Design and baseline characteristics of the CARdiovascular Outcome Trial of LINAgliptin Versus Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes (CAROLINA®)

Hypoglycemia and Cardiovascular Outcomes in the CARMELINA and CAROLINA Trials of Linagliptin: A Secondary Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Previous studies have reported an association between hypoglycemia and cardiovascular (CV) events in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), but it is unclear if this association is causal or identifies a high-risk patient phenotype.

Objective

To evaluate the associations between hypoglycemia and CV outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This secondary analysis was a post hoc assessment of the multinational, double-blind CARMELINA (Cardiovascular and Renal Microvascular Outcome Study With Linagliptin; 2013-2016) and CAROLINA (Cardiovascular Outcome Trial of Linagliptin vs Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes; 2010-2018) randomized clinical trials of the antihyperglycemic drug, linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor. Participants were adults with T2D at high CV risk with or without high kidney risk. By design, participants in the CARMELINA trial had longer duration of T2D and had a higher CV risk than participants in the CAROLINA trial. Data analyses were conducted between June 2021 and June 2023.

Intervention

Linagliptin or placebo in the CARMELINA trial, and linagliptin or glimepiride in the CAROLINA trial.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome for both trials was CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke (3-point major adverse CV events [3P-MACE]). For the present analyses, hospitalization for heart failure (HF) was added. Hypoglycemia was defined as plasma glucose less than 54 mg/dL or severe hypoglycemia (episodes requiring the assistance of another person). Associations between the first hypoglycemic episode and subsequent CV events and between nonfatal CV events (MI, stroke, hospitalization for HF) and subsequent hypoglycemic episodes were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Sensitivity analyses explored the risk of CV events within 60 days after each hypoglycemic episode.

Results

In the CARMELINA trial (6979 patients; 4390 males [62.9%]; mean [SD] age, 65.9 [9.1] years), there was an association between hypoglycemia and subsequent 3P-MACE plus hospitalization for HF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.04-1.46) as well as between nonfatal CV events and subsequent hypoglycemia (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83). In the CAROLINA trial (6033 patients; 3619 males (60.0%); mean [SD] age, 64.0 [9.5] years), there was no association between hypoglycemia and subsequent 3P-MACE plus hospitalization for HF (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.76-1.32) and between nonfatal CV events and subsequent hypoglycemia (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.96-2.16). In analyses of CV events occurring within 60 days after hypoglycemia, there was either no association or too few events to analyze.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found bidirectional associations between hypoglycemia and CV outcomes in the CARMELINA trial but no associations in either direction in the CAROLINA trial, challenging the notion that hypoglycemia causes adverse CV events. The findings from the CARMELINA trial suggest that both hypoglycemia and CV events more likely identify patients at high risk for both.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01897532 (CARMELINA) and NCT01243424 (CAROLINA).

10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2024

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of 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, an interprofessional expert committee, 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 and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Incident and recurrent hypoglycaemia with linagliptin and glimepiride over a median of 6 years in the CAROLINA cardiovascular outcome trial

AIM

The CAROLINA trial established non-inferiority of linagliptin versus glimepiride for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk. In pre-specified and post-hoc analyses, we investigated treatment effects on total hypoglycaemic burden in CAROLINA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized and treated with 5 mg linagliptin (n = 3014) or 1-4 mg glimepiride (n = 3000) once daily added to standard care. Hypoglycaemia captured from investigator-reported adverse events was analysed with Poisson and negative binomial regressions for the first and total (first plus recurrent) events, respectively. The influence of insulin initiation and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change on the treatment effect for hypoglycaemia was also explored.

RESULTS

Over 6.3 years median follow-up, average HbA1c over time did not differ between linagliptin versus glimepiride (weighted mean difference [95% confidence interval]: 0.00%, [-0.05, 0.05]), nor did insulin initiation (18.6% vs. 19.2% of patients, respectively), whereas body weight was lower with linagliptin (-1.54 kg, [-1.80, -1.28]). Hypoglycaemia frequency was lower with linagliptin across all hypoglycaemia categories, including severe episodes. Rate ratios (95% confidence interval) for first and total events for investigator-reported hypoglycaemia were 0.21 (0.19-0.24) and 0.12 (0.10-0.14), respectively, with 8.7 first and 60.8 total estimated events prevented/100 patient-years with linagliptin versus glimepiride. These differences occurred during night-time and daytime, and in subgroup analyses of total events. Treatment differences in hypoglycaemia were neither impacted by HbA1c changes nor insulin initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

Across the severity spectrum, linagliptin substantially reduced the hypoglycaemic burden versus glimepiride in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk.

10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2023

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of 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, 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 and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Effect of Intensive Glycemic Control on Myocardial Infarction Outcome in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of intensive glucose-lowering treatment on the risk of cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes remains uncertain, especially the effect on the occurrence of myocardial infarction in patients with type 2 diabetes is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant RCTs.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTS) and observational studies relevant to this study question. We searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases until June 2022.

RESULTS

We included data on 14 RCTs and 144,334 patients, all of whom had type 2 diabetes. When all studies were considered, intensive glucose-lowering treatment significantly reduced the incidence of MI compared with conventional therapy and the total OR value is 0.90 (CI 0.84, 0.97; P = 0.004) when considering all the studies. When the target value of intensive glucose-lowering treatment was considered as HbA1c decrease of more than 0.5%, there was no significant protective effect on MI, the total OR value is 0.88 (CI 0.81, 0.96; P = 0.003). When considering all available RCTS, the intensive glucose-lowering treatment group had a protective effect for MACE compared to the conventional treatment group, and the total OR value is 0.92 (CI 0.88, 0.96; P < 0.00001). In the available RCTs, for the patients with a history of prior CAD, the total OR value is 0.94 (CI 0.89, 0.99; P = 0.002). And there was no difference in the incidence of hypoglycemic events between the intensive and conservative treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Our data support the positive protective effect of glucose-lowering therapy on MI in patients with T2DM, but there is no significant effect of intensive glucose-lowering. In addition, we found no greater protective effect of enhanced glucose control in the HbA1c reduction of more than 0.5%, and no difference in the incidence of adverse events compared with the HbA1c reduction of less than 0.5%.

