Greg Fulcher

Canagliflozin and Cardiovascular and Renal Events in Type 2 Diabetes

Background Canagliflozin is a sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor that reduces glycemia as well as blood pressure, body weight, and albuminuria in people with diabetes. We report the effects of treatment with canagliflozin on cardiovascular, renal, and safety outcomes. Methods The CANVAS Program integrated data from two trials involving a total of 10,142 participants with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk. Participants in each trial were randomly assigned to receive canagliflozin or placebo and were followed for a mean of 188.2 weeks. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Results The mean age of the participants was 63.3 years, 35.8% were women, the mean duration of diabetes was 13.5 years, and 65.6% had a history of cardiovascular disease. The rate of the primary outcome was lower with canagliflozin than with placebo (occurring in 26.9 vs. 31.5 participants per 1000 patient‐years; hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.02 for superiority). Although on the basis of the prespecified hypothesis testing sequence the renal outcomes are not viewed as statistically significant, the results showed a possible benefit of canagliflozin with respect to the progression of albuminuria (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.79) and the composite outcome of a sustained 40% reduction in the estimated glomerular filtration rate, the need for renal‐replacement therapy, or death from renal causes (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.77). Adverse reactions were consistent with the previously reported risks associated with canagliflozin except for an increased risk of amputation (6.3 vs. 3.4 participants per 1000 patient‐years; hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.75); amputations were primarily at the level of the toe or metatarsal. Conclusions In two trials involving patients with type 2 diabetes and an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, patients treated with canagliflozin had a lower risk of cardiovascular events than those who received placebo but a greater risk of amputation, primarily at the level of the toe or metatarsal. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; CANVAS and CANVAS‐R ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01032629 and NCT01989754, respectively.)

Effects of Fenofibrate Treatment on Cardiovascular Disease Risk in 9,795 Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes and Various Components of the Metabolic Syndrome: The Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study

OBJECTIVE—We explored whether cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and the effects of fenofibrate differed in subjects with and without metabolic syndrome and according to various features of metabolic syndrome defined by the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) in subjects with type 2 diabetes in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—The prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its features was calculated. Cox proportional models adjusted for age, sex, CVD status, and baseline A1C levels were used to determine the independent contributions of metabolic syndrome features to total CVD event rates and the effects of fenofibrate. RESULTS—More than 80% of FIELD participants met the ATP III criteria for metabolic syndrome. Each ATP III feature of metabolic syndrome, apart from increased waist circumference, increased the absolute risk of CVD events over 5 years by at least 3%. Those with marked dyslipidemia (elevated triglycerides ≥2.3 mmol/l and low HDL cholesterol) were at the highest risk of CVD (17.8% over 5 years). Fenofibrate significantly reduced CVD events in those with low HDL cholesterol or hypertension. The largest effect of fenofibrate to reduce CVD risk was observed in subjects with marked dyslipidemia in whom a 27% relative risk reduction (95% CI 9–42, P = 0.005; number needed to treat = 23) was observed. Subjects with no prior CVD had greater risk reductions than the entire group. CONCLUSIONS—Metabolic syndrome components identify higher CVD risk in individuals with type 2 diabetes, so the absolute benefits of fenofibrate are likely to be greater when metabolic syndrome features are present. The highest risk and greatest benefits of fenofibrate are seen among those with marked hypertriglyceridemia.

The effects of fenofibrate treatment on cardiovascular disease risk in 9795 people with type 2 diabetes and various components of the metabolic syndrome: the FIELD study

OBJECTIVE—We explored whether cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and the effects of fenofibrate differed in subjects with and without metabolic syndrome and according to various features of metabolic syndrome defined by the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) in subjects with type 2 diabetes in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—The prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its features was calculated. Cox proportional models adjusted for age, sex, CVD status, and baseline A1C levels were used to determine the independent contributions of metabolic syndrome features to total CVD event rates and the effects of fenofibrate. RESULTS—More than 80% of FIELD participants met the ATP III criteria for metabolic syndrome. Each ATP III feature of metabolic syndrome, apart from increased waist circumference, increased the absolute risk of CVD events over 5 years by at least 3%. Those with marked dyslipidemia (elevated triglycerides ≥2.3 mmol/l and low HDL cholesterol) were at the highest risk of CVD (17.8% over 5 years). Fenofibrate significantly reduced CVD events in those with low HDL cholesterol or hypertension. The largest effect of fenofibrate to reduce CVD risk was observed in subjects with marked dyslipidemia in whom a 27% relative risk reduction (95% CI 9–42, P = 0.005; number needed to treat = 23) was observed. Subjects with no prior CVD had greater risk reductions than the entire group. CONCLUSIONS—Metabolic syndrome components identify higher CVD risk in individuals with type 2 diabetes, so the absolute benefits of fenofibrate are likely to be greater when metabolic syndrome features are present. The highest risk and greatest benefits of fenofibrate are seen among those with marked hypertriglyceridemia.

