Insulin use and increased risk of mortality in type 2 diabetes: a cohort study

Are all people with diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors or microvascular complications at very high risk? Findings from the Risk and Prevention Study

AIMS

To verify whether it is possible, in people with diabetes mellitus (DM) considered at very high cardiovascular (CV) risk, stratify this risk better and identify significant modifiable risk factor (including lifestyle habits) to help patients and clinicians improve CV prevention.

METHODS

People with DM and microvascular diseases or one or more CV risk factors (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smoking, poor dietary habits, overweight, physical inactivity) included in the Risk and Prevention study were selected. We considered the combined endpoint of non-fatal acute myocardial infarction and stroke and CV death. A multivariate Cox proportional analysis was carried out to identify relevant predictors. We also used the RECPAM method to identify subgroups of patients at higher risk.

RESULTS

In our study, the rate of major CV events was lower than expected (5 % in 5 years). Predictors of CV events were age, male, sex, heart failure, previous atherosclerotic disease, atrial fibrillation, insulin treatment, high HbA1c, heart rate and other CV diseases while being physically active was protective. RECPAM analysis indicated that history of atherosclerotic diseases and a low BMI defined worse prognosis (HR 4.51 95 % CI 3.04-6.69). Among subjects with no previous atherosclerotic disease, men with HbA1c more than 8 % were at higher CV risk (HR 2.77; 95 % CI 1.86-4.14) with respect to women.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population, the rate of major CV events was lower than expected. This prediction model could help clinicians identify people with DM at higher CV risk and support them in achieving goals of physical activity and HbA1c.

Association of insulin dosage with mortality or major adverse cardiovascular events: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Existing studies have shown conflicting evidence regarding the safety of exogenous insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. In particular, observational studies have reported an increased risk of death and cardiovascular disease among users of higher versus lower doses of insulin. We aimed to quantify the association between increasing dosage of insulin exposure and death and cardiovascular events, while taking into account time-dependent confounding and mediation that might have biased previous studies.

METHODS

We did a cohort study using primary care records from the UK-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). New users of metformin monotherapy were identified in the period between Jan 1, 2001, and Dec 31, 2012. We then identified those in this group with a new prescription for insulin. Insulin exposure was categorised into groups according to the mean dose (units) per day within 180-day time segments throughout each patient's follow-up. Relative differences in mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, cardiovascular-related mortality) were assessed using conventional multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Marginal structural models were then applied to reduce bias introduced by the time-dependent confounders affected by previous treatment.

FINDINGS

We identified 165 308 adults with type 2 diabetes in the CPRD database. After applying our exclusion criteria, 6072 (mean age 60 years [SD 12·5], 3281 [54%] men, mean HbA_1c 8·5% [SD 1·75], and median follow-up 3·1 years [IQR 1·7-5·3) were new add-on insulin users and were included in the study cohort; 3599 were new add-on insulin users and were included in the subcohort linked to hospital records and death certificate information. Crude mortality rates were comparable between insulin dose groups; <25 units per day (46 per 1000 person-years), 25 to <50 units per day (39 per 1000 person-years), 50 to <75 units per day (27 per 1000 person-years), 75 to <100 units per day (34 per 1000 person-years), and at least 100 units per day (32 per 1000 person-years; p>0·05 for all; mean rate of 31 deaths per 1000 person-years [95% CI 29-33]). With adjustment for baseline covariates, mortality rates were higher for increasing insulin doses: less than 25 units per day [reference group]; 25 to <50 units per day, hazard ratio (HR) 1·41 [95% CI 1·12-1·78]; 50 to <75 units per day, 1·37 [1·04-1·80]; 75 to <100 units per day, 1·85 [1·35-2·53]; and at least 100 units per day, 2·16 [1·58-2·93]. After applying marginal structural models, insulin dose was not associated with mortality in any group (p>0·1 for all).

INTERPRETATION

In conventional multivariable regression analysis, higher insulin doses are associated with increased mortality after adjustment for baseline covariates. However, this effect seems to be confounded by time-dependent factors such as insulin exposure, glycaemic control, bodyweight gain, and the occurrence of cardiovascular and hypoglycaemic events. This study provides reassurance of the overall safety of insulin use in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and contributes to our understanding of the contrasting conclusions from non-randomised and randomised studies regarding dose-dependent effects of insulin on cardiovascular events and mortality.

FUNDING

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Research and Development Corporation.

Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus on recurrent myocardial infarction in China

To evaluate the influence of type 2 diabetes mellitus on the long-term outcomes of Chinese patients with previous myocardial infarction, we studied 864 patients with previous myocardial infarction, including 251 with type 2 diabetes mellitus and 613 without type 2 diabetes mellitus, over a median follow-up time of 2.9 years. The type 2 diabetes mellitus patients were subdivided into 95 insulin-treated diabetes mellitus and 156 non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus subjects. The crude incidences (per 1000 patient-years) in the type 2 diabetes mellitus subjects versus the non-type 2 diabetes mellitus subjects were 43.7 versus 25.1 for recurrent myocardial infarction, 68.7 versus 28.3 for all-cause death and 99.8 versus 49.9 for the composite end point (i.e. recurrent myocardial infarction or all-cause death). Cox regression analysis showed that the adjusted hazard ratios for recurrent myocardial infarction, all-cause death and their combination were 1.67 (95% confidence interval: 1.06-2.74), 1.90 (1.25-2.90) and 1.72 (1.23-2.40), respectively. Significant associations were also observed between insulin treatment and all-cause death. Our findings suggested that type 2 diabetes mellitus is an independent risk factor for recurrent myocardial infarction, all-cause death and the composite end point among previous myocardial infarction patients.

Impact of the use of anti-diabetic drugs on survival of diabetic dialysis patients: a 5-year retrospective cohort study in Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and associated complications are common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and can increase morbidity and mortality. A longitudinal 5-year observational study was conducted to investigate whether the use of anti-diabetic medications or not affected survival rates of diabetic dialysis patients.