Cardiovascular risk factors, exercise capacity and health literacy in patients with chronic ischaemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Germany: Baseline characteristics of the Lifestyle Intervention in Chronic Ischaemic Heart Disease and Type 2 Diabetes study

BACKGROUND

Lifestyle interventions are a cornerstone in the treatment of chronic ischaemic heart disease (CIHD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study aimed at identifying differences in clinical characteristics between categories of the common lifestyle intervention targets BMI, exercise capacity (peak V̇O₂) and health literacy (HL).

METHODS

Cross-sectional baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the LeIKD trial (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03835923) are presented in total, grouped by BMI, %-predicted peak V̇O₂ and HL (HLS-EU-Q16), and compared to other clinical trials with similar populations.

RESULTS

Among 499 patients (68.3±7.7 years; 16.2% female; HbA1c, 6.9±0.9%), baseline characteristics were similar to other trials and revealed insufficient treatment of several risk factors (LDL-C 92±34 mg/dl; BMI, 30.1±4.8 kg/m²; 69.6% with peak V̇O₂<90% predicted). Patients with lower peak V̇O₂ showed significantly higher (p < 0.05) CIHD and T2DM disease severity (HbA1c, CIHD symptoms, coronary artery bypass graft). Obese patients had a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension and higher triglyceride levels, whereas in patients with low HL both quality of life components (physical, mental) were significantly reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CIHD and T2DM, peak V̇O2, BMI and HL are important indicators of disease severity, risk factor burden and quality of life, which reinforces the relevance of lifestyle interventions.

Sulfonylureas and the Risk of Ventricular Arrhythmias Among People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies

Previous studies have suggested an association between sulfonylureas and an increased risk of cardiovascular death among patients with type 2 diabetes. A potential mechanism involves sulfonylurea-induced ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). We conducted a systematic review of observational studies to determine whether the use of sulfonylureas, compared with the use of other antihyperglycemic drugs, is associated with the risk of VA (ventricular tachycardia, ventricular fibrillation, and premature ventricular complexes), cardiac arrest, and sudden cardiac death among patients with type 2 diabetes. Two independent reviewers searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to July 2021 for observational studies comparing sulfonylureas vs. other antihyperglycemic therapies or intraclass comparisons of sulfonylureas. Our systematic review included 17 studies (1,607,612 patients). Per Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS)-I, there were few high-quality studies (2 studies at moderate risk of bias; 4 at serious risk; and 11 at critical risk). All studies at a moderate or serious risk of bias reporting comparisons with other therapies were consistent with an increased risk of VA. Sulfonylureas were associated with a higher risk of arrhythmia vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.27-1.80) and of VA vs. metformin (aHR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.10-2.13). One moderate quality study reported inconsistent results for a composite of cardiac arrest/VA in analyses of US Medicaid claims and Optum claims data. Our systematic review suggests that, among higher-quality observational studies, sulfonylureas are associated with an increased risk of VA. However, we identified few methodologically rigorous studies, underscoring the need for additional real-world studies.

10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: 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.

Pleiotropic Benefits of DPP-4 Inhibitors Beyond Glycemic Control

Dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitors are oral anti-diabetic medications that block the activity of the ubiquitous enzyme DPP-4. Inhibition of this enzyme increases the level of circulating active glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 secreted from L-cells in the small intestine. GLP-1 increases the glucose level, dependent on insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells; it also decreases the abnormally increased level of glucagon, eventually decreasing the blood glucose level in patients with type 2 diabetes. DPP-4 is involved in many physiological processes other than the degradation of GLP-1. Therefore, the inhibition of DPP-4 may have numerous effects beyond glucose control. In this article, we review the pleiotropic effects of DPP-4 inhibitors beyond glucose control, including their strong beneficial effects on the stress induced accelerated senescence of vascular cells, and the possible clinical implications of these effects.

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.

The Effects of Glucose Lowering Agents on the Secondary Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes have a higher risk of requiring repeated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than non-diabetic patients. We aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of anti-diabetic drugs on the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients.

METHODS

We analyzed the general health check-up dataset and claims data of the Korean National Health Insurance Service of 199,714 participants (age ≥30 years) who underwent PCIs between 2010 and 2013. Those who underwent additional PCI within 1 year of their first PCI (n=3,325) and those who died within 1 year (n=1,312) were excluded. Patients were classified according to their prescription records for glucose-lowering agents. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of coronary revascularization.

RESULTS

A total of 35,348 patients were included in the study. Metformin significantly decreased the risk of requiring repeat PCI in all patients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.77). In obese patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥25 kg/m2, patients treated with thiazolidinedione (TZD) exhibited a decreased risk of requiring repeat revascularization than those who were not treated with TZD (aHR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.95). Patients treated with metformin showed a decreased risk of requiring revascularization regardless of their BMI. Insulin, meglitinide, and alpha-glucosidase inhibitor were associated with increased risk of repeated PCI.

CONCLUSION

The risk of requiring repeat revascularization was lower in diabetic patients treated with metformin and in obese patients treated with TZD. These results suggest that physicians should choose appropriate glucose-lowering agents for the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease.

Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials of Incretin-Based Therapies

The cardiovascular (CV) safety of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists has been established in robust cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk. The GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide, dulaglutide, and injectable semaglutide demonstrated a significant CV benefit in these trials and now have indications to reduce the risk of major adverse CV events, including CV death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in adult patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease or high CV risk (dulaglutide). The dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors have also demonstrated CV safety in dedicated CVOTs but have not been associated with any CV benefit. Guidelines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have evolved from a glucocentric focus to one that now focuses on reducing overall CV risk by personalizing therapy and using drugs such as GLP-1 receptor agonists with proven CV benefits.

