Effects on the incidence of cardiovascular events of the addition of pioglitazone versus sulfonylureas in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin (TOSCA.IT): a randomised, multicentre trial

Latest Evidence on Sulfonylureas: What's New?

This review addresses the question of the cardiovascular (CV) safety of sulfonylureas (SUs) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) when directly tested against comparator agents in CV outcome trials. Presented at a recent symposium entitled "SUs in the treatment of T2DM: a fresh look and new insights" held on Wednesday September 18, 2019 during the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Barcelona Spain, this review discusses the initial evidence that sparked concerns over the CV safety of SUs as well as more recent findings from large studies of SUs (i.e. ADVANCE, TOSCA.IT and CAROLINA trials), highlighting the differences in CV and hypoglycaemia risks among the various SUs. Finally, the impact of glycaemic control on CV outcomes is also discussed, where the data suggest that the recent positive CV outcomes with some antihyperglycaemic agents may have been driven in part by improved glycaemic control.

Unravelling the utility of modern sulfonylureas from cardiovascular outcome trials and landmark trials: expert opinion from an international panel

AIM

The primary objective of this review is to develop practice-based expert group opinions on the cardiovascular (CV) safety and utility of modern sulfonylureas (SUs) in cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs).

BACKGROUND

The United States Food and Drug Administration issued new guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008 regarding the development of new antihyperglycemic drugs. The guidance expanded the scope for the approval of novel antihyperglycemic drugs by mandating CVOTs for safety. A few long-term CVOTs on dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have been completed, while others are ongoing. SUs, which constitute one of the key antihyperglycemic agents used for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), have been used as comparator agents in several CVOTs. However, the need for CVOTs on modern SUs remains debatable. In this context, a multinational group of endocrinologists convened for a meeting and discussed the need for CVOTs of modern SUs to evaluate their utility in the management of patients with T2DM. At the meeting, CVOTs of modern SUs conducted to date and the hypotheses derived from the results of these trials were discussed.

REVIEW RESULTS

The expert group analyzed the key trials emphasizing the CV safety of modern SUs and also reviewed the results of various CVOTs in which modern SUs were used as comparators. Based on literature evidence and individual clinical insights, the expert group opined that modern SUs are cardiosafe and that since they have been used as comparators in other CVOTs, CVOTs of SUs are not required.

CONCLUSION

Modern SUs can be considered a cardiosafe option for the management of patients with diabetes mellitus and CV disease; thus CVOTs among individuals with T2DM are not required.

Pioglitazone for the Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Patients with or at High Risk of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis

CONTEXT

The goal of the meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of pioglitazone on the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and renal adverse events in patients with or at high risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pioglitazone with any control were identified through PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Cardiovascular outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs, defined as the composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and cardiovascular death), hospitalization for heart failure, and all-cause mortality. Renal outcomes included change in urinary albumin to creatinine ratio and 24-hour urinary protein excretion. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies with 19 645 participants were enrolled. Pioglitazone reduced the risk of MACE (RR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.7-0.9]), with benefit only seen in patients with a history of established CVDs (0.8 [0.7-0.9]) and not in those without (1.0 [0.7-1.3]). Regarding the individual components, pioglitazone reduced the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction (0.8 [0.6-1.0]) and nonfatal stroke (0.8 [0.7-0.9]), which was confined to patients with a history of established CVDs, whereas no treatment effect was found on cardiovascular death (1.0 [0.7-1.2]) regardless of the presence of established CVDs. Pioglitazone increased the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (1.3 [1.1-1.6]) and had no treatment effect on all-cause mortality (1.0 [0.8-1.1]). Pioglitazone reduced albuminuria by 18.5% (WMD 18.5% [95% CI, 21.1-16.0]), with a similar benefit in patients with different renal function categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Pioglitazone should be considered in patients with or at high risk of T2DM for the prevention of cardiovascular endpoints, especially in those with a history of established CVD who might benefit the most. Robust reductions in progression of renal disease are seen regardless of baseline renal function degree.

Glucose-lowering drugs or strategies, atherosclerotic cardiovascular events, and heart failure in people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised cardiovascular outcome trials

BACKGROUND

In our 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcome trials for glucose-lowering drugs or strategies in people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes, we reported a modest reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and an increased risk of heart failure, but with heterogeneous effects by drug or intervention type. In view of the completion of many large cardiovascular outcome trials since our previous analysis, including trials of novel drugs that have shown beneficial effects on cardiovascular outcomes, we aimed to update our analysis to incorporate these findings.

METHODS

We did an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of large cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering drugs or strategies in people with or at risk of type 2 diabetes. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for reports of trials published from Nov 15, 2013 to Nov 20, 2019. We included randomised controlled trials with a minimum of 1000 adults (aged ≥19 years) with or at risk of type 2 diabetes, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as an outcome, and with follow-up of at least 12 months. We excluded trials with patients enrolled with an acute cardiovascular event. The main outcomes of interest were MACE (generally defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and heart failure. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs with inverse-variance random-effects models, did meta-regression to analyse treatment effects per difference in bodyweight achieved, and explored results stratified by baseline subgroups.

FINDINGS

Our updated search yielded 30 eligible trials (n=225 305). The mean age of participants was 63·0 years (SD 8·4) and mean duration of diabetes was 9·4 years (6·6). After a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (1·8), 23 016 (10·2%) participants had MACE and 8169 (3·6%) had a heart failure event. Glucose-lowering drugs or strategies lowered the risk of MACE compared with standard care or placebo (RR 0·92, 95% CI 0·89-0·95, p<0·0001), with no overall effect on the risk of heart failure (0·98, 0·90-1·08, p=0·71). However, across drug classes or strategies, the magnitude and directionality of RR for heart failure varied (p_interaction<0·0001), with meta-regression showing that a decrease in bodyweight of 1 kg was associated with a 5·9% (3·9-8·0) relative decrease in the risk of heart failure (p<0·0001). Among trials that assessed drug classes or strategies associated with weight loss (intensive lifestyle changes, GLP-1 receptor agonists, or SGLT2 inhibitors), the risk reduction for MACE was consistent among participants with (0·87, 0·83-0·92) and without (0·92, 0·83-1·02) established cardiovascular disease at baseline (p_interaction=0·33). For heart failure, the RR for drug classes or strategies associated with weight loss was consistent among participants with (0·80, 0·73-0·89) and without (0·84, 0·74-0·95) cardiovascular disease at baseline (p_interaction=0·63).

INTERPRETATION

Glucose-lowering drugs or strategies overall reduced the risk of fatal and non-fatal atherosclerotic events. The effect on heart failure was neutral overall but varied substantially by intervention type, with interventions associated with weight loss showing a beneficial effect. The cardiovascular and heart failure benefits of interventions associated with weight loss might extend to patients without established cardiovascular disease.

FUNDING

None.