METHODS

Using a data sample of a million patients from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Database, a retrospective cohort study surveyed patients with type 2 DM who began dialysis between 2002 and 2007. The study population was classified into groups using or not using anti-diabetic drugs. The group using anti-diabetic drugs was then categorized into 3 subgroups, including use of only oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), only insulin, and OHAs-combined insulin groups. Subjects of these four groups were followed 5 years or to date of death. Three major areas were analyzed: (1) demographic data and medical history; (2) survival prognosis and causes of death; and (3) effects on survival prognosis of different classes of OHAs.

RESULTS

A total of 912 patients fitting inclusion criteria were enrolled and followed-up for 5 years or to date of death. A total 465 patients died, and those not using anti-diabetic drugs (67.34 %) had a higher mortality rate than those using anti-diabetic drugs (46.42 %). After the multivariate analysis, group of OHAs-combined insulin had the lowest risk of death (HR 0.36, 95 % CI 0.27-0.47), followed by OHAs alone (HR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.38-0.63) and then insulin alone (HR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.51-0.88). To clarify four classes of OHAs (sulfonylurea, α-glucosidase inhibitors, meglitinide, and thiazolidinedione) are used in Taiwan for uremia patient with type 2 DM, and in our study, there were no significant differences in survival prognosis for the four drugs. Finally, the most common cause of death was infectious disease and there were no significant differences among the four groups.

CONCLUSION

This 5-year observational study results suggested that diabetic dialysis patients with anti-diabetic drugs had a lower risk of death compared with those without anti-diabetic drugs. Despite insulin therapy, appropriate OHAs should play an important role in treating these patients.

Efficacy and safety of insulin in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

It is essential to anticipate and limit the social, economic and sanitary cost of type 2 diabetes (T2D), which is in constant progression worldwide. When blood glucose targets are not achieved with diet and lifestyle intervention, insulin is recommended whether or not the patient is already taking hypoglycaemic drugs. However, the benefit/risk balance of insulin remains controversial. Our aim was to determine the efficacy and safety of insulin vs. hypoglycaemic drugs or diet/placebo on clinically relevant endpoints.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library) including all randomised clinical trials (RCT) analysing insulin vs. hypoglycaemic drugs or diet/placebo, published between 1950 and 2013, was performed. We included all RCTs reporting effects on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, death by cancer, cardiovascular morbidity, microvascular complications and hypoglycaemia in adults ≥ 18 years with T2D. Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted the data. Internal validity of studies was analyzed according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) were calculated, using the fixed effect model in first approach. The I(2) statistic assessed heterogeneity. In case of statistical heterogeneity, subgroup and sensitivity analyses then a random effect model were performed. The alpha threshold was 0.05. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal cardiovascular events, hypoglycaemic events, death from cancer, and macro- or microvascular complications.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs were included out of the 1632 initially identified studies. 18 599 patients were analysed: Insulin had no effect vs. hypoglycaemic drugs on all-cause mortality RR = 0.99 (95 % CI =0.92-1.06) and cardiovascular mortality RR = 0.99 (95 % CI =0.90-1.09), nor vs. diet/placebo RR = 0.92 (95 % CI = 0.80-1.07) and RR = 0.95 (95 % CI 0.77-1.18) respectively. No effect was found on secondary outcomes either. However, severe hypoglycaemia was more frequent with insulin compared to hypoglycaemic drugs RR = 1.70 (95 % CI = 1.51-1.91).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant evidence of long term efficacy of insulin on any clinical outcome in T2D. However, there is a trend to clinically harmful adverse effects such as hypoglycaemia and weight gain. The only benefit could be limited to reducing short term hyperglycemia. This needs to be confirmed with further studies.

Association between Insulin Monotherapy versus Insulin plus Metformin and the Risk of All-Cause Mortality and Other Serious Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study

AIMS

To determine if concomitant metformin reduced the risk of death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and cancer in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin.

METHODS

For this retrospective cohort study, people with type 2 diabetes who progressed to insulin with or without metformin from 2000 onwards were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (≈7% sample of the UK population). The risks of all-cause mortality, MACE and incident cancer were evaluated using multivariable Cox models comparing insulin monotherapy with insulin plus metformin. We accounted for insulin dose.

RESULTS

12,020 subjects treated with insulin were identified, including 6,484 treated with monotherapy. There were 1,486 deaths, 579 MACE (excluding those with a history of large vessel disease), and 680 cancer events (excluding those in patients with a history of cancer). Corresponding event rates were 41.5 (95% CI 39.4-43.6) deaths, 20.8 (19.2-22.5) MACE, and 21.6 (20.0-23.3) cancer events per 1,000 person-years. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for people prescribed insulin plus metformin versus insulin monotherapy were 0.60 (95% CI 0.52-0.68) for all-cause mortality, 0.75 (0.62-0.91) for MACE, and 0.96 (0.80-1.15) for cancer. For patients who were propensity-score matched, the corresponding aHRs for all-cause mortality and cancer were 0.62 (0.52-0.75) and 0.99 (0.78-1.26), respectively. For MACE, the aHR was 1.06 (0.75-1.49) prior to 1,275 days and 1.87 (1.22-2.86) after 1,275 days post-index.

CONCLUSIONS

People with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin plus concomitant metformin had a reduced risk of death and MACE compared with people treated with insulin monotherapy. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of cancer between people treated with insulin as monotherapy or in combination with metformin.

All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality among Users of Basal Insulins NPH, Detemir, and Glargine

Background

Insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes may increase mortality and cancer incidence, but the impact of different types of basal insulins on these endpoints is unclear. Compared to the traditional NPH insulin, the newer, longer-acting insulin analogues detemir and glargine have shown benefits in randomized controlled trials. Whether these advantages translate into lower mortality among users in real life is unknown.

Objective

To estimate the differences in all-cause and cause-specific mortality rates between new users of basal insulins in a population-based study in Finland.