Cardiovascular Outcome Trials with Glucose-Lowering Drugs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes recent cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) with glucose-lowering drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

The majority of recent CVOTs with glucose-lowering drugs have tested dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4-i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptors agonists (GLP1-RA), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), but studies have also been performed with other agents including thiazolidinediones and insulin. All CVOTs with DPP4-I, GLP1-RA, and SGLT2-i have demonstrated the cardiovascular (CV) safety of these agents compared to usual care. However, certain GLP1-RAs (liraglutide, subcutaneous semaglutide, albiglutide, dulaglutide) and SGLT2-i (empagliflozin, canagliflozin) have demonstrated a CV benefit, showing significant reductions in composite cardiovascular outcomes. Furthermore, all SGLT2-i also significantly decreased the risk for hospitalization for heart failure. Results from these studies have altered clinical guidelines worldwide and have resulted in new indications for some glucose-lowering drugs. In patients with T2D and high risk for CVD, GLP-1RA or SGLT2-i with proven cardiovascular benefit are recommended, irrespective of glycemic control.

Platelet Effects of Anti-diabetic Therapies: New Perspectives in the Management of Patients with Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease

In type 2 diabetes, anti-thrombotic management is challenging, and current anti-platelet agents have demonstrated reduced efficacy. Old and new anti-diabetic drugs exhibited—besides lowering blood glucose levels—direct and indirect effects on platelet function and on thrombotic milieu, eventually conditioning cardiovascular outcomes. The present review summarizes existing evidence on the effects of glucose-lowering agents on platelet properties, addressing pre-clinical and clinical research, as well as drug–drug interactions with anti-platelet agents. We aimed at expanding clinicians’ understanding by highlighting new opportunities for an optimal management of patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease. We suggest how an improvement of the thrombotic risk in this large population of patients may be achieved by a careful and tailored combination of anti-diabetic and anti-platelet therapies.

Effects of anti-diabetes medications on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in Asian patients with type 2 diabetes: a rapid evidence assessment and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

The cardiovascular and kidney safety of glucose-lowering drugs is a key concern in type 2 diabetes (T2D). We evaluated cardiorenal outcomes with glucose-lowering drugs in Asian patients, who comprise over half of T2D cases globally.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A rapid evidence assessment was conducted for phase III or IV, double-blind, randomized clinical trials of glucose-lowering drugs reporting cardiovascular or kidney outcomes for Asian T2D patients (Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library databases: 1 January 2008-14 June 2020).

RESULTS

Fifty-four publications reported exploratory data for Asians from 18 trials of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and insulin analogs. SGLT2 inhibitors and several GLP-1 receptor agonists were associated with reduced cardiovascular risk in Asian T2D patients, while DPP-4 inhibitors exhibited cardiovascular safety. SGLT2 inhibitors also appeared to reduce renal risk; however, kidney outcomes were lacking for DPP-4 inhibitors other than linagliptin and GLP-1 receptor agonists in Asian patients. Insulin data were inconclusive as the only trial conducted used different types of insulin as both treatment and comparator.

CONCLUSIONS

Cardiorenal outcomes with glucose-lowering drugs in Asian T2D patients were similar to outcomes in the overall multinational cohorts of these trials. DPP-4 inhibitors appear to demonstrate cardiovascular safety in Asians, while SGLT2 inhibitors and some GLP-1 receptor agonists may reduce cardiorenal and cardiovascular risk, respectively.

The Safety of Pharmacological and Surgical Treatment of Diabetes in Patients with Diabetic Retinopathy-A Review

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a non-infectious pandemic of the modern world; it is estimated that in 2045 it will affect 10% of the world's population. As the prevalence of diabetes increases, the problem of its complications, including diabetic retinopathy (DR), grows. DR is a highly specific neurovascular complication of diabetes that occurs in more than one third of DM patients and accounts for 80% of complete vision loss cases in the diabetic population. We are currently witnessing many groundbreaking studies on new pharmacological and surgical methods of treating diabetes.

AIM

The aim of the study is to assess the safety of pharmacological and surgical treatment of DM in patients with DR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An analysis of the data on diabetes treatment methods currently available in the world literature and their impact on the occurrence and progression of DR.

RESULTS

A rapid decrease in glycaemia leads to an increased occurrence and progression of DR. Its greatest risk accompanies insulin therapy and sulfonylurea therapy. The lowest risk of DR occurs with the use of SGLT2 inhibitors; the use of DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 analogues is also safe. Patients undergoing pancreatic islet transplants or bariatric surgeries require intensive monitoring of the state of the eye, both in the perioperative and postoperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

It is of utmost importance to individualize therapy in diabetic patients, in order to gradually achieve treatment goals with the use of safe methods and minimize the risk of development and progression of DR.

Cardiovascular outcomes and safety with linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared with the sulphonylurea glimepiride in older people with type 2 diabetes: A subgroup analysis of the randomized CAROLINA trial

AIM

To compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of linagliptin with glimepiride in older and younger participants in the CAROLINA trial in both prespecified and post hoc analyses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

People aged 40 to 85 years with relatively early type 2 diabetes, inadequate glycaemic control and elevated CV risk were randomly assigned to linagliptin 5 mg or glimepiride 1 to 4 mg. The primary endpoint was time to first occurrence of three-point major adverse CV events (MACE: CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke). We evaluated clinical and safety outcomes across age groups.

RESULTS

Of 6033 participants, 50.7% were aged <65 years, 35.3% were aged 65 to 74 years, and 14.0% were aged ≥75 years. During the 6.3-year median follow-up, CV/mortality outcomes did not differ between linagliptin and glimepiride overall (hazard ratio [HR] for three-point MACE 0.98, 95.47% confidence interval [CI] 0.84, 1.14) or across age groups (interaction P >0.05). Between treatment groups, reductions in glycated haemoglobin were comparable across age groups but moderate-to-severe hypoglycaemia was markedly reduced with linagliptin (HR 0.18, 95% CI 0.15, 0.21) with no differences among age groups (P = 0.23). Mean weight was -1.54 kg (95% CI -1.80, -1.28) lower for linagliptin versus glimepiride. Adverse events increased with age, but were generally balanced between treatment groups. Significantly fewer falls or fractures occurred with linagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

Linagliptin and glimepiride were comparable for CV/mortality outcomes across age groups. Linagliptin had significantly lower risk of hypoglycaemia and falls or fractures than glimepiride, including in "older-old" individuals for whom these are particularly important treatment considerations.

