Efficacy and safety of glucose-lowering agents in patients with type 2 diabetes: A network meta-analysis of randomized, active comparator-controlled trials

Glucagon-like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) reduce cardiovascular events and mortality in type 2 diabetes. Limited data are available on diabetes treatment after solid organ transplantation. We aimed to explore the effect of GLP1-RAs on cardiovascular outcomes in transplanted recipients with diabetes.

METHODS

We extracted data on adult transplant recipients (kidney, lungs, liver, heart) insured in a large health maintenance organization. Death-censored patients with diabetes treated with GLP1-RAs were matched with nonusers. The primary outcome was a composite of major cardiovascular events (MACEs): a nonfatal cardiac event (myocardial infarction, stable/unstable angina, coronary bypass, and coronary angiography), ischemic stroke and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were MACE or peripheral vascular disease (MACE-PVD), and all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included biliopancreatic adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 318 patients (69% males, average age 58.3 ± 11.0 y) with a 3.1-y median follow-up. The incidence of MACE was 101 of 1000 patient-years in GLP1-RAs users compared with 134 of 1000 in controls (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.78). GLP1-RAs similarly reduced the risk of MACE-PVD (HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.88) and the risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18-0.84). Biliopancreatic adverse events occurred less in GLP1-RA users.

CONCLUSIONS

Transplant recipients with diabetes who used GLP1-RAs had lower risks for MACE and all-cause mortality. These results may profoundly implicate the daily management of posttransplant recipients with diabetes, a population with a high prevalence of cardiometabolic risk factors and cardiovascular death. Transplant patients are usually excluded from randomized controlled trials and, hence might be undertreated with disease-modifying drugs. Larger prospective studies are needed in this unique population.

All-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors are approved drugs for treating type 2 diabetes (T2DM); however, their effects on mortality and cardiovascular safety are unclear. This meta-analysis was aimed at evaluating the effects of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors on all-cause mortality and major cardiovascular events (MACE).

DATA SYNTHESIS

A Medline, Embase, Cochrane database searching for alpha-glucosidase inhibitors was performed up to July 1st, 2021. All randomized controlled trials (RCT) with a duration ≥52 weeks and comparing the effects of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors with placebo or active drugs were collected. Further inclusion criteria were: RCT reporting MACE within their primary outcome, or as pre-defined secondary outcome; and RCT enrolling at least 100 patients with T2DM. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the aforementioned outcomes. A total of eight RCTs, enrolling 1124 and 908 patients on alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and comparators, respectively, were identified. No trials reported information on MACE. Treatment with alpha-glucosidase inhibitors was not associated with a significant increase of all-cause mortality compared with other therapies or no therapy/placebo (MH-OR 0.76 [0.28; 2.05]).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence of beneficial or detrimental effects of alpha-glucosidase inhibitors on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events is not sufficient to draw any conclusions.

Efficacy and Safety of Metformin Versus the Other Oral Antidiabetic Drugs in Japanese Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Network Meta-analysis

Introduction

Although metformin is recommended as a first-line treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Western countries, no specific treatment is recommended in Japan, and various agents are used. Metformin has long been used at low doses in Japan, and information regarding its effect at the maximum maintenance dose is lacking. Here, we compared the efficacy and safety of metformin at 1500 mg/day with those of the other oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) approved in Japan.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials comparing a change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline at 12 weeks or later (ΔHbA1c) among OADs (including placebo) as a first-line treatment in adult patients with T2D were selected by systematic review with comprehensive searching of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Ichushi Web, and EMBASE and manual searching of clinical trial registries. The ΔHbA1c and incidence of hypoglycemia were compared among OAD treatments using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). The relative risk (RR) of the incidence of hypoglycemia was determined relative to that of placebo.

Results

Forty-six randomized controlled trials were identified in the systematic review, and 37 studies, comprising 38 different types of treatments, including placebos, were selected for the NMA of ΔHbA1c. Compared with metformin 1500 mg/day, 20 OAD treatments were significantly less effective in reducing HbA1c from baseline (differences from metformin 1500 mg/day: 0.40–0.96%). Two treatments (glimepiride 2 mg/day and pioglitazone 45 mg/day) showed greater mean reductions in HbA1c from baseline than metformin 1500 mg/day (− 0.38% and − 0.03%), although these differences were not significant. Regarding the incidence of hypoglycemia, only pioglitazone 30 mg/day among 31 treatments showed a lower RR (< − 0.01), whereas 23 treatments showed a significantly higher RR (1.02–66.71) than metformin 1500 mg/day.

Conclusion

The NMA suggested a preferable efficacy and safety profile of metformin 1500 mg/day compared with the other OADs approved in Japan.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01979-1.

6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SPPC), are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations, please refer to the Standards of Care Introduction (https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Sodium Glucose Transporter, Type 2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors (SGLT2i) and Glucagon-Like Peptide 1-Receptor Agonists: Newer Therapies in Whole-Body Glucose Stabilization

Diabetes is a worldwide epidemic that is increasing rapidly to become the seventh leading cause of death in the world. The increased incidence of this disease mirrors a similar uptick in obesity and metabolic syndrome, and, collectively, these conditions can cause deleterious effects on a number of organ systems including the renal and cardiovascular systems. Historically, treatment of type 2 diabetes has focused on decreasing hyperglycemia and glycated hemoglobin levels. However, it now is appreciated that there is more to the puzzle. Emerging evidence has indicated that newer classes of diabetes drugs, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists, improve cardiovascular and renal function, while appropriately managing hyperglycemia. In this review, we highlight the recent clinical and preclinical studies that have shed light on sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonists and their ability to stabilize blood glucose levels while offering whole-body protection in diabetic and nondiabetic patient populations.

Protocol for an observational cohort study investigating personalised medicine for intensification of treatment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the PERMIT study

INTRODUCTION

For people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require an antidiabetic drug as an add-on to metformin, there is controversy about whether newer drug classes such as dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) or sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) reduce the risk of long-term complications compared with sulfonylureas (SU). There is widespread variation across National Health Service Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in drug choice for second-line treatment in part because National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not specify a single preferred drug class, either overall or within specific patient subgroups. This study will evaluate the relative effectiveness of the three most common second-line treatments in the UK (SU, DPP4i and SGLT2i as add-ons to metformin) and help target treatments according to individual risk profiles.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study includes people with T2DM prescribed one of the second-line treatments-of-interest between 2014 and 2020 within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics. We will use an instrumental variable (IV) method to estimate short-term and long-term relative effectiveness of second-line treatments according to individuals' risk profiles. This method minimises bias from unmeasured confounders by exploiting the natural variation in second-line prescribing across CCGs as an IV for the choice of prescribed treatment. The primary outcome to assess short-term effectiveness will be change in haemoglobin A1c (%) 12 months after treatment initiation. Outcome measures to assess longer-term effectiveness (maximum ~6 years) will include microvascular and macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality and hospital admissions during follow-up.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (20-064) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Research Ethics Committee (21395). Results, codelists and other analysis code will be made available to patients, clinicians, policy-makers and researchers.