Methods

23 751 individuals aged ≥40 with type 2 diabetes, who initiated basal insulin therapy in 2006–2009 were identified from national registers, with comprehensive data for mortality, causes of death, and background variables. Propensity score matching was performed on characteristics. Follow-up time was up to 4 years (median 1.7 years).

Results

2078 deaths incurred. With NPH as reference, the adjusted HRs for all-cause mortality were 0.39 (95% CI, 0.30–0.50) for detemir, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.44–0.69) for glargine. As compared to glargine, the HR was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.54–0.93) among detemir users. Compared to NPH, the mortality risk for both cardiovascular causes as well as cancer were also significantly lower for glargine, and especially for detemir in adjusted analysis. Furthermore, the results were robust in various sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

In real clinical practice, mortality was substantially higher among users of NPH insulin as compared to insulins detemir or glargine. Considering the large number of patients who require insulin therapy, this difference in risk may have major clinical and public health implications. Due to limitations of the observational study design, further investigation using an interventional study design is warranted.

Effects on All-cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes by Comparing Insulin With Oral Hypoglycemic Agent Therapy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

Retrospective, case-control studies and prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on insulin treatment for diabetic patients yielded contradictory mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the effects of insulin versus oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biological Medicine Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Technical Periodicals, and Wanfang Data, up to July 10, 2015, for RCTs on insulin and OHAs that assessed all-cause mortality and/or cardiovascular death as primary end points. We derived pooled risk ratios (RRs) as summary statistics.

RESULTS

Three trials were included in which 7649 patients received insulin and 8322 received OHAs, with mean (SD) diabetes duration of 5.0 (6.2) and 4.4 (5.9) years, respectively. Insulin did not differ from OHAs in all-cause mortality (RR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.07), cardiovascular death (RR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.91-1.09), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93-1.16), angina (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88-1.06), sudden death (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.66-1.56), or stroke (RR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.88-1.15). Insulin reduced the risk of heart failure compared with OHAs (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99). In the subgroup of secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) or very high risk of CVDs, insulin did not differ from OHAs in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92-1.07), cardiovascular death (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.09), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.88-1.15), heart failure (RR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.34-1.40), or stroke (RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.21).

IMPLICATIONS

Insulin did not provide a clear benefit over OHAs in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular outcomes in the patients with T2D. Insulin therapy has many shortcomings, including inconvenience (injection, strict blood glucose monitoring), hypoglycemia, and obvious weight gain. Thus, we conclude that no robust evidence supports the active use of insulin for this population at present.

Insulin Dose and Cardiovascular Mortality in the ACCORD Trial

OBJECTIVE

In the ACCORD trial, intensive treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular (CV) risk was associated with higher all-cause and CV mortality. Post hoc analyses have failed to implicate rapid reduction of glucose, hypoglycemia, or specific drugs as the causes of this finding. We hypothesized that exposure to injected insulin was quantitatively associated with increased CV mortality.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We examined insulin exposure data from 10,163 participants with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Using Cox proportional hazards models, we explored associations between CV mortality and total, basal, and prandial insulin dose over time, adjusting for both baseline and on-treatment covariates including randomized intervention assignment.

RESULTS

More participants allocated to intensive treatment (79%) than standard treatment (62%) were ever prescribed insulin in ACCORD, with a higher mean updated total daily dose (0.41 vs. 0.30 units/kg) (P < 0.001). Before adjustment for covariates, higher insulin dose was associated with increased risk of CV death (hazard ratios [HRs] per 1 unit/kg/day 1.83 [1.45, 2.31], 2.29 [1.62, 3.23], and 3.36 [2.00, 5.66] for total, basal, and prandial insulin, respectively). However, after adjustment for baseline covariates, no significant association of insulin dose with CV death remained. Moreover, further adjustment for severe hypoglycemia, weight change, attained A1C, and randomized treatment assignment did not materially alter this observation.

CONCLUSIONS

These analyses provide no support for the hypothesis that insulin dose contributed to CV mortality in ACCORD.

Diabetes burden and diabetes distress: the buffering effect of social support

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined protective factors for diabetes distress.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to examine the moderating role of social support in the relationship between the burden of diabetes and diabetes distress.

METHODS

Adults with type 2 diabetes (N = 119; 29 % Latino, 61 % Black, 25 % White) completed validated measures of diabetes distress and social support. Multiple linear regression evaluated the moderating role of social support in the relationship between diabetes burden, indicated by prescription of insulin and presence of complications, and distress.

RESULTS

Greater support satisfaction was significantly associated with lower distress after controlling for burden. Support satisfaction and number of supports significantly moderated the relationship between diabetes burden and distress. Post hoc probing revealed a consistent pattern: Insulin was significantly associated with more diabetes distress at low levels of support but was not at high levels of support.

CONCLUSION

Findings support the stress-buffering hypothesis and suggest that social support may protect against diabetes distress.