SGLT-2 inhibitors may be targeting higher risk patients with diabetes possibly justifying higher cost: Single center repeated cross-sectional analysis

INTRODUCTION

We studied the use of all hypoglycemic agents in periods before and after introduction of SGLT-2 inhibitors in the USA by repeated cross sectional analysis to initially assess improvement in HbA1c control among patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. We sought to identify changes in glucose management related to the availability of the SGLT-2 inhibiting agents. We hypothesized that patients transitioned to SGLT-2 inhibitor-based therapy represented a higher risk group that derived benefits in terms of Hba1c control.

METHODS

Deidentified records of patients seen at least twice during the relevant time periods at Joslin Clinic between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2012 and/or between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 were examined. Records required all of the following: demographic information of gender, age, height, weight, BMI, HbA1c, eGFR, blood pressure, smoking status and completed medication lists.

RESULTS

10,191 patients met criteria for analysis, 7769 seen in period 1 and 6576 in period 2. 4625 patients were seen in both periods. The group of patients defined by SGLT-2 use had significantly higher BMI and HbA1c. Notable shifts in medication use were observed as SGLT-2 use increased from none to 14%. Increased use (all p < 0.001) of GLP-1 agents (16.0 to 23.8%), insulin (56.1 to 60.5%) and statins (78.4 to 81.5%) and statistically significant decreases (all p < 0.001) in use of biguanides (69.5 to 66.3%) and sulfonylurea compounds (44.7 to 39.4%), thiazolidinediones (13.6 to 3.4%) and diuretics (32.4 to 28.9%) were observed. Statistically significant decreases (all p < 0.001) of HbA1c (7.9 to 7.8%), BMI (32.5 to 32.1), eGFR (80.6 to 77.5 ml/min) and increased systolic blood pressure (130 to 132 mm Hg) were documented.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of glycemia treatment resistance or clinical heart failure SGLT-2 inhibitor use may not be cost effective. Enthusiasm for use of SGLT-2 inhibition should be based upon long-term cardiorenal protection rather than short-term glycemia control given limited impact upon HbA1c levels in our tertiary care type 2 diabetes population.

10. Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Management: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021

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/dc21-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/dc21-SINT). Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Cardiovascular outcomes trials with incretin-based medications: a critical review of data available on GLP-1 receptor agonists and DPP-4 inhibitors

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are so called "incretin-based therapies" (IBTs) that represent innovative therapeutic approaches and are commonly used in clinical practice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) have provided useful information that has helped to shape changes in clinical practice guidelines for the management of T2DM. At the same time, the mechanisms that may explain the nonglycemic and cardiovascular (CV) benefits of these medications are still being explored. A summary of the main findings from CVOTs performed to-date with particular emphasis on various outcomes and inconsistencies observed in the trials is provided. Overall, available data is favourable to the early deployment of GLP-1RAs in clinical practice, fully in line with recommendations from international scientific guidelines, and based on their effects on glucose metabolism parameters, body weight reduction and CV outcomes. Evidence further suggest that the CV benefits of GLP-1RAs may not be a class effect, with GLP-1 analogues having a greater benefit rather than exendin-based agents.

Cardiovascular protection with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: Does it apply to all patients?

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Cardiovascular risk in these patients should be considered as a continuum, and comprehensive treatment strategies should aim to target multiple disease risk factors. Large-scale clinical trials of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have shown an impact on cardiovascular outcomes, including heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death, which appears to be independent of their glucose-lowering efficacy. Reductions in major cardiovascular events appear to be greatest in patients with established CVD, particularly those with prior myocardial infarction, but are independent of heart failure or renal risk. Most large-scale trials of SGLT2 inhibitors predominantly include patients with T2D with pre-existing CVD and high cardiovascular risk at baseline, limiting their applicability to patients typically observed in clinical practice. Real-world evidence from observational studies suggests that there might also be beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality in various cohorts of lower risk patients. The most common adverse events reported in clinical and observational studies are genital infections; however, the overall risk of these events appears to be low and easily managed. Similar safety profiles have been reported for elderly and younger patients. There is still some debate regarding the safety of canagliflozin in patients at high risk of fracture and amputation. Outstanding questions include specific patterns of cardiovascular protection according to baseline risk.

Prediction of poor clinical outcome in vascular cognitive impairment: TRACE-VCI study

INTRODUCTION

Prognostication in memory clinic patients with vascular brain injury (eg possible vascular cognitive impairment [VCI]) is often uncertain. We created a risk score to predict poor clinical outcome.

METHODS

Using data from two longitudinal cohorts of memory clinic patients with vascular brain injury without advanced dementia, we created (n = 707) and validated (n = 235) the risk score. Poor clinical outcome was defined as substantial cognitive decline (change of Clinical Dementia Rating ≥1 or institutionalization) or major vascular events or death. Twenty-four candidate predictors were evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Age, clinical syndrome diagnosis, Disability Assessment for Dementia, Neuropsychiatric Inventory, and medial temporal lobe atrophy most strongly predicted poor outcome and constituted the risk score (C-statistic 0.71; validation cohort 0.78). Of note, none of the vascular predictors were retained in this model. The 2-year risk of poor outcome was 6.5% for the lowest (0-5) and 55.4% for the highest sum scores (10-13).

DISCUSSION

This is the first, validated, prediction score for 2-year clinical outcome of patients with possible VCI.

