Jaime A. Davidson

STATEMENT BY AN AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS/ AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY CONSENSUS PANEL ON TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS: AN ALGORITHM FOR GLYCEMIC CONTROL

This report presents an algorithm to assist primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and others in the management of adult, nonpregnant patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In order to minimize the risk of diabetes-related complications, the goal of therapy is to achieve a hemoglobin A1c (A1C) of 6.5% or less, with recognition of the need for individualization to minimize the risks of hypoglycemia. We provide therapeutic pathways stratified on the basis of current levels of A1C, whether the patient is receiving treatment or is drug naïve. We consider monotherapy, dual therapy, and triple therapy, including 8 major classes of medications (biguanides, dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors, incretin mimetics, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, sulfonylureas, meglitinides, and bile acid sequestrants) and insulin therapy (basal, premixed, and multiple daily injections), with or without orally administered medications. We prioritize choices of medications according to safety, risk of hypoglycemia, efficacy, simplicity, anticipated degree of patient adherence, and cost of medications. We recommend only combinations of medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration that provide complementary mechanisms of action. It is essential to monitor therapy with A1C and self-monitoring of blood glucose and to adjust or advance therapy frequently (every 2 to 3 months) if the appropriate goal for each patient has not been achieved. We provide a flow-chart and table summarizing the major considerations. This algorithm represents a consensus of 14 highly experienced clinicians, clinical researchers, practitioners, and academicians and is based on the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology Diabetes Guidelines and the recent medical literature.

Heart Failure, Saxagliptin, and Diabetes Mellitus: Observations from the SAVOR-TIMI 53 Randomized Trial.

Background— Diabetes mellitus and heart failure frequently coexist. However, few diabetes mellitus trials have prospectively evaluated and adjudicated heart failure as an end point. Methods and Results— A total of 16 492 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a history of, or at risk of, cardiovascular events were randomized to saxagliptin or placebo (mean follow-up, 2.1 years). The primary end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. Hospitalization for heart failure was a predefined component of the secondary end point. Baseline N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide was measured in 12 301 patients. More patients treated with saxagliptin (289, 3.5%) were hospitalized for heart failure compared with placebo (228, 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence intercal, 1.07–1.51; P=0.007). Corresponding rates at 12 months were 1.9% versus 1.3% (hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–1.88; P=0.002), with no significant difference thereafter (time-varying interaction, P=0.017). Subjects at greatest risk of hospitalization for heart failure had previous heart failure, an estimated glomerular filtration rate ⩽60 mL/min, or elevated baseline levels of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide. There was no evidence of heterogeneity between N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide and saxagliptin (P for interaction=0.46), although the absolute risk excess for heart failure with saxagliptin was greatest in the highest N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide quartile (2.1%). Even in patients at high risk of hospitalization for heart failure, the risk of the primary and secondary end points were similar between treatment groups. Conclusions— In the context of balanced primary and secondary end points, saxagliptin treatment was associated with an increased risk or hospitalization for heart failure. This increase in risk was highest among patients with elevated levels of natriuretic peptides, previous heart failure, or chronic kidney disease. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01107886.

The role of the kidneys in glucose homeostasis: a new path towards normalizing glycaemia.

The maintenance of normal glucose homeostasis requires a complex, highly integrated interaction among the liver, muscle, adipocytes, pancreas and neuroendocrine system. Recent studies have showed that the kidneys also play a central role in glucose homeostasis by reabsorbing all the filtered glucose, an adaptive mechanism that ensures sufficient energy is available during fasting periods. This mechanism becomes maladaptive in diabetes, however, as hyperglycaemia augments the expression and activity of the sodium–glucose cotransporter (SGLT) 2 in the proximal tubule of the kidney. As a result, glucose reabsorption may be increased by as much as 20% in individuals with poorly controlled diabetes. SGLT2 is a low‐affinity, high‐capacity glucose transport protein that reabsorbs 90% of filtered glucose, while the high‐affinity, low‐capacity SGLT1 transporter reabsorbs the remaining 10%. SGLT2 represents a novel target for the treatment of diabetes. In animal studies, SGLT2 inhibition reduces plasma glucose levels, resulting in improved β‐cell function and enhanced insulin sensitivity in liver and muscle. Human studies have confirmed the efficacy of SLGT2 inhibitors in improving glucose control and reducing the A1c. Because the mechanism of SGLT2 inhibition is independent of circulating insulin levels or insulin sensitivity, these agents can be combined with all other antidiabetic classes, including exogenous insulin. Although the long‐term efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors remain under study, the class represents a novel therapeutic approach with potential for the treatment of both type 2 and 1 diabetes.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY - CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPING A DIABETES MELLITUS COMPREHENSIVE CARE PLAN - 2015

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists/American College of Endocrinology Medical Guidelines for Clinical Practice are systematically developed statements to assist healthcare professionals in medical decision making for specific clinical conditions. Most of the content herein is based on literature reviews. In areas of uncertainty, professional judgment was applied. These guidelines are a working document that reflects the state of the field at the time of publication. Because rapid changes in this area are expected, periodic revisions are inevitable. We encourage medical professionals to use this information in conjunction with their best clinical judgment. The presented recommendations may not be appropriate in all situations. Any decision by practitioners to apply these guidelines must be made in light of local resources and individual patient circumstances. Abbreviations: A1C = hemoglobin A1c AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists ACCORD = Action to Control Cardiovascu...