Uses and Limitations of the Restricted Mean Survival Time: Illustrative Examples From Cardiovascular Outcomes and Mortality Trials in Type 2 Diabetes

The restricted mean survival time (RMST) has been advocated as an alternative or a supplement to the hazard ratio for reporting the effect of an intervention in a randomized clinical trial. The RMST difference allows quantification of the postponement of an outcome during a specified (restricted) interval and corresponds to the difference between the areas under the 2 survival curves for the intervention and control groups. This article presents examples of the use of the RMST in a research and a clinical context. First, the authors demonstrate how the RMST difference can answer research questions about the efficacy of different treatments. Estimates are presented for the effects of pharmacologic or strategy-driven glucose-lowering interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes from 36 trials and 9 follow-up studies reporting cardiovascular outcomes and mortality. The authors show how these measures may be used to mitigate uncertainty about the efficacy of intensive glucose control. Second, the authors demonstrate how the RMST difference may be used in the setting of a clinical consultation to guide the decision to start or discontinue a treatment. They then discuss the advantages of the RMST over the absolute risk difference, the number needed to treat, and the median survival time difference. They argue that the RMST difference is both easy to interpret and flexible in its application to different settings. Finally, they highlight the major limitations of the RMST, including difficulties in comparing studies of heterogeneous designs and in inferring the long-term effects of treatments using trials of short duration, and summarize the available statistical software for calculating the RMST.

Clinical Management of Stable Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Although cardiologists have long treated patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), T2DM has traditionally been considered just a comorbidity that affected the development and progression of the disease. Over the past decade, a number of factors have shifted that have forced the cardiology community to reconsider the role of T2DM in CAD. First, in addition to being associated with increased cardiovascular risk, T2DM has the potential to affect a number of treatment choices for CAD. In this document, we discuss the role that T2DM has in the selection of testing for CAD, in medical management (both secondary prevention strategies and treatment of stable angina), and in the selection of revascularization strategy. Second, although glycemic control has been recommended as a part of comprehensive risk factor management in patients with CAD, there is mounting evidence that the mechanism by which glucose is managed can have a substantial impact on cardiovascular outcomes. In this document, we discuss the role of glycemic management (both in intensity of control and choice of medications) in cardiovascular outcomes. It is becoming clear that the cardiologist needs both to consider T2DM in cardiovascular treatment decisions and potentially to help guide the selection of glucose-lowering medications. Our statement provides a comprehensive summary of effective, patient-centered management of CAD in patients with T2DM, with emphasis on the emerging evidence. Given the increasing prevalence of T2DM and the accumulating evidence of the need to consider T2DM in treatment decisions, this knowledge will become ever more important to optimize our patients' cardiovascular outcomes.

Impact of Glucose-Lowering Medications on Cardiovascular and Metabolic Risk in Type 2 Diabetes

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is associated with a high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease. Among the well-known pathophysiologic factors, crucial roles are played by endothelial dysfunction (caused by oxidative stress and inflammation hyperglycemia-linked), increased activity of nuclear factor kB, altered macrophage polarization, and reduced synthesis of resident endothelial progenitor cells. As consequence, a potentially rapid progression of the atherosclerotic disease with a higher propensity to unstable plaque is arguable, finally leading to significantly increased cardiovascular mortality. Main managements are focused on both prevention and early diagnosis, by targeted treatment of hyperglycemia and vascular complications. Innovative therapeutic approaches for T2DM seek to customize the antidiabetic treatment to each patient in order to optimize glucose-lowering effects, minimize hypoglycemia and adverse effects, and prevent cardiovascular events. The newer drugs (e.g., Glucagon Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists, GLP-1 RAs; Sodium GLucose coTransporter-2 inhibitors, SGLT2is; DiPeptidyl Peptidase-4 inhibitors, and DPP4is) impact body weight, lipid parameters, and blood pressure, as well as endothelial (dys)functions, inflammatory markers, biomarkers of both oxidative stress, and subclinical atherosclerosis. The present review summarizes the results of the main trials focused on the cardiovascular safety of these drugs from the CV standpoint.

The risk of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia with rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone: real-world evidence on thiazolidinedione safety

BACKGROUND

The low cost of thiazolidinediones makes them a potentially valuable therapeutic option for the > 300 million economically disadvantaged persons worldwide with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Differential selectivity of thiazolidinediones for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in the myocardium may lead to disparate arrhythmogenic effects. We examined real-world effects of thiazolidinediones on outpatient-originating sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) and ventricular arrhythmia (VA).

METHODS

We conducted population-based high-dimensional propensity score-matched cohort studies in five Medicaid programs (California, Florida, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania | 1999-2012) and a commercial health insurance plan (Optum Clinformatics | 2000-2016). We defined exposure based on incident rosiglitazone or pioglitazone dispensings; the latter served as an active comparator. We controlled for confounding by matching exposure groups on propensity score, informed by baseline covariates identified via a data adaptive approach. We ascertained SCA/VA outcomes precipitating hospital presentation using a validated, diagnosis-based algorithm. We generated marginal hazard ratios (HRs) via Cox proportional hazards regression that accounted for clustering within matched pairs. We prespecified Medicaid and Optum findings as primary and secondary, respectively; the latter served as a conceptual replication dataset.

RESULTS

The adjusted HR for SCA/VA among rosiglitazone (vs. pioglitazone) users was 0.91 (0.75-1.10) in Medicaid and 0.88 (0.61-1.28) in Optum. Among Medicaid but not Optum enrollees, we found treatment effect heterogeneity by sex (adjusted HRs = 0.71 [0.54-0.93] and 1.16 [0.89-1.52] in men and women respectively, interaction term p-value = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone appear to be associated with similar risks of SCA/VA.

Efficacy and Safety of Pioglitazone versus Glimepiride after Metformin and Alogliptin Combination Therapy: A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Parallel-Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

There is limited information regarding the optimal third-line therapy for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) that is inadequately controlled using dual combination therapy. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of pioglitazone or glimepiride when added to metformin plus alogliptin treatment for T2DM.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, active-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02426294) recruited 135 Korean patients with T2DM that was inadequately controlled using metformin plus alogliptin. The patients were then randomized to also receive pioglitazone (15 mg/day) or glimepiride (2 mg/day) for a 26-week period, with dose titration was permitted based on the investigator's judgement.

RESULTS

Glycosylated hemoglobin levels exhibited similar significant decreases in both groups during the treatment period (pioglitazone: -0.81%, P<0.001; glimepiride: -1.05%, P<0.001). However, the pioglitazone-treated group exhibited significantly higher high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (P<0.001) and significantly lower homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance values (P<0.001). Relative to pioglitazone, adding glimepiride to metformin plus alogliptin markedly increased the risk of hypoglycemia (pioglitazone: 1/69 cases [1.45%], glimepiride: 14/66 cases [21.21%]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with T2DM inadequately controlled using metformin plus alogliptin, the addition of pioglitazone provided comparable glycemic control and various benefits (improvements in lipid profiles, insulin resistance, and hypoglycemia risk) relative to the addition of glimepiride.