Role of Gliclazide MR in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: Report of a Symposium on Real-World Evidence and New Perspectives

In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who require additional glucose-lowering on top of first-line metformin monotherapy, sulfonylureas are the most common choice for second-line therapy followed by dipeptidyl peptidase inhibitors (DPP-4i). This article summarises presentations at a symposium entitled "Real-World Evidence and New Perspectives with Gliclazide MR" held at the International Diabetes Federation Congress in Busan, South Korea on 4 December 2019. Although guideline recommendations vary between countries, the guidelines with the highest quality ratings include sulfonylureas as one of the preferred choices as second-line therapy for T2DM. Data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have consistently demonstrated that sulfonylureas are effective glucose-lowering agents and that the risk of severe hypoglycaemia with these agents is low. In addition, both RCTs and real-world observational studies have shown no increased risk of mortality or cardiovascular disease with the use of newer-generation sulfonylureas compared with other classes of glucose-lowering treatments. However, differences between sulfonylureas do exist, with gliclazide being associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality or cardiovascular mortality compared with glibenclamide, as well as the lowest incidence of severe hypoglycaemia compared with other agents in this class. Recent real-world studies into the effectiveness and safety of gliclazide appear to confirm these findings, and publication of new data from these studies in patients with T2DM in the UK, and in Muslim patients who are fasting during Ramadan, are awaited with interest. Another study being undertaken with gliclazide is a pan-India study in patients with maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY) subtypes 1, 3 and 12. Patients with these MODY subtypes respond particularly well to sulfonylurea treatment, and sulfonylureas are the first-line agents of choice in these patients. These new and ongoing studies will add to the cumulative data on the efficacy and safety of certain sulfonylureas in patients with diabetes.

Modern sulphonylureas and cardiovascular adverse effects: Will CAROLINA put an end to the controversy?

Sulphonylureas (SU) form an important role in management of people with type 2 diabetes. This safety history of SU was tainted for various reasons, the predominant one being lack of demonstration of cardiovascular safety. Since its introduction, SU's have never been subjected to a formal study for its cardiovascular safety. The cardiovascular safety of SUs was derived from small, inadequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies. CAROLINA (CARdiovascular Outcome study of LINAgliptin versus glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes) trial planned as a cardiovascular outcome trial randomised people with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk to Linagliptin and Glimepiride. This opinion paper outlines the salient features of this landmark trial and its implications in general cardiology practice.

Effect of linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, compared with the sulfonylurea glimepiride on cardiovascular outcomes in Asians with type 2 diabetes: subgroup analysis of the randomized CAROLINA® trial

Objective

Linagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, recently demonstrated cardiovascular (CV) safety versus placebo in Asians with advanced type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the CARMELINA^® trial. We assessed its CV safety compared with the sulfonylurea glimepiride in Asians with relatively early T2DM in the CAROLINA^® trial.

Methods

Based on prespecified and post hoc subgroup analyses of the multinational CAROLINA^® trial in which adults with relatively early T2DM and elevated CV risk were randomized to linagliptin or glimepiride added to usual care, we analyzed data for participants from Asian countries. This included the primary outcome defined as time to first CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke [three-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE)].

Results

Of the 6033 participants, 933 (15.5%) were from Asia. During a median follow-up of 6.2 years, 3P-MACE occurred in 9.5% and 11.1% of the linagliptin and glimepiride groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-1.26]), consistent with the overall population (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.13; P = 0.17 for treatment by region interaction). Similarly, there were no significant differences between groups for other outcomes, including CV death (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.38-1.38), non-CV mortality (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.37-1.57) and hospitalization for heart failure (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.36-2.19). Hypoglycemia adverse events occurred in 13.1% of linagliptin patients versus 42.1% of glimepiride patients (HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.19-0.33; P < 0.0001) despite similar glycemic control. Body weight was slightly lower with linagliptin relative to glimepiride: weighted average mean difference over 256 weeks of - 1.82 kg (95% CI - 2.28 to - 1.35).

Conclusions

In Asian patients, linagliptin demonstrated similar CV safety to glimepiride with a markedly lower rate of hypoglycemia and modestly lower weight.

The Place of Sulfonylureas in Guidelines: Why Are There Differences?

This review describes a presentation at a recent symposium entitled "SUs in the treatment of T2DM: a fresh look and new insights" on Wednesday September 18, 2019 at the 55th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Barcelona, Spain. It examines the current role of sulfonylureas (SUs) in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and gives the author's personal perspective of how this therapeutic class has performed in both local and international guidelines. The place of SUs within current guidelines is highlighted, and a critical appraisal of the reasons for the differences between guidelines given. Finally, comparison of evidence-based guidelines and consensus reports is discussed.

Cardiovascular risk and the implications for clinical practice of cardiovascular outcome trials in type 2 diabetes

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the primary cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This review examines the impact of cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) on clinical practice. To date, all CVOTs have shown non-inferiority versus placebo (both added to standard of care) against a primary endpoint of 3- or 4-point major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), confirming CV safety of these treatments. Additionally, some CVOTs have shown superiority to placebo against the same MACE endpoint, suggesting a cardioprotective action for these treatments. This is reflected in guideline updates, which primary care physicians should consider when personalizing treatments.

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.

Cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies

INTRODUCTION

Early initiated and long-term sustained intensive glucose control is associated with a significantly decreased risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, over and above the well-established decline in the risk of microvascular disease. Based on the recent cardiovascular outcome trial (CVOT) data, this review focuses on the various benefits of the newer medications with their positioning in the treatment algorithm and explores the place of the older medications in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

AREAS COVERED

We searched the literature for glucose-lowering therapies for patients with T2DM. We included CVOTs conducted for newer sulphonylureas, thiazolidinediones, insulin degludec, DPP-4 inhibitors, SGLT2 inhibitors, and GLP-1 receptor agonists.

EXPERT OPINION

Selection of glucose-lowering therapy in the management of T2DM should be individualized and based on patient characteristics, associated comorbidities, patient preference, affordability and adherence to treatment. In view of the benefits seen in the CVOTs with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists, these newer classes should be the preferred choice in patients with/without established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease.