New forms of insulin and insulin therapies for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Insulin is a common treatment option for many patients with type 2 diabetes, and is generally used late in the natural history of the disease. Its injectable delivery mode, propensity for weight gain and hypoglycaemia, and the paucity of trials assessing the risk-to-safety ratio of early insulin use are major shortcomings associated with its use in patients with type 2 diabetes. Development of new insulins-such as insulin analogues, including long-acting and short-acting insulins-now provide alternative treatment options to human insulin. These novel insulin formulations and innovative insulin delivery methods, such as oral or inhaled insulin, have been developed with the aim to reduce insulin-associated hypoglycaemia, lower intraindividual pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability, and improve imitation of physiological insulin release. Availability of newer glucose-lowering drugs (such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors) also offers the opportunity for combination treatment; the results of the first trials in this area of research suggest that such treatment might lead to use of reduced insulin doses, less weight gain, and fewer hypoglycaemic episodes than insulin treatment alone. These and future developments will hopefully offer better opportunities for individualisation of insulin treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Impact of glucose-lowering drugs on cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is characterized by multiple pathophysiologic abnormalities. With time, multiple glucose-lowering medications are commonly required to reduce and maintain plasma glucose concentrations within the normal range. Type 2 diabetes mellitus individuals also are at a very high risk for microvascular complications and the incidence of heart attack and stroke is increased two- to three-fold compared with non-diabetic individuals. Therefore, when selecting medications to normalize glucose levels in T2DM patients, it is important that the agent not aggravate, and ideally even improve, cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) and reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In this review, we examine the effect of oral (metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, thiazolidinediones, DPP4 inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and α-glucosidase inhibitors) and injectable (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and insulin) glucose-lowering drugs on established CVRFs and long-term studies of cardiovascular outcomes. Firm evidence that in T2DM cardiovascular disease can be reversed or prevented by improving glycaemic control is still incomplete and must await large, long-term clinical trials in patients at low risk using modern treatment strategies, i.e., drug combinations designed to maximize HbA1c reduction while minimizing hypoglycaemia and excessive weight gain.

Glucose-lowering with exogenous insulin monotherapy in type 2 diabetes: dose association with all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events and cancer

AIMS

To evaluate the association between insulin exposure and all-cause mortality, incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and incident cancer in people with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin monotherapy.

METHODS

For this retrospective study, people with type 2 diabetes who progressed to insulin monotherapy from the year 2000 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The risks of progression to serious adverse outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards models. In the main analysis, insulin exposure was introduced into the model as prescribed international units per kilogram per day, as a cumulative, continuous, annually updated, time-dependent covariable.

RESULTS

A total of 6484 subjects with type 2 diabetes who progressed to treatment with insulin monotherapy from the year 2000 onwards were followed for a mean of 3.3 years. The event numbers were as follows: deaths, n = 1110; incident MACE, n = 342; incident cancers, n = 382. Unadjusted event rates were 61.3 deaths per 1000 person-years, 26.4 incident MACE per 1000 person-years and 24.6 incident cancers per 1000 person-years. The adjusted hazard ratios in relation to 1-unit increases in insulin dose were 1.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-1.78] for all-cause mortality, 1.37 (95% CI 1.05-1.81) for MACE and 1.35 (95% CI 1.04-1.75) for cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

There was an association between increasing exogenous insulin dose and increased risk of all-cause mortality, MACE and cancer in people with type 2 diabetes. The limitations of observational studies mean that this should be further investigated using an interventional study design.

Comparative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients taking different insulin regimens for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the literature evaluating the association between different insulin regimens and the incidence of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in adults with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Multiple biomedical databases (The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts) were searched from their inception to February 2014. References of included studies were hand searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies or case-control studies examining adults (≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes taking any type, dose and/or regimen of insulin were eligible for inclusion in this review.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were cardiovascular morbidity and mortality including fatal and/or non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and/or non-fatal stroke, major adverse cardiac events and cardiovascular death. All-cause mortality was assessed as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Of the 3122 studies identified, 2 RCTs and 6 cohort studies were selected. No case-control studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies examined a total of 109,910 patients. Quantitative synthesis of the results from included studies was not possible due to a large amount of clinical heterogeneity. Each study evaluated cardiovascular outcomes across different insulin-exposure contrasts. RCTs did not identify any difference in cardiovascular risks among a fixed versus variable insulin regimen, or a prandial versus basal regimen, albeit clinically important risks and benefits cannot be ruled out due to wide CIs. Findings from cohort studies were variable with an increased and decreased risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality being reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review of randomised and non-randomised studies identifies a substantive gap in the literature surrounding the cardiovascular morbidity and mortality of patients using different regimens of insulin. There is a need for more consistent high-quality evidence investigating the impact of insulin use on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO

CRD42014007631.

Insulin resistance as a physiological defense against metabolic stress: implications for the management of subsets of type 2 diabetes

Stratifying the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) has to take into account marked variability in patient phenotype due to heterogeneity in its pathophysiology, different stages of the disease process, and multiple other patient factors including comorbidities. The focus here is on the very challenging subgroup of patients with T2D who are overweight or obese with insulin resistance (IR) and the most refractory hyperglycemia due to an inability to change lifestyle to reverse positive energy balance. For this subgroup of patients with T2D, we question the dogma that IR is primarily harmful to the body and should be counteracted at any cost. Instead we propose that IR, particularly in this high-risk subgroup, is a defense mechanism that protects critical tissues of the cardiovascular system from nutrient-induced injury. Overriding IR in an effort to lower plasma glucose levels, particularly with intensive insulin therapy, could therefore be harmful. Treatments that nutrient off-load to lower glucose are more likely to be beneficial. The concepts of "IR as an adaptive defense mechanism" and "insulin-induced metabolic stress" may provide explanation for some of the unexpected outcomes of recent major clinical trials in T2D. Potential molecular mechanisms underlying these concepts; their clinical implications for stratification of T2D management, particularly in overweight and obese patients with difficult glycemic control; and future research requirements are discussed.

Cardiovascular risk profiles in Type 2 diabetes and the impact of geographical setting

Cardiovascular (CV) disease is a leading morbidity and mortality in Type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Previous studies have shown geographic differences in the prevalence of CV and renal diseases. A literature review of longitudinal (≥5 years) studies including ≥1000 T2DM patients and reporting CV endpoints was performed to compare risk profiles. Key differences between geographies included a relatively higher prevalence of microalbuminuria in East Asian relative to North American and European patients, which in turn is an important CV risk factor. Patients from East Asia also have a relatively higher incidence of stroke and lower incidence of coronary heart disease. Overall, there are differences in CV risk in T2DM patients between different regions and that long-term studies from Africa, the Middle East and Latin America are lacking.

Observational studies of the association between glucose-lowering medications and cardiovascular outcomes: addressing methodological limitations

BACKGROUND

Recent years have witnessed a growing body of observational literature on the association between glucose-lowering treatments and cardiovascular disease. However, many of the studies are based on designs or analyses that inadequately address the methodological challenges involved.