The effect of isoflavones extracted from red clover (Rimostil) on lipid and bone metabolism.

ObjectiveThis study was undertaken to evaluate the effects of varying doses of phytoestrogens on lipid and bone metabolism in postmenopausal women. DesignA novel red clover isoflavone preparation (Rimostil) containing genistein, daidzein, formononetin, and biochanin was administered to 46 postmenopausal women in a double-blind protocol after a single-blind placebo phase and followed by a single-blind washout phase. Patients were randomized to receive either 28.5 mg, 57 mg, or 85.5 mg of phytoestrogens daily for a 6-month period. ResultsAt 6 months, the serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol had risen significantly by 15.7–28.6% with different doses (p = 0.007, p = 0.002, p = 0.027), although the magnitude of the response was independent of the dose used. The serum apolipoprotein B fell significantly by 11.5–17.0% with different doses (p = 0.005, p = 0.043, p = 0.007) and the magnitude of the response was independent of the dose used. The bone mineral density of the proximal radius and ulna rose significantly by 4.1% over 6 months with 57 mg/day (p = 0.002) and by 3.0% with 85.5 mg/day (p = 0.023) of isoflavones. The response with 28.5 mg/day of isoflavones was not significant. There was no significant increase in endometrial thickness with any of the doses of isoflavone used. ConclusionThese results show that the administration of an isoflavone combination extracted from red clover was associated with a significant increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, a significant fall in apolipoprotein B, and a significant increase in the predominantly cortical bone of the proximal radius and ulna after 6 months of treatment. Interpretation of the results is undertaken cautiously because of the absence of a simultaneously studied control group.

Efficacy and Safety of Canagliflozin, an Inhibitor of Sodium–Glucose Cotransporter 2, When Used in Conjunction With Insulin Therapy in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE There are limited data about the effects of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors when used with insulin. We report the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes using insulin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS The CANagliflozin CardioVascular Assessment Study is a double-blind, placebo-controlled study that randomized participants to placebo, canagliflozin 100 mg, or canagliflozin 300 mg once daily, added to a range of therapies. The primary end point of this substudy was the change in HbA1c from baseline at 18 weeks among patients using insulin; 52-week effects were also examined. RESULTS Individuals receiving insulin at baseline were randomized to receive placebo (n = 690), canagliflozin 100 mg (n = 692), or canagliflozin 300 mg (n = 690). These individuals were 66% male and had a median age of 63 years, mean HbA1c of 8.3% (67 mmol/mol), BMI of 33.1 kg/m2, estimated glomerular filtration rate of 75 mL/min/1.73 m2, fasting plasma glucose of 9.2 mmol/L, and a median daily insulin dose of 60 IU. Most individuals were using basal/bolus insulin. Reductions in HbA1c with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg versus placebo were −0.62% (95% CI −0.69, −0.54; −6.8 mmol/mol [95% CI −7.5, −5.9]; P < 0.001) and −0.73% (95% CI −0.81, −0.65; −8.0 mmol/mol [95% CI −8.9, −7.1]; P < 0.001) at 18 weeks and −0.58% (95% CI −0.68, −0.48; −6.3 mmol/mol [95% CI −7.4, −5.2]) and −0.73% (95% CI −0.83, −0.63; −8.0 mmol/mol [95% CI −9.1, −6.9]) at 52 weeks. There were significant falls in fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and blood pressure at both time points and there was a greater incidence of hypoglycemia, genital mycotic infections, and hypovolemia with both canagliflozin doses. CONCLUSIONS Canagliflozin added to insulin therapy improved glycemic control and decreased body weight. There was a greater frequency of several anticipated side effects, although few led to discontinuation of treatment.