Impact of Regulatory Guidance on Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk of New Glucose-Lowering Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

Responding to concerns about the potential for increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, specifically myocardial infarction, associated with certain glucose-lowering therapies, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Glucose-lowering therapies were granted regulatory approval primarily from smaller studies that have demonstrated reductions in glycated hemoglobin concentration. Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The 2008 guidance aimed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of new glucose-lowering therapies to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This resulted in a plethora of new cardiovascular outcome trials, most designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for superiority. Several of these outcome trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents, resulting in the first-ever cardiovascular protection indications for glucose-lowering therapies. Determining whether the guidance continues to have value in its current form is critically important as we move forward after the first decade of implementation. In February 2018, a think tank comprising representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies convened to consider the guidance in light of the findings of the completed cardiovascular outcome trials. The group made several recommendations for future regulatory guidance and for cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies. These recommendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conducting trials for longer durations, considering studying glucose-lowering therapies as first-line management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, considering heart failure or kidney outcomes within the primary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients enrolled, evaluating strategies to streamline registries and the study of unselected populations, and identifying ways to improve translation of trial results to general practice.

An overview on medicinal perspective of thiazolidine-2,4-dione: A remarkable scaffold in the treatment of type 2 diabetes

•

TZDs, an important pharmacophore in the treatment of diabetes.

•

Various analog-based synthetic strategies and biological significance are discussed.

•

Clinical studies using TZDs along with other antidiabetic agents are also highlighted.

•

SAR has been discussed to suggest the interactions between derivatives and receptor sites.

•

Pyrazole, chromone, and acid-based TZDs can be considered as potential lead molecules.

Diabetes or diabetes mellitus is a complex or polygenic disorder, which is characterized by increased levels of glucose (hyperglycemia) and deficiency in insulin secretion or resistance to insulin over an elongated period in the liver and peripheral tissues. Thiazolidine-2,4-dione (TZD) is a privileged scaffold and an outstanding heterocyclic moiety in the field of drug discovery, which provides various opportunities in exploring this moiety as an antidiabetic agent. In the past few years, various novel synthetic approaches had been undertaken to synthesize different derivatives to explore them as more potent antidiabetic agents with devoid of side effects (i.e., edema, weight gain, and bladder cancer) of clinically used TZD (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone). In this review, an effort has been made to summarize the up to date research work of various synthetic strategies for TZD derivatives as well as their biological significance and clinical studies of TZDs in combination with other category as antidiabetic agents. This review also highlights the structure-activity relationships and the molecular docking studies to convey the interaction of various synthesized novel derivatives with its receptor site.

Pioglitazone and PPAR-γ modulating treatment in hypertensive and type 2 diabetic patients after ischemic stroke: a national cohort study

Background and aim

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ (PPAR-γ) modulating treatment may have cardiovascular benefits in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients after ischemic stroke (IS). However, whether there are additional benefits from intensive PPAR-γ modulating treatments in Asian patients with T2DM and hypertension (HTN) after IS remains unknown.

Methods

Between 2001 and 2013, patients admitted due to IS were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. Patients with T2DM and HTN using angiotensin receptor blockers were further included. Eligible patients were divided into two groups: (1) pioglitazone and (2) non-pioglitazone oral anti-diabetic agent groups. Propensity score matching (1:2) was used to balance the distribution of baseline characteristics, stroke severity and medications. The primary outcome was recurrent IS. Subgroup analysis for recurrent IS in pioglitazone and/or telmisartan users, the trend of IS risks across different PPAR-γ intensity treatments, and dose-dependent outcomes across different pioglitazone possession ratios were further studied. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and p < 0.1 for clinical outcomes and interaction of subgroup analyses, respectively.

Results

There were 3190 and 32,645 patients in the pioglitazone and non-pioglitazone groups. Patients of the pioglitazone group had a lower risk of recurrent IS (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.84–0.99). Pioglitazone was also associated with reduced recurrent IS in patients who also used telmisartan (p for interaction = 0.071). A graded correlation was found a borderline significant trend between the intensity of PPAR-γ therapy and following IS (p = 0.076). The dose-dependent outcome also showed that a borderline significant trend that higher pioglitazone possession ratio was associated with a lower risk of recurrent IS (p = 0.068).

Conclusions

The current study suggests that the use of pioglitazone in type 2 diabetic and hypertensive IS patients is associated with fewer recurrent IS events in an Asian population. Concurrent telmisartan use or a higher pioglitazone possession ratio may have a trend of increased pleiotropic effects, which could possibly be related to higher PPAR-γ effects. Future studies are warranted to confirm or refute the clinical effects and the possible mechanism of more intensive PPAR-γ-modulating treatments.

Portuguese-Brazilian evidence-based guideline on the management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

In current management of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), cardiovascular and renal prevention have become important targets to be achieved. In this context, a joint panel of four endocrinology societies from Brazil and Portugal was established to develop an evidence-based guideline for treatment of hyperglycemia in T2DM.

METHODS

MEDLINE (via PubMed) was searched for randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and observational studies related to diabetes treatment. When there was insufficient high-quality evidence, expert opinion was sought. Updated positions on treatment of T2DM patients with heart failure (HF), atherosclerotic CV disease (ASCVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and patients with no vascular complications were developed. The degree of recommendation and the level of evidence were determined using predefined criteria.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

In non-pregnant adults, the recommended HbA_1c target is below 7%. Higher levels are recommended in frail older adults and patients at higher risk of hypoglycemia. Lifestyle modification is recommended at all phases of treatment. Metformin is the first choice when HbA_1c is 6.5-7.5%. When HbA_1c is 7.5-9.0%, dual therapy with metformin plus an SGLT2i and/or GLP-₁RA (first-line antidiabetic agents, AD1) is recommended due to cardiovascular and renal benefits. If an AD1 is unaffordable, other antidiabetic drugs (AD) may be used. Triple or quadruple therapy should be considered when HbA_1c remains above target. In patients with clinical or subclinical atherosclerosis, the combination of one AD1 plus metformin is the recommended first-line therapy to reduce cardiovascular events and improve blood glucose control. In stable heart failure with low ejection fraction (< 40%) and glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) > 30 mL/min/1.73 m², metformin plus an SGLT-2i is recommended to reduce cardiovascular mortality and heart failure hospitalizations and improve blood glucose control. In patients with diabetes-associated chronic kidney disease (CKD) (eGFR 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m² or eGFR 30-90 mL/min/1.73 m² with albuminuria > 30 mg/g), the combination of metformin and an SGLT2i is recommended to attenuate loss of renal function, reduce albuminuria and improve blood glucose control. In patients with severe renal failure, insulin-based therapy is recommended to improve blood glucose control. Alternatively, GLP-₁RA, DPP4i, gliclazide MR and pioglitazone may be considered to reduce albuminuria. In conclusion, the current evidence supports individualizing anti-hyperglycemic treatment for T2DM.