Comparative cardiovascular and hypoglycaemic safety of glimepiride in type 2 diabetes: A population-based cohort study

AIM

To assess the incidence of cardiovascular and hypoglycaemic adverse events associated with glimepiride compared with other second-generation sulphonylureas among patients with type 2 diabetes in a real-world clinical setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified all sulphonylurea initiators between 1998 and 2017 in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Using a prevalent new-user design, glimepiride initiators were matched 1:4 with initiators of other second-generation sulphonylureas on calendar time, prior sulphonylurea use, and time-conditional high-dimensional propensity score. Cox proportional hazards models yielded adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, severe hypoglycaemia, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Among 66 032 sulphonylurea new users, 6438 initiated glimepiride and were matched to up to 20 582 initiators of other second-generation sulphonylureas. During a mean follow-up of 1.3 years, glimepiride was associated with a similar incidence of myocardial infarction (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.75-1.30) and ischaemic stroke (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72-1.27) compared with other second-generation sulphonylureas, while there was a non-significant trend towards a higher incidence of severe hypoglycaemia (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.92-1.68). Glimepiride was also associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67-0.89), and a non-significant but similar trend for cardiovascular death (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65-1.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Glimepiride was associated with a lower incidence of all-cause mortality compared with other second-generation sulphonylureas.

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.

Effect of empagliflozin beyond glycemic control: Cardiovascular benefit in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) continues to increase, and its association with cardiovascular (CV) disease has led to the inclusion of CV endpoints in clinical trials on the treatment of T2D. This article explores the various trials already performed and under development in this field, with particular focus on the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. In this trial, empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor, demonstrated a reduction in CV risk in patients with T2D and established CV disease, in addition to CV safety and a decrease in glycated hemoglobin. This represents a paradigm shift that has led to changes in the international guidelines for the treatment of T2D. These results were maintained in subsequent subgroup analysis for heart failure, chronic kidney disease and peripheral arterial disease, although there are many questions concerning the mechanisms involved in these effects, including whether they are hemodynamic, metabolic or due to decreased myocardial cytoplasmic sodium concentrations. With this reduction in risk for major CV events in patients with T2D, the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial demonstrated CV protection from a hypoglycemic drug for the first time, and opened a new era in the treatment and management of T2D. This study has led to the development of ongoing trials that will establish which patients will benefit most from this therapy, particularly with regard to comorbidities.

Standards of specialized diabetes care. Edited by Dedov I.I., Shestakova M.V., Mayorov A.Yu. 9th edition

Dear Colleagues! We are glad to present the 9th Edition (revised) of Standards of Diabetes Care. These evidence-based guidelines were designed to standardize and facilitate diabetes care in all regions of the Russian Federation. The Standards are updated on the regular basis to incorporate new data and relevant recommendations from national and international clinical societies, including World Health Organization Guidelines (WHO, 2011, 2013), International Diabetes Federation (IDF, 2011, 2012, 2013), American Diabetes Association (ADA, 2018, 2019), American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE, 2019), International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD, 2014, 2018) and Russian Association of Endocrinologists (RAE, 2011, 2012, 2015). Current edition of the Standards also integrates results of completed randomized clinical trials (ADVANCE, ACCORD, VADT, UKPDS, SAVOR, TECOS, LEADER, EXAMINE, ELIXA, SUSTAIN, DEVOTE, EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, DECLARE, CARMELINA, REWIND, etc.), as well as findings from the national studies of diabetes mellitus (DM), conducted in close partnership with a number of Russian hospitals. Latest data indicates that prevalence of DM in the world increased during the last decade more than two-fold, reaching some 463 million patients by the end of 2019. According to the current estimation by the International Diabetes Federation, 578 million patients will be suffering from diabetes mellitus by by 2030 and 700 million by 2045. Like many other countries, Russian Federation experiences a sharp rise in the prevalence of DM. According to Russian Federal Diabetes Register, there are at least 4 584 575 patients with DM in this country by the end of 2018 (3,1% of population) with 92% (4 238 503) Type 2 DM, 6% (256 202) Type 1 DM and 2% (89 870) other types of DM, including 8 006 women with gestational DM. However, these results underestimates real quantity of patients, because they consider only registered cases. Results of Russian epidemiological study (NATION) con- firmed that only 54% of Type 2 DM are diagnosed. So real number of patients with DM in Russia is 9 million patients (about 6% of population). This is a great long-term problem, because a lot of patients are not diagnosed, so they dont receive any treatment ant have high risk of vascular complications. Severe consequences of the global pandemics of DM include its vascular complications: nephropathy, retinopathy, coronary, cerebral, coronary and peripheral vascular disease. These conditions are responsible for the majority of cases of diabetes-related disability and death. In сurrent edition of the Standards: New goals of glycemic control for the elderly, based on the presence of functional dependence, as well as for pregnant women, children and adolescents, are given. Added a snippet that describes the continuous glucose monitoring. Only low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level is used as a target for lipid metabolism. Proposes more stringent target levels of blood pressure. It also features updated guidelines on stratification of treatment in newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes: the excess of the initial level of HbA1c over the target level was used as a criterion. In the recommendations for the personalization of the choice of antidiabetic agents, it is taken into account that in certain clinical situations (the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases and their risk factors, chronic heart failure, chronic kidney disease, obesity, the risk of hypoglycemia) certain classes of hypoglycemic agents (or individual drugs) have proven advantages. Recommendations for psychosocial support are added. The position of metabolic surgery as a method of treatment of DM with morbid obesity is updated. Recommendations for diagnostic and treatment of hypogonadism syndrome in men with DM are added. For the first time, evidence levels of confidence and credibility levels of recommendations for diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative and preventive interventions based on a systematic review of the literature are given in accordance with the recommendations of the Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. This text represents a consensus by the absolute majority of national experts, achieved through a number of fruitful discus- sions held at national meetings and forums. These guidelines are intended for endocrinologists, primary care physicians and other medical professionals involved in the treatment of DM. On behalf of the Working Group

Standards of specialized diabetes care. Edited by Dedov I.I., Shestakova M.V., Mayorov A.Yu. 9th edition