Insulin degludec, an ultra-long-acting basal insulin, once a day or three times a week versus insulin glargine once a day in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 16-week, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Insulin degludec is a new basal insulin that forms soluble multihexamer assemblies after subcutaneous injection, resulting in an ultra-long action profile. This study aimed to assess efficacy and safety of insulin degludec injected once a day or three times a week compared with insulin glargine once a day in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes, who were inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs. METHODS In this 16-week, randomised, open-label, parallel-group phase 2 trial, participants aged 18–75 years with type 2 diabetes and glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1C)) of 7·0–11·0% were enrolled and treated at 28 clinical sites in Canada, India, South Africa, and the USA. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1:1 ratio by computer-generated block randomisation to receive insulin degludec either once a day or three times a week or insulin glargine once a day, all in combination with metformin. Investigators were masked to data until database release. The primary outcome was HbA(1C) after 16 weeks of treatment. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00611884. FINDINGS Of 367 patients screened, 245 were eligible for inclusion. 62 participants were randomly allocated to receive insulin degludec three times a week (starting dose 20 U per injection [1 U=9 nmol]), 60 to receive insulin degludec once a day (starting dose 10 U [1 U=6 nmol]; group A), 61 to receive insulin degludec once a day (starting dose 10 U [1 U=9 nmol]; group B), and 62 to receive insulin glargine (starting dose 10 U [1 U=6 nmol]) once a day. At study end, mean HbA(1C) levels were much the same across treatment groups, at 7·3% (SD 1·1), 7·4% (1·0), 7·5% (1·1), and 7·2% (0·9), respectively. Estimated mean HbA(1C) treatment differences from insulin degludec by comparison with insulin glargine were 0·08% (95% CI –0·23 to 0·40) for the three dose per week schedule, 0·17% (–0·15 to 0·48) for group A, and 0·28% (–0·04 to 0·59) for group B. Few participants had hypoglycaemia and the number of adverse events was much the same across groups, with no apparent treatment-specific pattern. INTERPRETATION Insulin degludec provides comparable glycaemic control to insulin glargine without additional adverse events and might reduce dosing frequency due to its ultra-long action profile. FUNDING Novo Nordisk.

Risk for nocturnal hypoglycemia with biphasic insulin aspart 30 compared with biphasic human insulin 30 in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Insulin is recommended as a second-line treatment after diet and metformin fail to reach and/or maintain glycemic targets considered to minimize the risk for long-term diabetic complications. Hypoglycemia and the fear of developing hypoglyce-mia, however, remain substantial barriers to the initiation and optimal use of insulin. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI 30) with respect to glycemic control and the risk for hypoglycemia using a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing these insulins in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS We included all published and unpublished, randomized, controlled trials in adult patients with T2DM (treatment duration > or = 12 weeks) for which individual patient data were available. All clinical databases and local trial registries of Novo Nordisk A/S (Soeborg, Denmark) were searched to identify clinical trials comparing the 2 products. The predefined primary end point of the study was the overall rate of nocturnal hypoglyce-mia (major, minor, and symptoms-only hypoglycemia occurring from 12:00-6:00 AM). Hypoglycemia was analyzed using a negative binomial distribution model, accounting for exposure time. Glycemic end points were analyzed at 12 to 16 weeks of treatment using ANCOVA, adjusting for baseline. Secondary safety end points were the rates of major hypoglycemia (hypoglycemia requiring third-party assistance), minor hypoglycemia (symptoms confirmed by plasma glucose [PG] <3.1 mmol/L), daytime hypoglycemia (major, minor, and symptoms-only hypoglycemia occurring from 6:01 AM-11:59 PM), overall hypoglycemia (the sum of all major, minor, and symptoms-only episodes), and change in weight from baseline to 12 to 16 weeks of treatment. Secondary efficacy end points were changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting PG (FPG), postprandial PG increment (averaged over breakfast, lunch, and dinner), and insulin dose. RESULTS Nine randomized, parallel or crossover trials were included (N = 1674; male sex, 57%; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [10.6] years; body mass index, 26.7 [4.6] kg/m(2); HbA(1c), 8.1% [1.4%]; duration of diabetes, 10.9 [7.9] years). Rates of overall hypoglycemia were not significantly different (rate ratio [RR] = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.94-1.24; P = NS) between treatments. BIAsp 30 had a 50% lower rate of nocturnal hypoglycemia than BHI 30 (RR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.67; P < 0.01), whereas the rate of daytime hypoglycemia was 24% lower for BHI 30 (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.43; P < 0.01). The likelihood of major hypo-glycemia was significantly lower with BIAsp 30 compared with BHI 30 (odds ratio = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.93; P < 0.05). BIAsp 30 was associated with reduced PPG increment (averaged over breakfast, lunch and dinner) compared with BHI 30 (treatment difference, -0.31; 95% CI, -0.49 to -0.07; P < 0.01). There was a significantly larger reduction in FPG associated with BHI 30 (treatment difference, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.31-0.95; P < 0.01). However, no significant treatment difference was found for HbA(1c) (treatment difference, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.10; P = NS). CONCLUSION This meta-analysis found BIAsp 30 to be associated with a significantly lower rate of nocturnal and major hypoglycemia, but a significantly increased risk for daytime hypoglycemia, compared with BHI 30 at a similar level of HbA(1c) in patients with T2DM.

