Cardiovascular safety of insulin: Between real-world data and reality

Effects of insulin on cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

In 2019, the Italian Society of Diabetology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists nominated an expert panel to develop guidelines for drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. This expert panel, after identifying the effects of glucose-lowering agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) as critical outcomes, decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of insulin with this respect.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A MEDLINE database search was performed to identify all RCTs, up to June 1st, 2021, with duration≥52 weeks, in which insulin was compared with either placebo or active comparators. The principal endpoints were MACE and HHF (restricted for RCT reporting MACEs within their outcomes), all-cause mortality (irrespective of the inclusion of MACEs among the pre-specified outcomes). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all the endpoints considered. Six RCTs (enrolling 8091 patients and 10,139 in the insulin and control group, respectively) were included in the analysis for MACEs and HF, and 18 in that for all-cause mortality (9760 and 11,694 patients in the insulin and control group, respectively). Treatment with insulin neither significantly increased nor reduced the risk of MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF in comparison with placebo/active comparators (MH-OR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23; 0.99, 95% CI 0.91, 1.08; and 0.90, 95% CI 0.78, 1.04, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed no significant effects of insulin on incident MACE, all-cause mortality, and HHF.

Personalized Type 2 Diabetes Management: An Update on Recent Advances and Recommendations

Previous guidelines for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) have relied heavily upon rigid algorithms for the sequential addition of pharmacotherapies to achieve target glycemic control. More recent guidelines advocate a personalized approach for diabetes treatment, to improve patient satisfaction, quality of life, medication adherence and overall health outcomes. Clinicians should work with patients to develop personalized goals for their treatment, including targeted glycemic control, weight management, prevention and treatment of associated comorbidities and avoidance of complications such as hypoglycemia. Factors that affect the intensity of treatment and choice of pharmacotherapy should include medical and patient influences. Medical considerations include the diabetes phenotype, biomarkers including genetic tests, and the presence of comorbidities such as cardiovascular, renal, or hepatic disease. Patient factors include their treatment preference, age and life expectancy, diabetes duration, hypoglycemia fear and unawareness, psychological and social circumstances. The use of a personalized approach in the management of people with T2D can reduce the cost and failure associated with the algorithmic "one-size-fits-all" approach, to anticipate disease progression, improve the response to diabetes pharmacotherapy and reduce the incidence of diabetes-associated complications. Ultimately, the use of personalized medicine in people with T2D should improve medication adherence, patient satisfaction and quality of life to reduce diabetes distress and improve physical health outcomes.

Effect of insulin secretagogues on major cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In 2019, the Italian Society of Diabetology and the Italian Association of Clinical Diabetologists nominated an expert panel to develop guidelines for drug treatment of type 2 diabetes. This expert panel, after identifying the effects of glucose-lowering agents on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality as critical outcomes, decided to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of insulin secretagogues (sulfonylureas and glinides) with this respect.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A MEDLINE database search was performed to identify all RCTs, up to January 1st, 2020, with duration≥52 weeks, in which insulin secretagogues (glibenclamide, gliclazide, glimepiride, glipizide, chlorpropamide, repaglinide, nateglinide) were compared with either placebo or active comparators. The principal endpoints were MACE (restricted for RCT reporting MACEs within their outcomes) and all-cause mortality (irrespective of the inclusion of MACEs among the pre-specified outcomes). Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (MH-OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) was calculated for all the endpoints considered. Fourteen RCTs were included in the analysis for MACEs (919 in insulin secretagogues and 1,087 in control group). Insulin secretagogues were not significantly associated with an increased risk of MACEs in comparison with controls (MH-OR 1.08 [95% CI 0.96, 1.22], p = 0.20). When considering the 48 RCTs fulfilling criteria for inclusion in the analysis on all-cause mortality, insulin secretagogues were associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality (MH-OR 1.11 [1.00, 1.23], p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that insulin secretagogues are associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or other anti-hyperglycaemic drugs.

Evaluation of Frailty as an Unmeasured Confounder in Observational Studies of Antidiabetic Medications

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether observational studies evaluating the association between antidiabetic medications and mortality adequately account for frailty. Our objectives were to evaluate if frailty was a potential confounder in the relationship between antidiabetic medication regimen and mortality and how well administrative and clinical electronic health record (EHR) data account for frailty.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a single Veterans Health Administration (VHA) healthcare system of 500 hospitalizations-the majority due to heart failure-of Veterans who received regular VHA care and initiated type 2 diabetes treatment from 2001 to 2008. We measured frailty using a modified frailty index (FI, >0.21 frail). We obtained antidiabetic medication regimen and time-to-death from administrative sources. We compared FI among patients on different antidiabetic regimens. Stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression estimated time-to-death by demographic, administrative, clinical EHR, and FI data.

