John B. Buse

Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND Epidemiologic studies have shown a relationship between glycated hemoglobin levels and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. We investigated whether intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels would reduce cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes who had either established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS In this randomized study, 10,251 patients (mean age, 62.2 years) with a median glycated hemoglobin level of 8.1% were assigned to receive intensive therapy (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level below 6.0%) or standard therapy (targeting a level from 7.0 to 7.9%). Of these patients, 38% were women, and 35% had had a previous cardiovascular event. The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The finding of higher mortality in the intensive-therapy group led to a discontinuation of intensive therapy after a mean of 3.5 years of follow-up. RESULTS At 1 year, stable median glycated hemoglobin levels of 6.4% and 7.5% were achieved in the intensive-therapy group and the standard-therapy group, respectively. During follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 352 patients in the intensive-therapy group, as compared with 371 in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P=0.16). At the same time, 257 patients in the intensive-therapy group died, as compared with 203 patients in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.46; P=0.04). Hypoglycemia requiring assistance and weight gain of more than 10 kg were more frequent in the intensive-therapy group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy to target normal glycated hemoglobin levels for 3.5 years increased mortality and did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events. These findings identify a previously unrecognized harm of intensive glucose lowering in high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.)

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: a patient-centered approach. Position statement of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)

Erratum to: DiabetologiaDOI 10.1007/s00125-012-2534-0In the text box ‘Properties of currently available glucose-lowering agents that may guide treatment choice in individualpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus ’ vildagliptin was incor-rectly assigned footnote ‘a’ (Limited use in the USA/Europe)instead of footnote ‘b’ (Not licensed in the USA).

Medical Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes: A Consensus Algorithm for the Initiation and Adjustment of Therapy: A Consensus Statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes

The consensus algorithm for the medical management of type 2 diabetes was published in August 2006 with the expectation that it would be updated, based on the availability of new interventions and new evidence to establish their clinical role. The authors continue to endorse the principles used to develop the algorithm and its major features. We are sensitive to the risks of changing the algorithm cavalierly or too frequently, without compelling new information. An update to the consensus algorithm published in January 2008 specifically addressed safety issues surrounding the thiazolidinediones. In this revision, we focus on the new classes of medications that now have more clinical data and experience.

Effects of intensive blood-pressure control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND There is no evidence from randomized trials to support a strategy of lowering systolic blood pressure below 135 to 140 mm Hg in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We investigated whether therapy targeting normal systolic pressure (i.e., <120 mm Hg) reduces major cardiovascular events in participants with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events. METHODS A total of 4733 participants with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to intensive therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, or standard therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 140 mm Hg. The primary composite outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The mean follow-up was 4.7 years. RESULTS After 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 119.3 mm Hg in the intensive-therapy group and 133.5 mm Hg in the standard-therapy group. The annual rate of the primary outcome was 1.87% in the intensive-therapy group and 2.09% in the standard-therapy group (hazard ratio with intensive therapy, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.06; P=0.20). The annual rates of death from any cause were 1.28% and 1.19% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.35; P=0.55). The annual rates of stroke, a prespecified secondary outcome, were 0.32% and 0.53% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.89; P=0.01). Serious adverse events attributed to antihypertensive treatment occurred in 77 of the 2362 participants in the intensive-therapy group (3.3%) and 30 of the 2371 participants in the standard-therapy group (1.3%) (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular events, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, did not reduce the rate of a composite outcome of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.)

The metabolic syndrome: time for a critical appraisal. Joint statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

BackgroundThe term ‘metabolic syndrome’ refers to a clustering of specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors whose underlying pathophysiology is thought to be related to insulin resistance.MethodsSince the term is widely used in research and clinical practice, we undertook an extensive review of the literature in relation to the syndrome’s definition, underlying pathogenesis, association with cardiovascular disease and to the goals and impact of treatment.DiscussionWhile there is no question that certain CVD risk factors are prone to cluster, we found that the metabolic syndrome has been imprecisely defined, there is a lack of certainty regarding its pathogenesis, and there is considerable doubt regarding its value as a CVD risk marker. Our analysis indicates that too much critically important information is missing to warrant its designation as a ‘syndrome’.ConclusionUntil much-needed research is completed, clinicians should evaluate and treat all CVD risk factors without regard to whether a patient meets the criteria for diagnosis of the ‘metabolic syndrome’.