Saxagliptin and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Moderate or Severe Renal Impairment: Observations From the SAVOR-TIMI 53 Trial

OBJECTIVE The glycemic management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and renal impairment is challenging, with few treatment options. We investigated the effect of saxagliptin in the Saxagliptin Assessment of Vascular Outcomes Recorded in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus (SAVOR)-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 53 trial according to baseline renal function. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Patients with T2DM at risk for cardiovascular events were stratified as having normal or mildly impaired renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] >50 mL/min/1.73 m2; n = 13,916), moderate renal impairment (eGFR 30–50 mL/min/1.73 m2; n = 2,240), or severe renal impairment (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2; n = 336) and randomized to receive saxagliptin or placebo. The primary end point was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. RESULTS After a median duration of 2 years, saxagliptin neither increased nor decreased the risk of the primary and secondary composite end points compared with placebo, irrespective of renal function (all P for interactions ≥0.19). Overall, the risk of hospitalization for heart failure among the three eGFR groups of patients was 2.2% (referent), 7.4% (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.38 [95% CI 1.95–2.91], P < 0.001), and 13.0% (adjusted HR 4.59 [95% CI 3.28–6.28], P < 0.001), respectively. The relative risk of hospitalization for heart failure with saxagliptin was similar (P for interaction = 0.43) in patients with eGFR >50 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR 1.23 [95% CI 0.99–1.55]), eGFR 30–50 mL/min/1.73 m2 (HR 1.46 [95% CI 1.07–2.00]), and in patients with eGFR <30 (HR 0.94 [95% CI 0.52–1.71]). Patients with renal impairment achieved reductions in microalbuminuria with saxagliptin (P = 0.041) that were similar to those of the overall trial population. CONCLUSIONS Saxagliptin did not affect the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events, increased the risk of heart failure hospitalization, and reduced progressive albuminuria, irrespective of baseline renal function.

A new-generation ultra-long-acting basal insulin with a bolus boost compared with insulin glargine in insulin-naive people with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE Insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) is a soluble coformulation of the novel basal analog insulin degludec (IDeg: 70%) and insulin aspart (IAsp: 30%). We compared the safety and efficacy of IDegAsp, an alternative formulation (AF) (55% IDeg and 45% IAsp), and insulin glargine (IGlar) in insulin-naïve subjects with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this 16-week, open-label trial, subjects (mean age 59.1 years, A1C 8.5%, BMI 30.3 kg/m2) were randomized to once-daily IDegAsp (n = 59), AF (n = 59), or IGlar (n = 60), all in combination with metformin. Insulin was administered before the evening meal and dose-titrated to a fasting plasma glucose (FPG) target of 4.0–6.0 mmol/L. RESULTS After 16 weeks, mean A1C decreased in all groups to comparable levels (IDegAsp: 7.0%; AF: 7.2%; IGlar: 7.1%). A similar proportion of subjects achieved A1C <7.0% without confirmed hypoglycemia in the last 4 weeks of treatment (IDegAsp: 51%; AF: 47%; IGlar: 50%). Mean 2-h postdinner plasma glucose increase was lower for IDegAsp (0.13 mmol/L) and AF (0.24 mmol/L) than IGlar (1.63 mmol/L), whereas mean FPG was similar (IDegAsp: 6.8 mmol/L; AF: 7.4 mmol/L; IGlar: 7.0 mmol/L). Hypoglycemia rates were lower for IDegAsp and IGlar than AF (1.2, 0.7, and 2.4 events/patient year). Nocturnal hypoglycemic events occurred rarely for IDegAsp (1 event) and IGlar (3 events) compared with AF (27 events). CONCLUSIONS In this proof-of-concept trial, once-daily IDegAsp was safe, well tolerated, and provided comparable overall glycemic control to IGlar at similar low rates of hypoglycemia, but better postdinner plasma glucose control.

ACE/AACE consensus conference on the implementation of outpatient management of diabetes mellitus: consensus conference recommendations.