Dear Colleagues! We are glad to present the 9th Edition (revised) of Standards of Diabetes Care. These evidence-based guidelines were designed to standardize and facilitate diabetes care in all regions of the Russian Federation. The Standards are updated on the regular basis to incorporate new data and relevant recommendations from national and international clinical societies, including World Health Organization Guidelines (WHO, 2011, 2013), International Diabetes Federation (IDF, 2011, 2012, 2013), American Diabetes Association (ADA, 2018, 2019), American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE, 2019), International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD, 2014, 2018) and Russian Association of Endocrinologists (RAE, 2011, 2012, 2015). Current edition of the Standards also integrates results of completed randomized clinical trials (ADVANCE, ACCORD, VADT, UKPDS, SAVOR, TECOS, LEADER, EXAMINE, ELIXA, SUSTAIN, DEVOTE, EMPA-REG OUTCOME, CANVAS, DECLARE, CARMELINA, REWIND, etc.), as well as findings from the national studies of diabetes mellitus (DM), conducted in close partnership with a number of Russian hospitals. Latest data indicates that prevalence of DM in the world increased during the last decade more than two-fold, reaching some 463 million patients by the end of 2019. According to the current estimation by the International Diabetes Federation, 578 million patients will be suffering from diabetes mellitus by by 2030 and 700 million by 2045. Like many other countries, Russian Federation experiences a sharp rise in the prevalence of DM. According to Russian Federal Diabetes Register, there are at least 4 584 575 patients with DM in this country by the end of 2018 (3,1% of population) with 92% (4 238 503) Type 2 DM, 6% (256 202) Type 1 DM and 2% (89 870) other types of DM, including 8 006 women with gestational DM. However, these results underestimates real quantity of patients, because they consider only registered cases. Results of Russian epidemiological study (NATION) con- firmed that only 54% of Type 2 DM are diagnosed. So real number of patients with DM in Russia is 9 million patients (about 6% of population). This is a great long-term problem, because a lot of patients are not diagnosed, so they dont receive any treatment ant have high risk of vascular complications. Severe consequences of the global pandemics of DM include its vascular complications: nephropathy, retinopathy, coronary, cerebral, coronary and peripheral vascular disease. These conditions are responsible for the majority of cases of diabetes-related disability and death. In сurrent edition of the Standards: New goals of glycemic control for the elderly, based on the presence of functional dependence, as well as for pregnant women, children and adolescents, are given. Added a snippet that describes the continuous glucose monitoring. Only low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level is used as a target for lipid metabolism. Proposes more stringent target levels of blood pressure. It also features updated guidelines on stratification of treatment in newly diagnosed Type 2 diabetes: the excess of the initial level of HbA1c over the target level was used as a criterion. In the recommendations for the personalization of the choice of antidiabetic agents, it is taken into account that in certain clinical situations (the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases and their risk factors, chronic heart failure, chronic kidney disease, obesity, the risk of hypoglycemia) certain classes of hypoglycemic agents (or individual drugs) have proven advantages. Recommendations for psychosocial support are added. The position of metabolic surgery as a method of treatment of DM with morbid obesity is updated. Recommendations for diagnostic and treatment of hypogonadism syndrome in men with DM are added. For the first time, evidence levels of confidence and credibility levels of recommendations for diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative and preventive interventions based on a systematic review of the literature are given in accordance with the recommendations of the Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. This text represents a consensus by the absolute majority of national experts, achieved through a number of fruitful discus- sions held at national meetings and forums. These guidelines are intended for endocrinologists, primary care physicians and other medical professionals involved in the treatment of DM. On behalf of the Working Group

Using Real-World Data to Predict Findings of an Ongoing Phase IV Cardiovascular Outcome Trial: Cardiovascular Safety of Linagliptin Versus Glimepiride

OBJECTIVE

Using real-world data (RWD) from three U.S. claims data sets, we aim to predict the findings of the CARdiovascular Outcome Trial of LINAgliptin Versus Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes (CAROLINA) comparing linagliptin versus glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at increased cardiovascular risk by using a novel framework that requires passing prespecified validity checks before analyzing the primary outcome.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Within Medicare and two commercial claims data sets (May 2011-September 2015), we identified a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort of T2D patients 40-85 years old at increased cardiovascular risk who initiated linagliptin or glimepiride by adapting eligibility criteria from CAROLINA. PSM was used to balance >120 confounders. Validity checks included the evaluation of expected power, covariate balance, and two control outcomes for which we expected a positive association and a null finding. We registered the protocol (NCT03648424, ClinicalTrials.gov) before evaluating the composite cardiovascular outcome based on CAROLINA's primary end point. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were estimated in each data source and pooled with a fixed-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 24,131 PSM pairs of linagliptin and glimepiride initiators with sufficient power for noninferiority (>98%). Exposure groups achieved excellent covariate balance, including key laboratory results, and expected associations between glimepiride and hypoglycemia (HR 2.38 [95% CI 1.79-3.13]) and between linagliptin and end-stage renal disease (HR 1.08 [0.66-1.79]) were replicated. Linagliptin was associated with a 9% decreased risk in the composite cardiovascular outcome with a CI including the null (HR 0.91 [0.79-1.05]), in line with noninferiority.

CONCLUSIONS

In a nonrandomized RWD study, we found that linagliptin has noninferior risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome compared with glimepiride.

Review of the renal endpoints used in cardiovascular safety clinical trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients and their importance in primary care

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is one of the most common complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Furthermore, CKD confers a considerable increase in the risk of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. In line with the need to improve knowledge in this field, this article aims to describe the renal endpoints used in the different cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs). The objective is to better know the renal variables used in the different CVOTs in order to optimize the implementation of advances in the prevention of progressive diabetic kidney disease in patients with T2DM in clinical practice.

How Many Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Meet the Inclusion Criteria of the Cardiovascular Outcome Trials with SGLT2 Inhibitors? Estimations from a Population Database in a Mediterranean Area

OBJECTIVE

Regulatory agencies require the assessment of cardiovascular (CV) safety for new type 2 diabetes (T2D) therapies through CV outcome trials (CVOTs). However, patients included in CVOTs assessing sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) might not be representative of those seen in clinical practice. This study examined the proportion of patients that would have been enrolled into three main SGLT2i CVOTs to determine whether these trials' eligibility criteria can be applied to a real-world Mediterranean T2D population.

METHODS

Cross-sectional, retrospective, cohort study of T2D patients registered in primary care centres of the Catalan Institute of Health using medical records from a population database (SIDIAP) that includes approximately 74% of the population in Catalonia (Spain). Eligibility criteria were according to those of three SGLT2i CVOTs: EMPA-REG OUTCOME (empagliflozin), CANVAS (canagliflozin), and DECLARE-TIMI 58 (dapagliflozin).