Management of Type 2 Diabetes in Developing Countries: Balancing Optimal Glycaemic Control and Outcomes with Affordability and Accessibility to Treatment

With the growing prevalence of type 2 diabetes, particularly in emerging countries, its management in the context of available resources should be considered. International guidelines, while comprehensive and scientifically valid, may not be appropriate for regions such as Asia, Latin America or Africa, where epidemiology, patient phenotypes, cultural conditions and socioeconomic status are different from America and Europe. Although glycaemic control and reduction of micro- and macrovascular outcomes remain essential aspects of treatment, access and cost are major limiting factors; therefore, a pragmatic approach is required in restricted-resource settings. Newer agents, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists in particular, are relatively expensive, with limited availability despite potentially being valuable for patients with insulin resistance and cardiovascular complications. This review makes a case for the role of more accessible second-line treatments with long-established efficacy and affordability, such as sulfonylureas, in the management of type 2 diabetes, particularly in developing or restricted-resource countries.

Pasta Consumption and Connected Dietary Habits: Associations with Glucose Control, Adiposity Measures, and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in People with Type 2 Diabetes-TOSCA.IT Study

BACKGROUND

Pasta is a refined carbohydrate with a low glycemic index. Whether pasta shares the metabolic advantages of other low glycemic index foods has not really been investigated. The aim of this study is to document, in people with type-2 diabetes, the consumption of pasta, the connected dietary habits, and the association with glucose control, measures of adiposity, and major cardiovascular risk factors.

METHODS

We studied 2562 participants. The dietary habits were assessed with the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) questionnaire. Sex-specific quartiles of pasta consumption were created in order to explore the study aims.

RESULTS

A higher pasta consumption was associated with a lower intake of proteins, total and saturated fat, cholesterol, added sugar, and fiber. Glucose control, body mass index, prevalence of obesity, and visceral obesity were not significantly different across the quartiles of pasta intake. No relation was found with LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, but there was an inverse relation with HDL-cholesterol. Systolic blood pressure increased with pasta consumption; but this relation was not confirmed after correction for confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with type-2 diabetes, the consumption of pasta, within the limits recommended for total carbohydrates intake, is not associated with worsening of glucose control, measures of adiposity, and major cardiovascular risk factors.

Thiazolidinediones: the Forgotten Diabetes Medications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are the only pharmacologic agents that specifically treat insulin resistance. The beneficial effects of TZDs on the cardiovascular risk factors associated with insulin resistance have been well documented. TZD use has been limited because of concern about safety issues and side effects.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies indicate that cardiovascular toxicity with rosiglitazone and increase in bladder cancer with pioglitazone are no longer significant issues. There are new data which show that pioglitazone treatment reduces myocardial infarctions and ischemic strokes. New data concerning TZD-mediated edema, congestive heart failure, and bone fractures improves the clinician's ability to select patients that will have minimal significant side effects. Thiazolidinediones are now generic and less costly than pharmaceutical company-promoted therapies. Better understanding of the side effects coupled with clear benefits on the components of the insulin resistance syndrome should promote TZD use in treating patients with type 2 diabetes.

The right place for Sulphonylureas today

The place of Sulphonylurea based insulin secretagogues in the management of Type 2 diabetes appears as controversial today as it was fifty years ago. Newer therapies are associated with less hypoglycaemia and weight gain than Sulphonylureas but currently cost more and lack assurances which come with long-term exposure. Emergence of recent CVOT data for SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists is likely to influence therapeutic choices and guidance is now supportive of their earlier use in cases at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Meta-analyses of Sulphonylurea trials have failed to indicate a consistent effect (positive or negative) on cardiovascular disease or mortality, although are limited by the relative scarcity of studies directly reporting these outcomes. The CAROLINA trial is reassuring in demonstrating cardiovascular safety for the Sulphonylurea Glimepiride when compared directly with the DPP-4 inhibitor Linagliptin, suggesting either of these agents would be relatively safe second line options after Metformin in the majority of patients. This review provides a balanced assessment of available Sulphonylurea treatments in the context of current cardiovascular outcome trial data (CVOT) data and hopefully assists informed decision making about the place of these drugs in contemporary glucose lowering practice.

Long-term comparative safety analysis of the risks associated with adding or switching to a sulfonylurea as second-line Type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment in a US veteran population

AIM

To examine the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events associated with adding vs switching to second-line therapies in a comparative safety study of people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using an as-treated analysis of people served by the Veterans Health Administration who were on metformin and subsequently augmented this treatment or switched to other oral glucose-lowering treatments between 1998 and 2012. This study included 145 250 people with long follow-up. Confounding was addressed through several strategies, involving weighted propensity score models with rich confounder adjustment and strict inclusion criteria, coupled with an incident-user design.

RESULTS

Second-line use of sulfonylureas was related to higher mortality (hazard ratio 1.39, 95% CI 1.14, 1.70) and cardiovascular risks (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 1.09, 1.30) compared with thiazolidinedione therapy. Differential hazards were associated with discontinuing or not discontinuing metformin; switching to sulfonylurea therapy was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events compared with all other therapies. Furthermore, add-on sulfonylurea therapy was associated with an elevated risk for both outcomes when compared with thiazolidinedione add-on therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study may inform decisions on whether to augment or discontinue metformin; when considering the long-term risks, switching to a sulfonylurea appears unfavourable compared with other therapies. Instead, adding a thiazolidinedione to existing metformin therapy appears to be superior to adding or switching to a sulfonylurea.

Exploration and Development of PPAR Modulators in Health and Disease: An Update of Clinical Evidence

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) are nuclear receptors that govern the expression of genes responsible for energy metabolism, cellular development, and differentiation. Their crucial biological roles dictate the significance of PPAR-targeting synthetic ligands in medical research and drug discovery. Clinical implications of PPAR agonists span across a wide range of health conditions, including metabolic diseases, chronic inflammatory diseases, infections, autoimmune diseases, neurological and psychiatric disorders, and malignancies. In this review we aim to consolidate existing clinical evidence of PPAR modulators, highlighting their clinical prospects and challenges. Findings from clinical trials revealed that different agonists of the same PPAR subtype could present different safety profiles and clinical outcomes in a disease-dependent manner. Pemafibrate, due to its high selectivity, is likely to replace other PPARα agonists for dyslipidemia and cardiovascular diseases. PPARγ agonist pioglitazone showed tremendous promises in many non-metabolic disorders like chronic kidney disease, depression, inflammation, and autoimmune diseases. The clinical niche of PPARβ/δ agonists is less well-explored. Interestingly, dual- or pan-PPAR agonists, namely chiglitazar, saroglitazar, elafibranor, and lanifibranor, are gaining momentum with their optimistic outcomes in many diseases including type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and primary biliary cholangitis. Notably, the preclinical and clinical development for PPAR antagonists remains unacceptably deficient. We anticipate the future design of better PPAR modulators with minimal off-target effects, high selectivity, superior bioavailability, and pharmacokinetics. This will open new possibilities for PPAR ligands in medicine.

Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Risk Management in Diabetes

Multipronged risk management in diabetes has contributed to the recent decline in cardiovascular mortality. Few antihyperglycemic drugs have been conclusively shown to have cardioprotective effects. These include metformin, liraglutide, semaglutide, dulaglutide, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Statins are the cornerstone of treatment for people with established coronary artery disease (CAD) or at risk of CAD. In patients with persistent low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels > 70 mg/dL, the addition of ezetimibe or proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors is recommended. In general, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers should be included in the treatment regimen. The goal is to have blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg, whereas a lower goal of < 130/80 mmHg is recommended in patients with CAD or proteinuria (> 1 g/day). Aspirin antiplatelet therapy should be restricted for people with established CAD or those with multiple CAD risk factors. While antiobesity medications have a modest role in managing obesity, bariatric surgery in people with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 or ≥ 35 with comorbidities can substantially affect quality of life and may reduce cardiovascular risks. Prescribing therapeutic agents should take into consideration a variety of factors, including the patient's preferences and the drug's affordability, side effect profile, and proven cardiovascular benefit.

[Antihyperglycemic treatment guidelines for diabetes mellitus type 2 (Update 2019)]

Hyperglycemia significantly contributes to complications in patients with diabetes mellitus. While lifestyle interventions remain cornerstones of disease prevention and treatment, most patients with type 2 diabetes will eventually require pharmacotherapy for glycemic control. The definition of individual targets regarding optimal therapeutic efficacy and safety as well as cardiovascular effects is of great importance. In this guideline we present the most current evidence-based best clinical practice data for healthcare professionals.

The future of new drugs for diabetes management

The future of the newer classes of glucose-lowering drugs, namely dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and sodium/glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, is being redefined by the large prospective cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs). These trials have more than confirmed cardiovascular (CV) safety: indeed, various cardio-renal parameters have improved during some of the trials with GLP-1RAs and SGLT-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes. Benefits have included reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events such as fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke, decreased hospitalization for heart failure, a slower decline in glomerular filtration rate and reduced onset and progression of albuminuria. In consequence, the CVOTs have raised expectations that newer glucose-lowering agents should offer advantages that extend beyond glycaemic control and weight management to address complications and comorbidities of type 2 diabetes, particularly cardio-renal diseases. Although large prospective outcome trials incur a high cost which may prompt reconsideration of their design, these trials are generating evidence to enable more exacting and more effective management of type 2 diabetes and its accompanying cardio-renal diseases.

Class effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on cardiorenal outcomes

BACKGROUND

To summarize the four recent sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) trials: Dapagliflozin Effect on CardiovascuLAR Events (DECLARE-TIMI 58), CANagliflozin CardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program, Empagliflozin Cardiovascular Outcome Event Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients-Removing Excess Glucose (EMPA-REG OUTCOME), Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE), and explore the potential determinants for their cardiovascular, renal, and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

The composite renal outcome event rates per 1000 patient-years for drug and placebo, as well as the corresponding relative risk reductions, were 3.7, 7.0, 47%; 5.5, 9.0, 40%; 6.3, 11.5, 46%; 43.2, 61.2, 30% for DECLARE-TIMI 58, CANVAS, EMPA-REG OUTCOME, and CREDENCE, respectively (event definitions varied across trials). The major adverse cardiovascular (CV) event rates per 1000 patient-years for drug and placebo, as well as the corresponding relative risk reductions, were 22.6, 24.2, 7%; 26.9, 31.5, 14%; 37.4, 43.9, 14%; 38.7, 48.7, 20% for DECLARE-TIMI 58, CANVAS, EMPA-REG OUTCOME, and CREDENCE, respectively. DECLARE-TIMI 58 had the fewest cardiorenal events and CREDENCE the most. These differences were presumably due to varying inclusion criteria resulting in DECLARE-TIMI 58 having the best baseline renal filtration function and CREDENCE the worst (mean estimated glomerular filtration rate 85.2, 76.5, 74, 56.2 mL/min/1.73 m2 for DECLARE-TIMI 58, CANVAS, EMPA-REG OUTCOME, and CREDENCE, respectively). Additionally, CREDENCE had considerably higher rates of albuminuria (median urinary albumin-creatinine ratios (UACR) were 927, 12.3, and 13.1 mg/g for CREDENCE, CANVAS, and DECLARE-TIMI 58, respectively; EMPA-REG OUTCOME had 59.4% UACR < 30, 28.6% UACR > 30-300, 11.0% UACR > 300 mg/g).

CONCLUSIONS

Dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, and canagliflozin have internally and externally consistent and biologically plausible class effects on cardiorenal outcomes. Baseline renal filtration function and degree of albuminuria are the most significant indicators of risk for both CV and renal events. Thus, these two factors also anticipate the greatest clinical benefit for SGLT2i.

Cardiovascular Effects of Pioglitazone or Sulfonylureas According to Pretreatment Risk: Moving Toward Personalized Care

CONTEXT

Hypoglycemic drugs with proven cardiovascular (CV) benefits are recommended for patients with type 2 diabetes and CV disease. Whether the beneficial effects extend to those at lower risk remains unclear.

AIM

We investigated the long-term CV effects of pioglitazone or sulfonylureas (SUs) across the spectrum of pretreatment CV risk.

METHODS

Among 2820 participants of the TOSCA.IT trial, four subgroups with different risk of outcome-a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, urgent coronary revascularization-were identified by the RECursive Partitioning and AMalgamation (RECPAM) method. Within each group, the effect of SUs or pioglitazone on the outcome was evaluated.

RESULTS

Sex was the first splitting variable, followed by urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) (>9 mg/g or ≤9 mg/g) and body mass index (BMI) (>28.7 or ≤28.7 kg/m2). Female patients had the lowest risk (reference); male patients with UACR >9 mg/g and BMI >28.7 kg/m2 had the highest risk [hazard ratio (HR), 5.58; 95% CI, 3.32 to 9.69]. Patients in this group present a cluster of conditions suggestive of marked insulin resistance (higher BMI, waist circumference, triglycerides, blood pressure, and UACR and lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) than the other groups. Treatment with pioglitazone in this group was associated with a significantly lower occurrence of the outcome than SUs (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.76). No significant difference between study treatments was observed in the other RECPAM classes.

CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to identify patients with type 2 diabetes early in the stage of their disease and who are largely free from evident CV disease in whom add-on pioglitazone to metformin confers CV protection as compared with SUs.