Among the more than 20 million Americans who have diabetes, approximately 30% of the cases are undiagnosed (1). An additional 42 million people in the United States have pre-diabetes (impaired glucose tolerance [IGT], impaired fasting glucose, or both), a condition that often leads to diabetes if it is not treated (1). The dramatic 41% increase in prevalence of diabetes during the 1990s was characterized by a shift to a younger age at onset. The prevalence of diabetes increased more than 70% in the age-group 30 to 39 years (1). The longer the duration of poorly controlled diabetes, the greater the risk for development of vascular complications, including retinopathy, end-stage kidney disease, neuropathy, and coronary artery disease. These complications are not only debilitating but also expensive. In 2002, health-care costs for diabetes in the United States surpassed

Mild renal impairment and the efficacy and safety of liraglutide.

132 billion (1). These costs were primarily related to the treatment and consequences of complications of diabetes (2). Several large prospective studies have shown that intensive treatment of diabetes can decrease the chronic complications associated with this disease (3-6). There seems to be no glycemic threshold for reduction of complications; the lower the hemoglobin A1c (A1C) level, the lower the rate of occurrence of diabetes-related complications (7). Advances in pharmacologic therapies and new treatment technologies can facilitate reduction of blood glucose values in patients with diabetes to near-normal and achieve glycemic goal levels recommended in current practice guidelines. Nevertheless, the management of patients with diabetes in the United States has actually worsened during the past decade (8). Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III in 1994 showed that only 44% of patients with type 2 diabetes achieved an A1C level of less than 7% (9). By the year 2000, this proportion actually decreased to 37% (10). Recently, at an American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) meeting, a report on the state of diabetes health showed that, in a study of 157,000 Americans in 39 states, two-thirds of the subjects with type 2 diabetes had A1C values above the American College of Endocrinology (ACE) goal for glycemic control of 6.5% or less (American College of Endocrinology/ American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. State of Diabetes in America: Striving for Better Control. Available at: http://www.aace.com/pub/StateofDiabetes/ stateofdiabetes.php). Clearly, more aggressive and comprehensive application of these available treatment options, supported by diabetes education, is needed. On January 31, 2005, ACE and AACE convened a 2day consensus conference to review current research and address questions relevant to the treatment of diabetes. The conference brought together US and international diabetes researchers, clinical and educational experts, and ACE/AACE CONSENSUS CONFERENCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OUTPATIENT MANAGEMENT OF DIABETES MELLITUS: CONSENSUS CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATIONS

How the diabetic eye loses vision

OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of mild renal impairment (RI) on the efficacy and safety of liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS In this meta-analysis, we examined the 6 LEAD (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes) studies. Data from patients with type 2 diabetes who had normal renal function, mild RI, or moderate or severe RI were pooled for analysis. Renal function was measured by creatinine clearance as determined by the Cockcroft-Gault equation: normal renal function = creatinine clearance >89 mL/min; mild RI = 60 mL/min ≤ creatinine clearance ≤ 89 mL/min; and moderate or severe RI = creatinine clearance <60 mL/min. The meta-analysis included patients administered once-daily liraglutide (1.2 or 1.8 mg) or placebo as either monotherapy or in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs for 26 weeks. In addition, a pooled analysis of all phase 2 and 3 liraglutide trials was done to examine rates of altered renal function. RESULTS Mild RI did not affect the estimated treatment differences in hemoglobin A1c. Patients with normal renal function demonstrated decreases in body weight and systolic blood pressure with either dosage of liraglutide, whereas patients in either RI group also demonstrated a decrease in body weight and systolic blood pressure, but these differences were not significant compared with differences observed in the placebo group. Liraglutide treatment vs placebo was safe and well tolerated in patients with mild RI, as there were no significant differences in rates of renal injury, minor hypoglycemia, or nausea. A trend towards increased nausea was observed in patients with moderate or severe RI receiving liraglutide, although the number of patients in this treatment group was too low to determine significance. CONCLUSION Mild RI, as determined by the Cockcroft-Gault equation, had no effect on the efficacy and safety of liraglutide in this meta-analysis.

Value of Self-Monitoring Blood Glucose Pattern Analysis in Improving Diabetes Outcomes

The objective is to review the most common causes of vision loss in patients with diabetes with the goal of better managing patients with diabetic eye disease. In this review, the causes of vision loss, and the clinical evaluation and management of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) are outlined. Patients with diabetes mellitus have an increased risk of vision loss and blindness. In patients with diabetes, the primary mechanism responsible for vision loss is centrally involved DME or clinically significant macular edema (CSME), defined as vascular leakage resulting in fluid accumulation that affects the center of the macula. DR and DME are thought to result from the effects of excessive blood glucose on the vessels that produces microvascular damage. The progression of DR can be slowed by intensive glycemic and blood pressure control. Severe visual loss from proliferative DR and moderate visual loss from DME can be reduced by laser photocoagulation. DR and DME are diagnosed on dilated retinal examination and confirmed with diagnostic testing. Many experts and associations recommend that patients with diabetes have an yearly, thorough, dilated eye exam. This manuscript describes the case history of a patient with diabetes and vision loss.