RESULTS

By the end of 2016, the database included 373,185 patients with T2D with a mean age of 70 ± 12 years, 54.9% male, with a mean duration of T2D of 9 ± 6 years, and a mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) of 7.12% ± 1.32 (59% with HbA1c < 7%). Of these, 86,534 (23%) had established CV disease and 28% chronic renal failure (estimated glomerular filtration < 60 ml/min/1.73m2). Among all included patients, only 8.2% would have qualified for enrolment into the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, 29.6% into the CANVAS program, and 38% into the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial. The main limiting factors for inclusion would have been a previous history of CV disease and the baseline HbA1c value.

CONCLUSION

The external validity of the analysed CVOTs is clearly limited when applying the same eligibility criteria to a T2D Mediterranean population.

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.

Oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction are associated with reduced cognition in type 2 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

Type 2 diabetes is associated with cognitive dysfunction, but the mechanisms are unknown. We assessed the relationships of biomarkers of oxidation, endothelial function and inflammation with cognition in participants of the CAROLINA^® trial (CARdiovascular Outcome Trial of LINAgliptin Versus Glimepiride in Type 2 Diabetes).

METHODS

Baseline circulating biomarkers of oxidation (8-iso-prostaglandin F2α), endothelial function (asymmetric dimethylarginine, endothelin-1) and inflammation (C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, tumour necrosis factor-α), based on linear regression, were related to cognition on five domains, as measured with an automated battery.

RESULTS

In 37 patients (mean age 66.7 ± 8.7 years, median HbA1c 6.9%/52 mmol/mol), 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α was associated with reduced mental flexibility and attention (standardised regression coefficients -0.47, -0.34), whereas asymmetric dimethylarginine was associated with reduced psychomotor speed and attention (standardised regression coefficients -0.39, -0.34). No significant associations were observed between biomarkers of inflammation and cognition.

CONCLUSION

Elevated biomarkers of oxidation and endothelial function are associated and may play a role in reduced psychomotor speed, mental flexibility and attention in type 2 diabetes.

Effect of Linagliptin vs Glimepiride on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: The CAROLINA Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. In placebo-controlled cardiovascular safety trials, the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin demonstrated noninferiority, but it has not been tested against an active comparator.

OBJECTIVE

This trial assessed cardiovascular outcomes of linagliptin vs glimepiride (sulfonylurea) in patients with relatively early type 2 diabetes and risk factors for or established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, with participant screening from November 2010 to December 2012, conducted at 607 hospital and primary care sites in 43 countries involving 6042 participants. Adults with type 2 diabetes, glycated hemoglobin of 6.5% to 8.5%, and elevated cardiovascular risk were eligible for inclusion. Elevated cardiovascular risk was defined as documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, multiple cardiovascular risk factors, aged at least 70 years, and evidence of microvascular complications. Follow-up ended in August 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive 5 mg of linagliptin once daily (n = 3023) or 1 to 4 mg of glimepiride once daily (n = 3010) in addition to usual care. Investigators were encouraged to intensify glycemic treatment, primarily by adding or adjusting metformin, α-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, or insulin, according to clinical need.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke with the aim to establish noninferiority of linagliptin vs glimepiride, defined by the upper limit of the 2-sided 95.47% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) of linagliptin relative to glimepiride of less than 1.3.

RESULTS

Of 6042 participants randomized, 6033 (mean age, 64.0 years; 2414 [39.9%] women; mean glycated hemoglobin, 7.2%; median duration of diabetes, 6.3 years; 42% with macrovascular disease; 59% had undergone metformin monotherapy) were treated and analyzed. The median duration of follow-up was 6.3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 356 of 3023 participants (11.8%) in the linagliptin group and 362 of 3010 (12.0%) in the glimepiride group (HR, 0.98 [95.47% CI, 0.84-1.14]; P < .001 for noninferiority), meeting the noninferiority criterion but not superiority (P = .76). Adverse events occurred in 2822 participants (93.4%) in the linagliptin group and 2856 (94.9%) in the glimepiride group, with 15 participants (0.5%) in the linagliptin group vs 16 (0.5%) in the glimepiride group with adjudicated-confirmed acute pancreatitis. At least 1 episode of hypoglycemic adverse events occurred in 320 (10.6%) participants in the linagliptin group and 1132 (37.7%) in the glimepiride group (HR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.21-0.26]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults with relatively early type 2 diabetes and elevated cardiovascular risk, the use of linagliptin compared with glimepiride over a median 6.3 years resulted in a noninferior risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01243424.

Sitagliptin does not reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure following myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes: observations from TECOS

Background

To examine the effects of the DPP-4i sitagliptin on CV outcomes during and after incident MI in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS).

Methods

TECOS randomized 14,671 participants with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to sitagliptin or placebo, in addition to usual care. For those who had a within-trial MI, we analyzed case fatality, and for those with a nonfatal MI, we examined a composite cardiovascular (CV) outcome (CV death or hospitalization for heart failure [hHF]) by treatment group, using Cox proportional hazards models left-censored at the time of the first within-trial MI, without and with adjustment for potential confounders, in intention-to-treat analyses.

Results

During TECOS, 616 participants had ≥ 1 MI (sitagliptin group 300, placebo group 316, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.81–1.11, P = 0.49), of which 25 were fatal [11 and 14, respectively]). Of the 591 patients with a nonfatal MI, 87 (15%) died subsequently, with 66 (11%) being CV deaths, and 57 (10%) experiencing hHF. The composite outcome occurred in 58 (20.1%; 13.9 per 100 person-years) sitagliptin group participants and 50 (16.6%; 11.7 per 100 person-years) placebo group participants (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.83–1.77, P = 0.32, adjusted HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.83–1.82, P = 0.31). On-treatment sensitivity analyses also showed no significant between-group differences in post-MI outcomes.

Conclusions

In patients with type 2 diabetes and ASCVD experiencing an MI, sitagliptin did not reduce subsequent risk of CV death or hHF, contrary to expectations derived from preclinical animal models.

Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT00790205