The Effect of Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea on Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes

RATIONALE There is uncertainty about the effects of treating obstructive sleep apnea on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVES To determine whether treatment of obstructive sleep apnea in patients with type 2 diabetes improves glycemic control. METHODS In this trial, we randomized patients with type 2 diabetes and no previous diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea, with a glycated hemoglobin level of 6.5-8.5%, and an oxygen desaturation index of 15 or more events per hour to positive airway pressure therapy or to usual care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS A total of 416 patients met the entry criteria as determined by each site and were randomized. Of the 298 participants who met centrally adjudicated entry criteria, no differences between the study groups were seen for change in glycated hemoglobin. Furthermore, there were no between-group differences when analyses were restricted to those with poorer baseline glycemic control, those with more severe sleep apnea, or those who were adherent to therapy. A greater fall in diastolic blood pressure occurred in the positive airway pressure group than in the usual care group (-3.5 mm Hg vs. -1.5 mm Hg; P = 0.07). This difference was significant in those who were adherent to positive airway pressure therapy (-4.4 mm Hg vs. -1.6 mm Hg; P = 0.02). There was a significant reduction in sleepiness in the positive airway pressure therapy group (P < 0.0001). Quality of life assessment revealed improvements in vitality, mental health, and mental component summary scores in the positive airway pressure therapy group. CONCLUSIONS This trial showed no effect of positive airway pressure therapy on glycemic control in patients with relatively well-controlled type 2 diabetes and obstructive sleep apnea. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00509223).

Efficacy and safety of canagliflozin when used in conjunction with incretin-mimetic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes

To assess the efficacy and safety of canagliflozin, a sodium glucose co‐transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in the CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) who were on an incretin mimetic [dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 (DPP‐4) inhibitor or glucagon‐like peptide‐1 (GLP‐1) receptor agonist].

Canagliflozin for Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events: Results From the CANVAS Program (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study)

Background: Canagliflozin is a sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor that significantly reduces the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and elevated cardiovascular risk. The comparative effects among participants with and without a history of cardiovascular disease (secondary versus primary prevention) were prespecified for evaluation. Methods: The CANVAS Program (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) randomly assigned 10 142 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus to canagliflozin or placebo. The primary prevention cohort comprised individuals ≥50 years of age with ≥2 risk factors for cardiovascular events but with no prior cardiovascular event, and the secondary prevention cohort comprised individuals ≥30 years of age with a prior cardiovascular event. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Secondary outcomes included heart failure hospitalization and a renal composite (40% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate, renal replacement therapy, or renal death). Results: Primary prevention participants (N=3486; 34%) were younger (63 versus 64 years of age), were more often female (45% versus 31%), and had a longer duration of diabetes mellitus (14 versus 13 years) compared with secondary prevention participants (N=6656; 66%). The primary end point event rate was higher in the secondary prevention group compared with the primary prevention group (36.9 versus 15.7/1000 patient-years, P<0.001). In the total cohort, the primary end point was reduced with canagliflozin compared with placebo (26.9 versus 31.5/1000 patient-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75–0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority, P=0.02 for superiority) with no statistical evidence of heterogeneity (interaction P value=0.18) between the primary (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.74–1.30) and secondary prevention (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72–0.95) cohorts. Renal outcomes (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44–0.79 versus HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39–1.02; interaction P value=0.73) and heart failure hospitalization (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51–0.90 versus HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.35–1.15; interaction P value=0.91) were similarly reduced in the secondary and primary prevention cohorts, respectively. Lower extremity amputations were similarly increased in the secondary and primary prevention cohorts (HR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.43–3.00 versus HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.70–3.29; interaction P value=0.63). Conclusions: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and prior cardiovascular events had higher rates of cardiovascular outcomes compared with the primary prevention patients. Canagliflozin reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes with no statistical evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect across the primary and secondary prevention groups. Additional studies will provide further insights into the effects of canagliflozin in these patient populations. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01032629 and NCT01989754.