Editorial: Do Some Glucagon-Like-Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RA) Reduce Macrovascular Complications of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus A Commentary on the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER) Trial

Obesity in Adults: Position Statement of Polish Association for the Study on Obesity, Polish Association of Endocrinology, Polish Association of Cardiodiabetology, Polish Psychiatric Association, Section of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery of the Association of Polish Surgeons, and the College of Family Physicians in Poland

Obesity in adults and its complications are among the most important problems of public health. The search was conducted by using PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, MEDLINE, and EBSCO databases from January 2010 to December 2022 for English language meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized clinical trials, and observational studies from all over the world. Six main topics were defined in the joint consensus statement of the Polish Association for the Study on Obesity, the Polish Association of Endocrinology, the Polish Association of Cardio-diabetology, the Polish Psychiatric Association, the Section of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery of the Society of Polish Surgeons, and the College of Family Physicians in Poland: (1) the definition, causes and diagnosis of obesity; (2) treatment of obesity; (3) treatment of main complications of obesity; (4) bariatric surgery and its limitations; (5) the role of primary care in diagnostics and treatment of obesity and barriers; and (6) recommendations for general practitioners, regional authorities and the Ministry of Health. This statement outlines the role of an individual and the adequate approach to the treatment of obesity: overcoming obstacles in the treatment of obesity by primary health care. The approach to the treatment of obesity in patients with its most common complications is also discussed. Attention was drawn to the importance of interdisciplinary cooperation and considering the needs of patients in increasing the long-term effectiveness of obesity management.

Beneficial effects of liraglutide on peripheral blood vessels

Background/Aim. Macroangiopathy is the major cause of death and disability in type 2 diabetic patients. Studies have shown that liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, can protect cardiovascular system by inhibiting chronic inflammation of diabetes. However, a study about the effects of liraglutide on peripheral blood vessels and peripheral blood leukocytes has not been reported yet. The aim of this study was to determine vasculoprotective effect, vascular protection and mechanism of action of liraglutide in addition to its hypoglycemic effect. Methods. A total of 60 hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited from December 2013 to December 2014 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, PR China. Before the treatment with liraglutide, height and weight were measured to calculate body mass index (BMI). Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and so on were detected. Homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and islet ? cell function (HOMA-?) were computed. After applying liraglutide for three months, all indexes were measured again. The effects of liraglutide on these indexes were analyzed by paired sample t-test. Results. After the treatment with liraglutide, values of glycosylated hemoglobin ? HbA1c (8.46 ? 1.62 vs. 7.26 ? 1.40%) and 2h postprandial blood glucose ? 2hPBG (11.95 vs. 9.6 mmol/L) decreased significantly (p < 0.05). Body weight (87.3 vs. 82.5 kg) and BMI (30.37 vs. 28.63 kg/m2) decreased by 5.5% and 5.7%, respectively (p < 0.05). Also, levels of triglycerides (TG) (2.57 ? 1.54 vs. 1.81 ? 0.70 mmol/L) and LDL-cholesterol (2.92 ? 0.78 vs. 1.89 ? 0.66 mmol/L) reduced significantly (p < 0.05). Ankle-brachial index (ABI) decreased from 1.24 ? 0.10 to 1.14 ? 0.06 cm/s by 8%, while brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (ba-PWV) decreased from 1,442.15 ? 196.26 to 1,316.85 ? 146.63 cm/s by 8.7%, and both differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Liraglutide, with a good hypoglycemic effect, can significantly reduce postprandial blood glucose and HbA1c, but cannot significantly improve fasting plasma glucose, insulin resistance and islet ? cell function. It also considerably decreased body weight, BMI and TG. Liraglutide can significantly lower ba-PWV and ABI to protect peripheral blood vessels.

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.

Leptin, cardiovascular diseases and type 2 diabetes mellitus

Leptin, an adipokine that is implicated in the control of food intake via appetite suppression, may also stimulate oxidative stress, inflammation, thrombosis, arterial stiffness, angiogenesis and atherogenesis. These leptin-induced effects may predispose to the development of cardiovascular diseases. In the present review we discuss the evidence linking leptin levels with the presence, severity and/or prognosis of both coronary artery disease and non-cardiac vascular diseases such as stroke, carotid artery disease, peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) as well as with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Leptin levels have been positively associated with the presence, severity, extent and lesion complexity of coronary atherosclerosis as well as with the presence, severity and poor clinical outcomes of both ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. But conflicting results also exist. Furthermore, leptin was reported to independently predict common carotid intima-media thickness and carotid plaque instability. A link between hyperleptinemia and PAD has been reported, whereas limited data were available on the potential association between leptin and AAA. Elevated leptin concentrations have also been related to CKD incidence and progression as well as with insulin resistance, T2DM, micro- and macrovascular diabetic complications. Statins and antidiabetic drugs (including sitagliptin, metformin, pioglitazone, liraglutide and empagliflozin) may affect leptin levels. Further research is needed to establish the potential use (if any) of leptin as a therapeutic target in these diseases.

Dyslipidaemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: bad for the heart

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with increased coronary heart disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality. These patients are also more prone to heart failure, arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Furthermore, coronary interventions performed in such high-risk patients have worse outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the role of diabetic dyslipidaemia on the risk of CHD in patients with T2DM. The effects of hypolipidaemic, antihypertensive and antidiabetic drugs on lipid and glucose metabolism in T2DM are also considered.

RECENT FINDINGS

Among CHD risk factors, diabetic dyslipidaemia characterized by moderately elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, increased triglycerides and small, dense LDL particles as well as decreased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels may contribute to the increased CHD risk associated with T2DM. Hypolipidaemic, antihypertensive and antidiabetic drugs can affect lipid and glucose parameters thus potentially influencing CHD risk. Such drugs may improve not only the quantity, but also the quality of LDL as well as postprandial lipaemia.

SUMMARY

Current data highlight the importance of treating diabetic dyslipidaemia in order to minimize CHD risk. Both fasting and postprandial lipids are influenced by drugs in patients with T2DM; physicians should take this into consideration in clinical decision making.

Evaluation of the HbA1c Reduction Cut Point for a Nonglycemic Effect on Cardiovascular Benefit of Hypoglycemic Agents in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Based on Endpoint Events

BACKGROUND

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is a major cause of death among patients with diabetes but can be improved by certain hypoglycemic agents. However, adjudicating criteria on whether improvements are a glycemic or nonglycemic effect of these agents remain unclear.

METHODS

Hypoglycemic agents that produce a cardiovascular benefit in nondiabetic patients are considered to do so via a nonglycemic effect. We performed a subgroup analysis for primary and secondary prevention or very high risk of ASCVD in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Where glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was reduced to the same extent in a head-to-head comparison, cardiovascular benefits were judged as a nonglycemic effect. Furthermore, by analyzing the endpoints of four important randomized controlled intensive glucose control studies, UKPDS33, ADVANCE, ACCORD, and VADT, we calculated the cut point of HbA1c reduction for a nonglycemic effect on cardiovascular benefit by hypoglycemic agents in ASCVD groups of different severities.

RESULTS

For the ASCVD primary prevention group of T2DM, UKPDS33 indicated a reduction in HbA1c < 0.9%, and a cardiovascular benefit within 10 years was considered a nonglycemic effect. For ASCVD secondary prevention or in the very high-risk group, pioglitazone exerted a nonglycemic effect on cardiovascular benefit in nondiabetic patients with insulin resistance; metformin may exert a similar effect in T2DM patients in a head-to-head study. Analysis of T2DM intensive glucose control studies showed a reduction in HbA1c of <1.0%, and a cardiovascular benefit after approximately 5 years was deemed a nonglycemic effect.

CONCLUSIONS

For ASCVD primary prevention in T2DM, a reduction in HbA1c < 0.9% and a cardiovascular benefit within 10 years were considered a nonglycemic effect. For ASCVD secondary prevention or in a very high-risk population, a reduction in HbA1c < 1.0% and a cardiovascular benefit within about 5 years were also considered a nonglycemic effect.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic metabolic disease characterized by persistent hyperglycemia resulting from progressive deficient of insulin in patients with a background of insulin resistance. Current treatment algorithms recommended by American Diabetes Association/The European Association for the Study of Diabetes promote a patient-centered approach that takes into account a comprehensive consideration of pharmacological properties of drugs, including glucose-lowering action, effects on body weight, correction on multiple pathophysiologic defects, tolerability, and long-term safety. Glucagon-likepeptide1 (GLP-1) receptor analogues are appealing due to the improved glycemic control in a glucose-dependent manner, modest weight loss and low risk of hypoglycemia. Areas covered: Semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), a once-weekly GLP-1 analogue, is currently in the phase III clinical trial for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. This article aims to review the pharmacological and clinical profiles of semaglutide based on the available clinical data. Expert opinion: Semaglutide achieved greater reduction from baseline in HbA_1c in comparison to placebo. The greater proportion of patients in semaglutide group than that in placebo group achieved target HbA_1c <7.0% and <6.5%, respectively. Semaglutide is the second GLP-1 analogue contributing to the reduced bodyweight and improving obesity related complications. More importantly, semaglutide is beneficial to diabetic patients with high cardiovascular risk according to the recently completed phase III trial. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects increased with semaglutide dose.