METHODS

We reviewed recent observational literature on the association between glucose-lowering medications and cardiovascular outcomes and assessed the design and analysis methods used, with a focus on their ability to address specific methodological challenges. We describe and illustrate these methodological issues and their impact on observed associations, providing examples from the reviewed literature. We suggest approaches that may be employed to manage these methodological challenges.

RESULTS

From the evaluation of 81 publications of observational investigations assessing the association between glucose-lowering treatments and cardiovascular outcomes, we identified the following methodological challenges: 1) handling of temporality in administrative databases; 2) handling of risks that vary with time and treatment duration; 3) definitions of the exposure risk window; 4) handling of exposures that change over time; and 5) handling of confounding by indication. Most of these methodological challenges may be suitably addressed through application of appropriate methods.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Observational research plays an increasingly important role in the evaluation of the clinical effects of diabetes treatment. Implementation of appropriate research methods holds the promise of reducing the potential for spurious findings and the risk that the spurious findings will mislead the medical community about risks and benefits of diabetes medications.

A comparison of all-cause mortality with pioglitazone and insulin in type 2 diabetes: an expanded analysis from a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to assess and compare all-cause mortality rates between pioglitazone (PIO) and insulin (INS).

RESEARCH DESIGN

The study population included 56,536 patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥45 years who were first-time users of PIO or INS. Data from 1 May 2000 until 30 June 2010 from the i3 InVision Data Mart database were linked to death records of the US Social Security Administration obtained in March 2012, with approval from the Institutional Review Board and in full compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Kaplan-Meier curves were generated and hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated for the occurrence of deaths in the PIO and INS cohorts using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted with inverse probability weights derived from propensity scores.

RESULTS

After adjustment for >40 covariates through inverse probability weights derived from propensity scores, the PIO group showed a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.31, 0.36). The risk of all-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the PIO cohort than the INS cohort among subgroups based on baseline variables such as sex, age (<55 years, ≥55 years), antidiabetic medication use (sulfonylureas or metformin), lipid-altering medication use, and congestive heart failure status. The study has some limitations. Use of a claims database means a potential bias toward a younger cohort. Disease-specific mortality was not identified because of no recorded cause of death. Reliable information regarding the differences in disease deterioration rate and some clinical and lab results were not available, which limits the statistical adjustment of baseline variables.

CONCLUSION

PIO was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality than INS.

Beyond metformin: safety considerations in the decision-making process for selecting a second medication for type 2 diabetes management: reflections from a diabetes care editors' expert forum

The trend toward personalized management of diabetes has focused attention on the differences among available pharmacological agents in terms of mechanisms of action, efficacy, and, most important, safety. Clinicians must select from these features to develop individualized therapy regimens. In June 2013, a nine-member Diabetes Care Editors' Expert Forum convened to review safety evidence for six major diabetes drug classes: insulin, sulfonylureas (SUs), thiazolidinediones (TZDs), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. This article, an outgrowth of the forum, summarizes well-delineated and theoretical safety concerns related to these drug classes, as well as the panelists' opinions regarding their best use in patients with type 2 diabetes. All of the options appear to have reasonably wide safety margins when used appropriately. Those about which we know the most-metformin, SUs, insulin, and perhaps now also TZDs-are efficacious in most patients and can be placed into a basic initial algorithm. However, these agents leave some clinical needs unmet. Selecting next steps is a more formidable process involving newer agents that are understood less well and for which there are unresolved questions regarding risk versus benefit in certain populations. Choosing a specific agent is not as important as implementing some form of early intervention and advancing rapidly to some form of combination therapy as needed. When all options are relatively safe given the benefits they confer, therapeutic decision making must rely on a personalized approach, taking into account patients' clinical circumstances, phenotype, pathophysiological defects, preferences, abilities, and costs.

Importance of Beta Cell Function for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) is characterized by insulin resistance and beta cell dysfunction. Recent evidence has emerged that beta cell dysfunction is a common pathogenetic feature of both type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and T2DM never develops without beta cell dysfunction. Therefore, treatment of T2DM should aim to restore beta cell function. Although the treatment of T2DM has greatly improved over the past few decades, remaining issues in the current treatment of T2DM include (1) hypoglycemia; (2) body weight gain; (3) peripheral hyperinsulinemia and (4) postprandial hyperglycemia, which are all associated with inappropriate insulin supplementation, again underpinning the important role of endogenous and physiological insulin secretion in the management of T2DM. This review summarizes the current knowledge on beta cell function in T2DM and discusses the treatment strategy for T2DM in relation to beta cell dysfunction.

Association between intensification of metformin treatment with insulin vs sulfonylureas and cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality among patients with diabetes

IMPORTANCE

Preferred second-line medication for diabetes treatment after metformin failure remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare time to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, or death in a cohort of metformin initiators who added insulin or a sulfonylurea.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort constructed with national Veterans Health Administration, Medicare, and National Death Index databases. The study population comprised veterans initially treated with metformin from 2001 through 2008 who subsequently added either insulin or sulfonylurea. Propensity score matching on characteristics was performed, matching each participant who added insulin to 5 who added a sulfonylurea. Patients were followed through September 2011 for primary analyses or September 2009 for cause-of-death analyses.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Risk of a composite outcome of AMI, stroke hospitalization, or all-cause death was compared between therapies with marginal structural Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for baseline and time-varying demographics, medications, cholesterol level, hemoglobin A1c level, creatinine level, blood pressure, body mass index, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Among 178,341 metformin monotherapy patients, 2948 added insulin and 39,990 added a sulfonylurea. Propensity score matching yielded 2436 metformin + insulin and 12,180 metformin + sulfonylurea patients. At intensification, patients had received metformin for a median of 14 months (IQR, 5-30), and hemoglobin A1c level was 8.1% (IQR, 7.2%-9.9%). Median follow-up after intensification was 14 months (IQR, 6-29 months). There were 172 vs 634 events for the primary outcome among patients who added insulin vs sulfonylureas, respectively (42.7 vs 32.8 events per 1000 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07-1.58; P = .009). Acute myocardial infarction and stroke rates were statistically similar, 41 vs 229 events (10.2 and 11.9 events per 1000 person-years; aHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.59-1.30; P = .52), whereas all-cause death rates were 137 vs 444 events, respectively (33.7 and 22.7 events per 1000 person-years; aHR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.15-1.79; P = .001). There were 54 vs 258 secondary outcomes: AMI, stroke hospitalizations, or cardiovascular deaths (22.8 vs 22.5 events per 1000 person-years; aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.71-1.34; P = .87).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with diabetes who were receiving metformin, the addition of insulin vs a sulfonylurea was associated with an increased risk of a composite of nonfatal cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. These findings require further investigation to understand risks associated with insulin use in these patients.