RESULTS

Median FI was 0.22 (interquartile range 0.18, 0.27). Frailty differed across antidiabetic regimens (p < .001). An FI increase of 0.05 was associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio 1.45, 95% confidence interval 1.32, 1.60). Cox proportional hazards model for time-to-death including demographic, administrative, and clinical EHR data had a c-statistic of 0.70; adding FI showed marginal improvement (c-statistic 0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty was associated with antidiabetic regimen and death, and may confound that relationship. Demographic, administrative, and clinical EHR data, commonly used to balance differences among exposure groups, performed moderately well in assessing risk of death, with minimal gain from adding frailty. Study design and analytic techniques can help minimize potential confounding by frailty in observational studies.

Dypeptidylpeptidase-4 inhibitors and the cardiovascular system: How to manage the fil rouge

Dypeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a therapeutic option for improving glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. They can be prescribed at different stages of the natural history of the disease because of their low risk for hypoglycemia and associated weight gain. For all new drugs for diabetes, the US Food and Drug Administration requires the demonstration of the cardiovascular (CV) safety profile through pooled analyses of phase 3 studies or specifically designed trials. A significant superiority over placebo has been observed with a sodium-dependent glucose transporter-2 inhibitor, empagliflozin, and two glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, liraglutide and semaglutide, thus suggesting cardioprotective effects for some antidiabetic drugs. The neutral results of CV safety trials on DPP-4 inhibitors have been disappointing, appearing to contradict the data from pooled analyses and meta-analyses of early trials. The main aim of this review is to find a possible interpretation for the differences between the results of these early trials and the CV safety studies with DPP-4 inhibitors. We conclude that the hypothesis of additional beneficial effects by DPP-4 inhibitors (beyond the improvement of glucose control), on the CV system in low-risk patients in primary prevention, needs to be verified with specifically designed studies.

Diabetes Research and Care Through the Ages

As has been well established, the Diabetes Care journal's most visible signature event is the Diabetes Care Symposium held each year during the American Diabetes Association's Scientific Sessions. Held this past year on 10 June 2017 in San Diego, California, at the 77th Scientific Sessions, this event has become one of the most attended sessions during the Scientific Sessions. Each year, in order to continue to have the symposium generate interest, we revise the format and content of this event. For this past year, our 6th annual symposium, I felt it was time to provide a comprehensive overview of our efforts in diabetes care to determine, first and foremost, how we arrived at our current state of management. I also felt the narrative needed to include the current status of management, especially with a focus toward cardiovascular disease, and finally, we wanted to ask what the future holds. Toward this goal, I asked four of the most noted experts in the world to provide their opinion on this topic. The symposium started with a very thoughtful presentation by Dr. Jay Skyler entitled "A Look Back as to How We Got Here." That was followed by two lectures on current concepts by Dr. Bernard Zinman entitled "Current Treatment Paradigms Today-How Well Are We Doing?" and by Dr. Matthew Riddle entitled "Evolving Concepts and Future Directions for Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials." The final lecture for the symposium was delivered by Dr. Ele Ferrannini and was entitled "What Does the Future Hold?" As always, a well-attended and well-received symposium is now the norm for our signature event and our efforts were rewarded by the enthusiasm of the attendees. This narrative summarizes the lectures held at the symposium.-William T. CefaluChief Scientific, Medical & Mission Officer, American Diabetes Association.

Effects of background statin therapy on glycemic response and cardiovascular events following initiation of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes: a large UK cohort study

Aim

Statins may increase the risk of new-onset diabetes and adversely affect glycaemic control, but their effects on the glycemic response and mortality outcomes following commencement of insulin therapy in patients with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) are unclear.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 12,725 insulin initiators with T2D using The Health Improvement Network (THIN) UK database. Changes in HbA1c at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months, and the 5-year risk of mortality and (3-point) major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), were compared between prior users (n = 10,682) and non-users (n = 2043) of statin therapy who were newly commenced on insulin treatment. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratios of the different outcomes.

Results

Mean age of the cohort was 58.7 ± 14.0 years (51% male) and mean baseline HbA1c was 8.7 ± 1.8%. A greater initial reduction in HbA1c was observed following insulin initiation in the non-users of statins compared with the users, which was significant in the short term (−0.34% vs −0.26% at 6 months; mean diff = −0.09%, p = 0.004) but not in the long term: −0.31% versus −0.35% at 3 years (mean diff = 0.05%, p = 0.344). CV events (3-point MACE) were 878 versus 217 in statin users versus non-users (20.7 vs 30.9 per 1000 person-years; adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) 1.36 (95% CI 1.15–1.62; p < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis of individual statins, HbA1c was higher throughout the study duration with all statins relative to non-users of statin therapy (p < 0.05). The aHRs for 3-point MACE for atorvastatin, simvastatin, rosuvastatin and pravastatin were 0.82 (95% CI 0.68–0.98), 0.67 (0.55–0.82), 0.56 (0.39–0.81) and 0.78 (0.60–1.01), respectively.

Conclusions

Following initiation of insulin therapy in patients with T2D in routine care, concurrent use of a statin was associated with less good glycaemic control in the short-term but a much lower risk of major adverse CV events.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12933-017-0587-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.