Optimal Non-invasive Strategies to Reduce Recurrent Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide, with coronary artery disease (CAD) responsible for the vast majority of these deaths. Incidence is increasing in developing countries, and prevalence is increasing globally as populations age. Once CAD is manifest, recurrent event risk remains high.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple therapeutic avenues have had significant recent developments, including diet, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol management, triglycerides, hypoglycemic agents, antiplatelet agents, and oral anticoagulants. Combined approaches involving specific, tailored lifestyle, and pharmacological interventions will provide the most effective strategy for reducing the risk of recurrent CVD events. Here, we review risk prediction and non-invasive non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches to mitigate residual coronary artery disease risk.

GLUcose COntrol Safety & Efficacy in type 2 DIabetes, a systematic review and NETwork meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The last international consensus on the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) recommends SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists for patients with clinical cardiovascular (CV) disease; metformin remains the first-line glucose lowering medication. Last studies suggested beneficial effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 agonists compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, in secondary CV prevention. Recently, a potential benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors in primary CV prevention also has been suggested. However, no comparison of all the new and the old hypoglycemic drugs is available on CV outcomes. We aimed to compare the effects of old and new hypoglycemic drugs in T2D, on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical trials. Randomized trials, blinded or not, assessing contemporary hypoglycemic drugs on mortality or MACE in patients with T2D, were searched for in Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov. References screening and data extraction were done by multiple observers. Each drug was analyzed according to its therapeutic class. A random Bayesian network meta-analysis model was used. The primary outcomes were overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and MACE. Severe adverse events and severe hypoglycemia were also recorded. 175,966 patients in 34 trials from 1970 to 2018 were included. No trials evaluating glinides or alpha glucosidase inhibitors were found. 17 trials included a majority of patients with previous cardiovascular history, 16 trials a majority of patients without. Compared to control, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality (OR = 0.84 [95% CrI: 0.74; 0.95]), SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists with a decreased risk of MACE (OR = 0.89 [95% CrI: 0.81; 0.98] and OR = 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.81; 0.95], respectively). Compared to DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with a decreased risk of overall mortality (OR = 0.82 [95% CrI: 0.69; 0.98]), GLP-1 agonists with a decreased risk of MACE (OR = 0.88 [95% CrI: 0.79; 0.99]). Insulin was also associated with an increased risk of MACE compared to GLP-1 agonists (OR = 1.19 [95% CrI: 1.01; 1.42]). Insulin and sulfonylureas were associated with an increased risk of severe hypoglycemia. In the trials including a majority of patients without previous CV history, the comparisons of SGLT-2 inhibitors, metformin and control did not showed significant differences on primary outcomes. We limited our analysis at the therapeutic class level.

CONCLUSIONS

SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists have the most beneficial effects, especially in T2D patients with previous CV diseases. Direct comparisons of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists and metformin are needed, notably in primary CV prevention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016043823.

[New glucose-lowering drugs for reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with type2 diabetes mellitus]

Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the most common cause of mortality in patients with type2 diabetes (T2DM). In recent years, several glucose-lowering drugs from two therapeutic families, GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and sodium-glucose co-transporter type 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i), have shown a reduction in CV morbidity and mortality in patients with T2DM and high CV risk. SGLT-2i, unlike GLP-1 RAs, also reduce the risk of hospital admission due to heart failure. Both therapeutic groups reduce the progression of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). The cardioprotective mechanism of SGLT-2i appears to be predominantly haemodynamic and shows an early onset, while that of GLP-1 RAs is mostly anti-atherosclerotic with a slow and progressive onset. At present, several scientific societies recommend the preferential use of GLP-1 RAs and SGLT-2i, with demonstrated CV benefit in patients with T2DM and cardiovascular disease or DKD.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

[Diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease und heart disease (Update 2019)]

Diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease and heart failure are interacting dynamically. Patients being diagnosed with cardiovascular disease should be screened for diabetes mellitus. Enhanced cardiovascular risk stratification based on biomarkers, symptoms and classical risk factors should be performed in patients with pre-existing diabetes mellitus. In patients with previously diagnosed arterosclerotic cardiovascular disease an agent proven to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events or cardiovascular mortality is recommended after therapy failure of metformin.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: causes, diagnosis, cardiometabolic consequences, and treatment strategies

The prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is increasing worldwide. In some patients with NAFLD, isolated steatosis can progress to advanced stages with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and fibrosis, increasing the risk of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Furthermore, NAFLD is believed to be involved in the pathogenesis of common disorders such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. In this Review, we highlight novel concepts related to diagnosis, risk prediction, and treatment of NAFLD. First, because NAFLD is a heterogeneous disease, the advanced stages of which seem to be strongly affected by comorbidities such as insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, early use of reliable, non-invasive diagnostic tools is needed, particularly in patients with insulin resistance or diabetes, to allow the identification of patients at different disease stages. Second, although the strongest genetic risk alleles for NAFLD (ie, the 148Met allele in PNPLA3 and the 167Lys allele in TM6SF2) are associated with increased liver fat content and progression to NASH and cirrhosis, these alleles are also unexpectedly associated with an apparent protection from cardiovascular disease. If consistent across diverse populations, this discordance in NAFLD-related risk prediction between hepatic and extrahepatic disease might need to be accounted for in the management of NAFLD. Third, drug treatments assessed in NAFLD seem to differ with respect to cardiometabolic and antifibrotic efficacy, suggesting the need to better identify and tailor the most appropriate treatment approach, or to use a combination of approaches. These emerging concepts could contribute to the development of a multidisciplinary approach for endocrinologists and hepatologists working together in the management of NAFLD.

Reflections on the sulphonylurea story: A drug class at risk of extinction or a drug class worth reviving?

The role of sulphonylureas (SUs) in modern clinical practice poses ongoing clinical debate. With the advent of newer agents in diabetes management, there is an increasing shift away from the prescribing of SUs, but not necessarily to more effective agents. This review provides a different perspective on the debate, reflecting in depth upon the physiology of SUs, drawing on insights gained from monogenic diabetes to highlight the potential benefit of lower doses of SUs, and the probable benefit of gliclazide over most other, if not all SUs, in terms of sulphonylurea failure and cardiovascular outcomes.

Nonglycemic Outcomes of Antidiabetic Medications

IN BRIEF The number of medications used to treat diabetes has increased dramatically in the past 15 years. With so many options that have shown significant A1C improvement, it is important to consider side effects, precautions, and additional benefits these agents may offer. This article is a review of some of the most compelling literature available on the nonglycemic benefits of sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones, biguanides, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Other classes of antihyperglycemic agents, such as dopamine agonists, meglitinides, and amylin agonists, are not discussed in this article.

Review of the cardiovascular safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and the clinical relevance of the CAROLINA trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) is a well-recognized complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and there is a clinical need for glucose-lowering therapies that do not further increase CV risk in this population. Although sulfonylureas (SUs) may be used as second-line therapy for patients requiring additional therapy after first-line metformin to improve glycemic control, their long-term effects on CV outcomes remain uncertain, and a wide range of alternative agents exist including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.