14-Year risk of all-cause mortality according to hypoglycaemic drug exposure in a general population

Purpose

Guidelines for management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus recommend the use of hypoglycaemic drugs when lifestyle interventions remain insufficient for glycaemic control. Recent trials have provided worrying safety data on certain hypoglycaemic drugs. The aim of this study was to assess 14-year risk of all-cause mortality according to hypoglycaemic drug exposure at baseline, in a general population.

Methods

Our analysis was based on the observational Third French MONICA survey on cardiovascular risk factors (1995–1997). Vital status was obtained 14 years after inclusion, and assessment of determinants of mortality was based on multivariable Cox modelling.

Results

There were 3336 participants and 248 deaths over the 14-year period. At baseline, there were 3162 (95%) non-diabetic, 46 (1%) untreated type 2 diabetic and 128 (4%) type 2 diabetic subjects with hypoglycaemic drug treatment (metformin alone (31%), sulfonylureas alone or in combination (49%), insulin alone or in combination (10%), or other treatments (9%)). After adjustment for duration of diabetes, history of diabetes complications, area of residence (centre), age, gender, educational level, alcohol consumption, smoking, blood pressure, LDL and HDL cholesterol, which all were significant and independent determinants of mortality, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 3.22 [95% confidence interval: 0.87–11.9] for untreated diabetic subjects, 2.28 [0.98–5.26] for diabetics treated with metformin alone, 1.70 [0.92–3.16] for diabetics with sulfonylureas and 4.92 [1.70–14.3] for diabetic with insulin versus non-diabetic subjects.

Conclusions

Our results support the conclusion that until more evidence is provided from randomized trials, a prudent approach should be to restrain use of insulin to situations in which combinations of non-insulin agents have failed to appropriately achieve glycemic control, as it is recommended in the current guidelines for the management of type 2 diabetes.

Beneficial and detrimental effects of glycemic control on cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes

Epidemiological data demonstrates that improved regulation of blood glucose correlates with better cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Conversely, some interventional studies have demonstrated that tight glycemic control has no benefit or can even result in worse CV outcomes. These conclusions parallel the paradox that glycemic control has proven beneficial for microvascular outcomes, while few studies have demonstrated significant macrovascular benefits. This imprecise understanding conveys the need to better comprehend the mechanisms of glycemic control and its impact on CV disease. Such variations in data also require a more comprehensive approach to diabetes and CV disease in which multiple biomarkers such as low density lipoprotein (LDL), low adiponectin, elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) and well established clinical parameters such as high blood pressure, weight, and functional status are incorporated into clinical decision making. Reliance on one parameter in isolation such as glycemic control and one biomarker such as HbA1C does not provide an accurate assessment of CV outcomes.

Mortality and other important diabetes-related outcomes with insulin vs other antihyperglycemic therapies in type 2 diabetes

CONTEXT

The safety of insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has recently undergone scrutiny.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to characterize the risk of adverse events associated with glucose-lowering therapies in people with T2DM.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a retrospective cohort study using data from the UK General Practice Research Database, 2000-2010.

PATIENTS

Patients comprised 84 622 primary care patients with T2DM treated with one of five glucose-lowering regimens: metformin monotherapy, sulfonylurea monotherapy, insulin monotherapy, metformin plus sulfonylurea combination therapy, and insulin plus metformin combination therapy. There were 105 123 exposure periods.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The risk of the first major adverse cardiac event, first cancer, or mortality was measured. Secondary outcomes included these individual constituents and microvascular complications.

RESULTS

In the same model, and using metformin monotherapy as the referent, the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for the primary end point was significantly increased for sulfonylurea monotherapy (1.436, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.354-1.523), insulin monotherapy (1.808, 95% CI 1.630-2.005), and insulin plus metformin (1.309, 95% CI 1.150-1.491). In glycosylated hemoglobin/morbidity subgroups, patients treated with insulin monotherapy had aHRs for the primary outcome ranging from 1.469 (95% CI 0.978-2.206) to 2.644 (95% CI 1.896-3.687). For all secondary outcomes, insulin monotherapy had increased aHRs: myocardial infarction (1.954, 95% CI 1.479-2.583), major adverse cardiac events (1.736, 95% CI 1.441-2.092), stroke (1.432, 95% CI 1.159-1.771), renal complications (3.504, 95% CI 2.718-4.518), neuropathy (2.146, 95% CI 1.832-2.514), eye complications (1.171, 95% CI 1.057-1.298), cancer (1.437, 95% CI 1.234-1.674), or all-cause mortality (2.197, 95% CI 1.983-2.434). When compared directly, aHRs were higher for insulin monotherapy vs all other regimens for the primary end point and all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with T2DM, exogenous insulin therapy was associated with an increased risk of diabetes-related complications, cancer, and all-cause mortality. Differences in baseline characteristics between treatment groups should be considered when interpreting these results.

