterogeneous participants. Also, two experts' panels with healthcare providers involved in diabetes care (n = 23) were conducted to provide triangulation of information (more testimony about what is valuable for people with type 2 diabetes). Discussions were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Results Four domains were deemed valuable for people with type 2 diabetes: (1)challenges of living with diabetes, including reduced physical function, healthy lifestyle struggles, sexual dysfunction, and financial burden, (2)mental health issues, including depression, distress, anxiety, frustration, and loneliness, (3)self-management ability, including management of lifestyle modifications and treatment, knowledge about the disease and treatment, and (4)patient-clinician relationships, including the devotion of clinicians, trust in clinicians and treatment, shared decision-making, and multidisciplinary care under one roof. Experts favour using PROMs in diabetes routine care and even acknowledged their necessity to improve the treatment process. However, only some of the domains raised by people with type 2 diabetes were identified by the experts. Conclusions There are content gaps between perspectives of people with type 2 diabetes and their healthcare providers. PROMs are essential in addressing issues largely not addressed in routine diabetes care. We recommend that researchers and healthcare providers, who intend to utilize PROMs for diabetes care, consider the aforementioned domains.
Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors may have a protective effect in diabetic nephropathy.
We studied renal outcomes of 16,492 patients with type 2 diabetes, randomized to saxagliptin versus placebo and ...followed for a median of 2.1 years in the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 53 (SAVOR-TIMI 53) trial.
At baseline, 9,696 (58.8%) subjects had normoalbuminuria (albumin/creatinine ratio ACR <30 mg/g), 4,426 (26.8%) had microalbuminuria (ACR 30-300 mg/g), and 1,638 (9.9%) had macroalbuminuria (ACR >300 mg/g). Treatment with saxagliptin was associated with improvement in and/or less deterioration in ACR categories from baseline to end of trial (EOT) (P = 0.021, P < 0.001, and P = 0.049 for individuals with baseline normoalbuminuria, microalbuminuria, and macroalbuminuria, respectively). At 2 years, the difference in mean ACR change between saxagliptin and placebo arms was -19.3 mg/g (P = 0.033) for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >50 mL/min/body surface area per 1.73 m
(BSA), -105 mg/g (P = 0.011) for 50 ≥ eGFR ≥ 30 mL/min/BSA, and -245.2 mg/g (P = 0.086) for eGFR <30 mL/min/BSA. Analyzing ACR as a continuous variable showed reduction in ACR with saxagliptin (1 year, P < 0.0001; 2 years, P = 0.0143; and EOT, P = 0.0158). The change in ACR did not correlate with that in HbA
(r = 0.041, 0.052, and 0.036; 1 year, 2 years, and EOT, respectively). The change in eGFR was similar in the saxagliptin and placebo groups. Safety renal outcomes, including doubling of serum creatinine, initiation of chronic dialysis, renal transplantation, or serum creatinine >6.0 mg/dL, were similar as well.
Treatment with saxagliptin improved ACR, even in the normoalbuminuric range, without affecting eGFR. The beneficial effect of saxagliptin on albuminuria could not be explained by its effect on glycemic control.
Diabetes mellitus and heart failure frequently coexist. However, few diabetes mellitus trials have prospectively evaluated and adjudicated heart failure as an end point.
A total of 16 492 patients ...with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a history of, or at risk of, cardiovascular events were randomized to saxagliptin or placebo (mean follow-up, 2.1 years). The primary end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. Hospitalization for heart failure was a predefined component of the secondary end point. Baseline N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide was measured in 12 301 patients. More patients treated with saxagliptin (289, 3.5%) were hospitalized for heart failure compared with placebo (228, 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence intercal, 1.07-1.51; P=0.007). Corresponding rates at 12 months were 1.9% versus 1.3% (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.88; P=0.002), with no significant difference thereafter (time-varying interaction, P=0.017). Subjects at greatest risk of hospitalization for heart failure had previous heart failure, an estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤60 mL/min, or elevated baseline levels of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide. There was no evidence of heterogeneity between N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide and saxagliptin (P for interaction=0.46), although the absolute risk excess for heart failure with saxagliptin was greatest in the highest N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide quartile (2.1%). Even in patients at high risk of hospitalization for heart failure, the risk of the primary and secondary end points were similar between treatment groups.
In the context of balanced primary and secondary end points, saxagliptin treatment was associated with an increased risk or hospitalization for heart failure. This increase in risk was highest among patients with elevated levels of natriuretic peptides, previous heart failure, or chronic kidney disease.
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01107886.
Aim
We evaluated gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs) with once‐weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg in adults with overweight or obesity and their contribution to weight loss (WL).
Materials and methods
...AE analyses pooled data from the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People With Obesity (STEP) 1‐3 trials for participants randomized to 68 weeks of semaglutide 2.4 mg (n = 2117) or placebo (n = 1262). WL was analysed by presence/absence of GI AEs. Mediation analysis estimated WL effects mediated by and unrelated to GI AEs. GI tolerability with semaglutide 2.4 mg maintenance and cessation after dose escalation was evaluated using STEP 4 data among 803 participants tolerating 20 weeks of semaglutide run‐in.
Results
GI AEs were more common with semaglutide 2.4 mg than placebo, with most frequently nausea (43.9% vs. 16.1% of participants), diarrhoea (29.7% vs. 15.9%), vomiting (24.5% vs. 6.3%) and constipation (24.2% vs. 11.1%). Most GI AEs with semaglutide were non‐serious (99.5% of AEs), mild‐to‐moderate (98.1%), transient and occurred most frequently during/shortly after dose escalation. Few semaglutide‐treated participants (4.3%) permanently discontinued treatment for GI AEs. In STEP 1‐3, mean WL with semaglutide 2.4 mg was similar in participants without (9.6%‐17.1%) versus with GI AEs (11.4%‐17.7%). Consistent with this observation, mediation analysis found that GI AEs contributed little to semaglutide‐induced WL: of the additional 7.6%‐14.4% WL with semaglutide versus placebo, <1 percentage point was mediated by GI AEs. In STEP 4, semaglutide 2.4 mg maintenance was well tolerated.
Conclusions
GI AEs were more common with semaglutide 2.4 mg than placebo, but typically mild‐to‐moderate and transient. Semaglutide‐induced WL was largely independent of GI AEs.
PDF