METHODS

Literature searches in PubMed (2013-2018) were conducted with terms for DPP-4 inhibitors combined with CV terms, with preference given to cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs). Reference lists from retrieved articles and diabetes guidelines were also considered.

RESULTS

This narrative review discusses current evidence for the CV safety of these agents, describes the long-term CV effects of DPP-4 inhibitors, including effects on CV events, mortality, the risk for heart failure hospitalization, and highlights the need for further research into the CV effects of SU therapy. Although SUs remain a treatment option for T2DM, the long-term effects of these agents on CV outcomes are unclear, and further long-term studies are required. For DPP-4 inhibitors, uncertainties have been raised about their long-term effect on hospitalization for heart failure in light of the results of SAVOR-TIMI 53, although the findings of other DPP-4 inhibitor CVOTs in T2DM and data analyses have suggested these agents do not increase the occurrence of adverse CV outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on recent CVOTs and guideline updates, the choice of add-on to metformin therapy for patients with T2DM and established CV disease should be a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist with proven CV benefit. Additional treatment options for those individuals who require therapy intensification, as well as in patients with T2DM and without established CVD include DPP-4 inhibitors and SUs. Since few head-to-head trials have compared the effects of different oral glucose-lowering agents on CV outcomes in T2DM, with most CVOTs using placebo as a comparator, the CAROLINA trial will provide important information on the comparative CV safety of a commonly prescribed SU and a DPP-4 inhibitor.

SAVOR-TIMI to DECLARE-TIMI: A Review on Cardiovascular Outcome Trials of Incretin-modulators and Gliflozins

INTRODUCTION

Since 2008 United State (US) food drug administration mandate, several newer anti-diabetic drugs (ADD) have undergone a mandatory cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial (CVOT) in type diabetes (T2DM) patients with high CV risk. These includes CVOT done with dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RAs). Several double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled CVOT have been presented and published in the last decade (2008-2018).

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

We systematically searched the database of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018 using specific key words. Subsequently, we pooled the data of different cardiovascular endpoints and made a comparative forest plot using GraphPad software Inc. Prism Version 8, US.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Saxagliptin, alogliptin, sitagliptin and linagliptin are CV neutral drugs. Saxagliptin showed a significantly higher hospitalization due to heart failure (HHF). Empagliflozin and canagliflozin have shown a significant reduction in composite of 3-point major cardiac adverse events (3P-MACE). Additionally, empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin significantly reduced the HHF and the composite of CV death or HHF. Moreover, empagliflozin showed significant reduction in CV- and all-cause death in patients with T2DM with established CV disease. While both exendin-backbone-based GLP-1RAs such as lixisenatide and extended-release exenatide were CV neutral; GLP-1-backbone-based GLP-1RAs such as liraglutide, semaglutide and albiglutide shown a significant reduction in the composite of 3-P MACE. Additionally, liraglutide shown a significant reduction in CV- and all-cause death. Moreover, semaglutide reduced non-fatal stroke and albiglutide reduced myocardial infarction, while extended-release exenatide reduced all-cause death; however, P value of significance for these outcomes should be considered nominal.

Pioglitazone: The forgotten, cost-effective cardioprotective drug for type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes individuals are at high risk for macrovascular complications: myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular mortality. Recent cardiovascular outcome trials have demonstrated that agents in two antidiabetic classes (SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists) reduce major adverse cardiovascular events. However, there is strong evidence that an older and now generically available medication, the thiazolidinedione, pioglitazone, can retard the atherosclerotic process (PERISCOPE and Chicago) and reduce cardiovascular events in large randomized prospective cardiovascular outcome trials (IRIS and PROactive). Pioglitazone is a potent insulin sensitizer, preserves beta-cell function, causes durable reduction in HbA1c, corrects multiple components of metabolic syndrome and improves nonalcoholic fatty liver disease/nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Adverse effects (weight gain, fluid retention, fractures) must be considered, but are diminished with lower doses and are arguably outweighed by these multiple benefits. With healthcare expenses attributable to diabetes increasing rapidly, this cost-effective drug requires reconsideration in the therapeutic armamentarium for the disease.

SAVOR-TIMI to DECLARE-TIMI: A Review on Cardiovascular Outcome Trials of Incretin-modulators and Gliflozins

INTRODUCTION

Since 2008 United State (US) food drug administration mandate, several newer anti-diabetic drugs (ADD) have undergone a mandatory cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial (CVOT) in type diabetes (T2DM) patients with high CV risk. These includes CVOT done with dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RAs). Several double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled CVOT have been presented and published in the last decade (2008-2018).

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

We systematically searched the database of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2018 using specific key words. Subsequently, we pooled the data of different cardiovascular endpoints and made a comparative forest plot using GraphPad software Inc. Prism Version 8, US.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Saxagliptin, alogliptin, sitagliptin and linagliptin are CV neutral drugs. Saxagliptin showed a significantly higher hospitalization due to heart failure (HHF). Empagliflozin and canagliflozin have shown a significant reduction in composite of 3-point major cardiac adverse events (3P-MACE). Additionally, empagliflozin, canagliflozin and dapagliflozin significantly reduced the HHF and the composite of CV death or HHF. Moreover, empagliflozin showed significant reduction in CV- and all-cause death in patients with T2DM with established CV disease. While both exendin-backbone-based GLP-1RAs such as lixisenatide and extended-release exenatide were CV neutral; GLP-1-backbone-based GLP-1RAs such as liraglutide, semaglutide and albiglutide shown a significant reduction in the composite of 3-P MACE. Additionally, liraglutide shown a significant reduction in CV- and all-cause death. Moreover, semaglutide reduced non-fatal stroke and albiglutide reduced myocardial infarction, while extended-release exenatide reduced all-cause death; however, P value of significance for these outcomes should be considered nominal.

Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of Sex-Related Differences in Predisposition and Prevention

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. However, compiled data suggest that type 2 diabetes affects the risk of cardiovascular disease differentially according to sex. In recent years, large meta-analyses have confirmed that women with type 2 diabetes have a higher relative risk of incident coronary heart disease, fatal coronary heart disease, and stroke compared with their male counterparts. The reasons for these disparities are not completely elucidated. A greater burden of cardiometabolic risk in women was proposed as a partial explanation. Indeed, several studies suggest that women experience a larger deterioration in major cardiovascular risk factors and put on more weight than do men during their transition from normoglycemia to overt type 2 diabetes. This excess weight is associated with higher levels of biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, and procoagulant state. Moreover, sex differences in the prescription and use of some cardiovascular drugs may compound an "existing" disparity. We searched PubMed for articles published in English and French, by using the following terms: ("cardiovascular diseases") AND ("diabetes mellitus") AND ("sex disparity" OR "sex differences" OR "sex related differences" OR "sex-related differences" OR "sex disparities"). In this article, we review the available literature on the sex aspects of primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with type 2 diabetes, in the predisposition to cardiovascular disease in those people, and in the control of diabetes and associated cardiovascular risk factors.