Reappraisal of metformin efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The UK Prospective Diabetes Study showed that metformin decreases mortality compared to diet alone in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Since then, it has been the first-line treatment in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes. However, metformin-sulphonylurea bitherapy may increase mortality.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluated metformin efficacy (in studies of metformin versus diet alone, versus placebo, and versus no treatment; metformin as an add-on therapy; and metformin withdrawal) against cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane database. Primary end points were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death. Secondary end points included all myocardial infarctions, all strokes, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, leg amputations, and microvascular complications. Thirteen randomised controlled trials (13,110 patients) were retrieved; 9,560 patients were given metformin, and 3,550 patients were given conventional treatment or placebo. Metformin did not significantly affect the primary outcomes all-cause mortality, risk ratio (RR)=0.99 (95% CI: 0.75 to 1.31), and cardiovascular mortality, RR=1.05 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.64). The secondary outcomes were also unaffected by metformin treatment: all myocardial infarctions, RR=0.90 (95% CI: 0.74 to 1.09); all strokes, RR=0.76 (95% CI: 0.51 to 1.14); heart failure, RR=1.03 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.59); peripheral vascular disease, RR=0.90 (95% CI: 0.46 to 1.78); leg amputations, RR=1.04 (95% CI: 0.44 to 2.44); and microvascular complications, RR=0.83 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.17). For all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, there was significant heterogeneity when including the UK Prospective Diabetes Study subgroups (I(2)=41% and 59%). There was significant interaction with sulphonylurea as a concomitant treatment for myocardial infarction (p=0.10 and 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Although metformin is considered the gold standard, its benefit/risk ratio remains uncertain. We cannot exclude a 25% reduction or a 31% increase in all-cause mortality. We cannot exclude a 33% reduction or a 64% increase in cardiovascular mortality. Further studies are needed to clarify this situation.

Effectiveness and safety of metformin in 51 675 patients with type 2 diabetes and different levels of renal function: a cohort study from the Swedish National Diabetes Register

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of metformin use in clinical practice in a large sample of pharmacologically treated patients with type 2 diabetes and different levels of renal function.

DESIGN

Observational study between July 2004 and December 2010, mean follow-up 3.9 years.

SETTING

Hospital outpatient clinics and primary care in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

51 675 men and women with type 2 diabetes, registered in the Swedish National Diabetes Register, and on continuous glucose-lowering treatment with oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHAs) or insulin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Risks of cardiovascular disease (CVD), all-cause mortality and acidosis/serious infection, associated with each treatment regimens, were analysed in all patients and in subgroups with different estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) intervals. Covariance adjustment and propensity scores were used to adjust for several baseline risk factors and characteristics at Cox regression.

RESULTS

Compared with metformin in monotherapy, HRs for fatal/non-fatal CVD and all-cause mortality with all other OHAs combined (approximately 80% sulphonylureas) in monotherapy were 1.02 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.12) and 1.13 (1.01 to 1.27), while 1.18 (1.07 to 1.29) and 1.34 (1.19 to 1.50) with insulin in monotherapy, adjusting using propensity scores. Metformin, compared with any other treatment, showed reduced risks of acidosis/serious infection (adjusted HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.97) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99), in patients with eGFR 45-60 ml/min/1.73 m(2), and no increased risks of all-cause mortality, acidosis/serious infection or CVD were found in patients with eGFR 30-45 ml/min/1.73 m(2).

CONCLUSIONS

Metformin showed lower risk than insulin for CVD and all-cause mortality and slightly lower risk for all-cause mortality compared with other OHA, in these 51 675 patients followed for 4 years. Patients with renal impairment showed no increased risk of CVD, all-cause mortality or acidosis/serious infection. In clinical practice, the benefits of metformin use clearly outbalance the risk of severe side effects.

The safety profile of exogenous insulin in people with type 2 diabetes: justification for concern

There is no doubt about the value of exogenous insulin for people with type 1 diabetes. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss emerging evidence that this may not be the case for the majority of people with type 2 diabetes.

Reducing cardiovascular disease risk in patients with type 2 diabetes and concomitant macrovascular disease: can insulin be too much of a good thing?

Despite improvement of microvascular outcomes as a consequence of optimal glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes, prevention of macrovascular complications is still a major challenge. Of interest, large-scale intervention studies (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes, Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease-Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation and Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial) comparing standard therapy versus more intensive glucose-lowering therapy failed to report beneficial impacts on macrovascular outcomes. Consequently, it is currently under debate whether the high doses of exogenous insulin that were administered in these trials to achieve strict target glucose levels could be responsible for these unexpected outcomes. Additionally, a potential role for plasma insulin levels in predicting macrovascular outcomes has emerged in patients with or without type 2 diabetes. These observations, combined with evidence from in vitro and animal experiments, suggest that insulin might have intrinsic atherogenic effects. In this review, we summarize clinical trials, population-based studies as well as data emerging from basic science experiments that point towards the hypothesis that the administration of high insulin doses might not be beneficial in patients with type 2 diabetes and established macrovascular disease.

Impact of diabetes mellitus and insulin use on survival after colorectal cancer diagnosis: the Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort

PURPOSE

To examine the association between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and survival among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and to evaluate whether this association varies by sex, insulin treatment, and durations of T2DM and insulin use.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was conducted among 2,278 men and women diagnosed with nonmetastatic colon or rectal cancer between 1992 and 2007 in the Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort, a prospective study of cancer incidence. In 1992 to 1993, participants completed a detailed, self-administrated questionnaire. Vital status and cause of death were ascertained through the end of 2008. Multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Among the 2,278 men and women with nonmetastatic CRC, there were 842 deaths by the end of follow-up (including 377 deaths from CRC and 152 deaths from cardiovascular disease [CVD]). Among men and women combined, compared with patients without T2DM, patients with CRC and T2DM were at higher risk of all-cause mortality (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.28 to 1.83), CRC-specific mortality (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.70), and CVD-specific mortality (RR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.44 to 3.24), with no apparent differences by sex or durations of T2DM or insulin use. Insulin use, compared with no T2DM, was associated with increased risk of death from all causes (RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.31) and CVD (RR, 3.87; 95% CI, 2.12 to 7.08) but not from CRC (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.19).

CONCLUSION

Patients with CRC and T2DM have a higher risk of mortality than patients with CRC who do not have T2DM, especially a higher risk of death from CVD.

Management of patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The number of treatment options in the diabetes arena has grown dramatically in a short period of time, with a corresponding increase in the breadth and depth of literature from which physicians and diabetes organizations make evidence-based decisions. Thus, the purpose of this article is to provide an up-to-date review of the literature describing current treatment options and guidelines available for the management of type 2 diabetes and prevention of its complications.

METHODS

Pubmed searches were conducted for recent literature pertaining to the prevention of complications in type 2 diabetes. Comprehensive search terms were devised to identify articles describing micro- and macrovascular complications including nephropathy, neuropathy, retinopathy, and cardiovascular disease associated with type 2 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

The current body of literature demonstrates that a significant reduction in the incidence of diabetic complications is achievable with early initiation and long-term maintenance of controlled blood glucose and cardiovascular risk factors. Screening for diabetic complications should be initiated early and continued at regular intervals to ensure early pharmacological intervention.

Effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and microvascular events in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine all cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular events related to intensive glucose lowering treatment in people with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on cardiovascular events and microvascular complications in adults (≥ 18 years) with type 2 diabetes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Primary end points were all cause mortality and death from cardiovascular causes. Secondary end points were severe hypoglycaemia and macrovascular and microvascular events. Synthesis of results Results are reported as risk ratios with 99% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity between trials was assessed with χ(2), τ(2), and I(2) statistics. A fixed effect model was used to assess the effect on the outcomes of intensive glucose lowering versus standard treatment. The quality of clinical trials was assessed by the Jadad score.

RESULTS

13 studies were included. Of 34,533 patients, 18,315 received intensive glucose lowering treatment and 16,218 standard treatment. Intensive treatment did not significantly affect all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.04, 99% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.19) or cardiovascular death (1.11, 0.86 to 1.43). Intensive therapy was, however, associated with reductions in the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.85, 0.74 to 0.96, P<0.001), and microalbuminuria (0.90, 0.85 to 0.96, P<0.001) but a more than twofold increase in the risk of severe hypoglycaemia (2.33, 21.62 to 3.36, P<0.001). Over a treatment period of five years, 117 to 150 patients would need to be treated to avoid one myocardial infarction and 32 to 142 patients to avoid one episode of microalbuminuria, whereas one severe episode of hypoglycaemia would occur for every 15 to 52 patients. In analysis restricted to high quality studies (Jadad score >3), intensive treatment was not associated with any significant risk of reductions but resulted in a 47% increase in risk of congestive heart failure (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall results of this meta-analysis show limited benefits of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular causes. We cannot exclude a 9% reduction or a 19% increase in all cause mortality and a 14% reduction or a 43% increase in cardiovascular death. The benefit:risk ratio of intensive glucose lowering treatment in the prevention of macrovascular and microvascular events remains uncertain. The harm associated with severe hypoglycaemia might counterbalance the potential benefit of intensive glucose lowering treatment. More double blind randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the best therapeutic approach in people with type 2 diabetes.

Glucose-lowering agents and cancer mortality rates in type 2 diabetes: assessing effects of time-varying exposure

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We explored the relationship between glucose-lowering agents and cancer mortality rates in type 2 diabetes patients, hypothesising a decreased risk of cancer mortality with metformin use and a dose-risk gradient for insulin therapy.

METHODS

This was a population-based cohort study using administrative data from Saskatchewan Health, Canada. We identified new users of metformin or sulfonylureas from 1 January 1991 to 31 December 1996, with follow-up until death, departure from the province or 31 December 1999. Cox regression analyses were used to estimate the HR of death from cancer, accounting for time-varying exposure to metformin, sulfonylurea, and exogenous insulin therapy.

RESULTS

We identified 10,309 new users of metformin or sulfonylurea. The average follow-up was 5.4 (1.9) years, during which 407 (4.0%) cancer deaths occurred. Adjusting for age, sex and chronic disease score, the adjusted HR for metformin use was 0.80 (95% CI 0.65-0.98) compared with sulfonylurea monotherapy users. Adjusted HRs for subsequent insulin use were 2.22 (0.99-5.00), 3.33 (2.26-4.89) and 6.40 (4.69-8.73) for <3, 3 to 11 and > or = 12 insulin dispensations/year, respectively, compared with patients not on insulin. We observed a similar risk gradient among the sub-cohort of new insulin users.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Our results support previous reports of a decreased risk of cancer outcomes associated with metformin use relative to sulfonylurea monotherapy. We also provide new evidence of a gradient of cumulative insulin dispensations and cancer mortality rates.

Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease: Is intensive glucose control beneficial or deadly? Lessons from ACCORD, ADVANCE, VADT, UKPDS, PROactive, and NICE-SUGAR

Type 2 diabetes is a rather complex metabolic disorder still associated with a 2-fold increased cardiovascular (CV) mortality despite a dramatic improvement in CV risk reduction by multifactorial intervention strategies. Intensive glucose control can also reduce CV morbidity, but this effect seems to be limited to younger patients with shorter duration of disease and no CV disease. Intensive glucose control--in particular when complex insulin strategies are used--is associated with a 5-fold increased risk for severe hypoglycemia, which could induce harm in some patients. In contrast to blood pressure and lipid-lowering interventions a reduction of CV mortality cannot be seen before 10-20 years after the start of the glucose-lowering intervention (metabolic memory, legacy effect). Future ongoing outcome studies in more than 50,000 patients will clarify whether new antidiabetic drugs--not inducing hypoglycemia or weight gain--will further improve the prognosis of T2DM patients.