Evidence-Based Management of Diabetes in Older Adults

The number of older adults with diabetes is rapidly increasing worldwide. A variety of factors contribute to the age-related increase in the incidence of diabetes. The lack of empiric evidence in the field has limited the management guidelines to mostly expert opinion. Given uncertainty over the rate at which to lower blood glucose levels and the optimal method of doing so, the goals of diabetes control in older people must be individualized. If the patient requires insulin therapy, the newer insulins, with their improved pharmacodynamic consistency and reduced risk of hypoglycemia, should be preferred. Several oral agents are preferable for people with sufficient endogenous insulin because they do not cause hypoglycemia when used as monotherapy. Some of these oral agents have been found to have cardioprotective effects. Older people with diabetes also require management of the other risk factors for cardiovascular disease, with antihypertensive drugs, cholesterol-lowering agents and low-dose aspirin. However, the precise targets for blood pressure control and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels continue to evolve as more data become available. Diabetes care in older adults should focus on enhancing the individual's quality of life rather than trying to normalize blood glucose levels or reach predetermined blood pressure and LDL cholesterol targets.

Cardiovascular protection in type 2 diabetes: Insights from recent outcome trials

This review examines recent randomized controlled cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies in type 2 diabetes and their impact on the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. The trials were designed to comply with regulatory requirements to confirm that major adverse cardiac events (MACE) are not detrimentally affected by such therapies. Trials involving dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors did not alter a composite MACE outcome comprising CV deaths, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke; however, the possibility that some members of this class might incur a small increased risk or worsening of heart failure cannot be excluded. Some studies on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (liraglutide: LEADER trial; semaglutide: SUSTAIN-6 trial) found significant benefits for MACE, while treatment with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (empagliflozin: EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial; canagliflozin: CANVAS trial) also significantly reduced MACE and reduced hospitalization for heart failure. Comparisons among trials are complicated by variance in the populations recruited, particularly CV status at randomization, and differences in trial design, data collection and analyses. A large proportion of patients recruited into these trials have previously experienced adverse CV events; thus, the therapies are mostly assessing secondary prevention of a further event. This contrasts with the overall type 2 diabetes population receiving glucose-lowering therapies, of whom the majority will not have had MACE and will be regarded as primary prevention. Overall, the trials provide reassuring evidence that new glucose-lowering medications do not adversely affect CV events and some of these agents may offer CV protection.

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2018. A consensus report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2018. A Consensus Report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

The American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes convened a panel to update the prior position statements, published in 2012 and 2015, on the management of type 2 diabetes in adults. A systematic evaluation of the literature since 2014 informed new recommendations. These include additional focus on lifestyle management and diabetes self-management education and support. For those with obesity, efforts targeting weight loss, including lifestyle, medication, and surgical interventions, are recommended. With regards to medication management, for patients with clinical cardiovascular disease, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist with proven cardiovascular benefit is recommended. For patients with chronic kidney disease or clinical heart failure and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, an SGLT2 inhibitor with proven benefit is recommended. GLP-1 receptor agonists are generally recommended as the first injectable medication.

Thiazolidinediones and reduced risk of incident bacterial abscess in adults with type 2 diabetes: A population-based cohort study

AIM

Previous research has suggested that peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma (PPAR-γ) may play an important role in immunomodulation. We aimed to examine the association between thiazolidinediones, PPAR-γ agonists and incidence of bacterial abscess among patients with type 2 diabetes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study between 2000 and 2010 included 46 986 propensity (PS)-matched patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. We compared the incidence of bacterial abscess, including liver and non-liver abscesses, between patients treated with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (M + T, N = 7831) or metformin plus a sulfonylurea (M + S, N = 39 155). Data were retrieved from a population-based Taiwanese database. We applied Cox proportional hazard regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), comparing M + T and M + S after PS matching.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 4.5 years, the incidence rate of bacterial abscess was lower with M + T than with M + S treatment (1.89 vs 3.15 per 1000 person-years) in the PS-matched cohort. M + T was associated with a reduced risk of bacterial abscess (HRs after PS matching, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80 for total bacterial abscess; 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28-1.07 for liver abscess; 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.85 for non-liver abscess). Results did not change materially after accounting for unmeasured confounding factors using high-dimenional PS matching and differential censoring between regimen groups. Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, in combination with metformin, produced similar reductions in risk of all abscess outcomes.

CONCLUSION

We found that M + T may provide a protective benefit in reducing the incidence of bacterial abscesses. These findings merit further investigation.

Assessing use of patient-focused pharmacotherapy in glycemic management through the Diabetes Collaborative Registry (DCR)

BACKGROUND

Although practice guidelines stress individualization of glucose management in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the extent to which providers take patient factors into account when selecting medications is not well known.

METHODS

Diabetes Collaborative Registry (DCR) is an outpatient diabetes registry including primary care, cardiology, and endocrinology practices. T2D medications were grouped as those which may be suboptimal for key patient subgroups, and we examined patient factors associated with use of these agents using hierarchical, multivariable Poisson models.

RESULTS

In DCR, 157,551 patients from 374 US practices were prescribed a glucose-lowering medication. Patients with morbid obesity were more likely treated with medications prone to cause weight gain (relative rate [RR] 1.09, 95% CI 1.07-1.11). Older patients were more likely to be treated with medications with increased risk of hypoglycemia (RR 1.04 per 5 years, 95% CI 1.04-1.05). Patients with CKD 4/5 were less likely to be treated with agents with known risk in patients with advanced CKD (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.71-0.77). Patients with coronary artery disease were no more or less likely to be treated with medications with potential cardiovascular safety issues (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.96-1.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed some targeted use of glucose-lowering therapies in certain subgroups but also identified potential opportunities for better personalization of treatment. Data sources such as the DCR can highlight potential areas for improving targeted approaches to pharmacologic therapy in order to optimize selection of patients most likely to benefit (and least likely to be harmed) from treatments.

Revisiting the Diabetes-Heart Failure Connection

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

To summarize current clinical data investigating the link between diabetes and heart failure pathophysiology, the association of glucose control with heart failure, and the impact of current antihyperglycemic drugs on heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although heart failure is one of the most prevalent outcomes occurring in real life and cardiovascular outcome trials, insufficient attention was given to this condition in diabetes research over the last decades. With both beneficial and detrimental findings for heart failure hospitalization in the health authority-mandated outcome trials for new antihyperglycemic agents, research on heart failure and its interplay with diabetes mellitus gained momentum. Diabetes mellitus and heart failure are both prevalent and intertwined conditions. While currently available heart failure therapies have a similar degree of effectiveness in patients with and without diabetes, the choice of glucose-lowering agents can substantially affect heart failure-related outcome.