International Expert Committee Report on the Role of the A1C Assay in the Diagnosis of Diabetes

Members of the International Expert Committee have recommended that diabetes should be diagnosed if A1C is ≤6.5%, without need to measure the plasma glucose concentration (1). We are concerned that practical limitations will lead to false positives and negatives with this approach. A given A1C instrument may identify some but not other abnormal hemoglobins (http://www.ngsp.org/prog/index2.html). How, therefore, can we be sure whether a hemoglobinopathy is causing (or preventing) diagnosis? Before diagnosis, should we not also exclude iron deficiency anemia, which may increase A1C by 1–1.5%, as well as hemolytic anemia and renal failure or chronic infections, which also lower …

Effects of Combination Lipid Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND We investigated whether combination therapy with a statin plus a fibrate, as compared with statin monotherapy, would reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were at high risk for cardiovascular disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 5518 patients with type 2 diabetes who were being treated with open-label simvastatin to receive either masked fenofibrate or placebo. The primary outcome was the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes. The mean follow-up was 4.7 years. RESULTS The annual rate of the primary outcome was 2.2% in the fenofibrate group and 2.4% in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the fenofibrate group, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.08; P=0.32). There were also no significant differences between the two study groups with respect to any secondary outcome. Annual rates of death were 1.5% in the fenofibrate group and 1.6% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.10; P=0.33). Prespecified subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity in treatment effect according to sex, with a benefit for men and possible harm for women (P=0.01 for interaction), and a possible interaction according to lipid subgroup, with a possible benefit for patients with both a high baseline triglyceride level and a low baseline level of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P=0.057 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS The combination of fenofibrate and simvastatin did not reduce the rate of fatal cardiovascular events, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, as compared with simvastatin alone. These results do not support the routine use of combination therapy with fenofibrate and simvastatin to reduce cardiovascular risk in the majority of high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.)

Management of Hyperglycemia in Type 2 Diabetes, 2015: A Patient-Centered Approach: Update to a Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes

In 2012, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) published a position statement on the management of hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (1,2). This was needed because of an increasing array of antihyperglycemic drugs and growing uncertainty regarding their proper selection and sequence. Because of a paucity of comparative effectiveness research on long-term treatment outcomes with many of these medications, the 2012 publication was less prescriptive than prior consensus reports. We previously described the need to individualize both treatment targets and treatment strategies, with an emphasis on patient-centered care and shared decision making, and this continues to be our position, although there are now more head-to-head trials that show slight variance between agents with regard to glucose-lowering effects. Nevertheless, these differences are often small and would be unlikely to reflect any definite differential effect in an individual patient. The ADA and EASD have requested an update to the position statement incorporating new data from recent clinical trials. Between June and September of 2014, the Writing Group reconvened, including one face-to-face meeting, to discuss the changes. An entirely new statement was felt to be unnecessary. Instead, the group focused on those areas where revisions were suggested by a changing evidence base. This briefer article should therefore be read as an addendum to the previous full account (1,2). Glucose control remains a major focus in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes. However, this should always be in the context of a comprehensive cardiovascular risk factor reduction program, to include smoking cessation and the adoption of other healthy lifestyle habits, blood pressure control, lipid management with priority to statin medications, and, in some circumstances, antiplatelet therapy. Studies have conclusively determined that reducing hyperglycemia decreases the onset and progression of …

Liraglutide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND The cardiovascular effect of liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, when added to standard care in patients with type 2 diabetes, remains unknown. METHODS In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk to receive liraglutide or placebo. The primary composite outcome in the time-to-event analysis was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The primary hypothesis was that liraglutide would be noninferior to placebo with regard to the primary outcome, with a margin of 1.30 for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. No adjustments for multiplicity were performed for the prespecified exploratory outcomes. RESULTS A total of 9340 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 3.8 years. The primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the liraglutide group (608 of 4668 patients [13.0%]) than in the placebo group (694 of 4672 [14.9%]) (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.97; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.01 for superiority). Fewer patients died from cardiovascular causes in the liraglutide group (219 patients [4.7%]) than in the placebo group (278 [6.0%]) (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P=0.007). The rate of death from any cause was lower in the liraglutide group (381 patients [8.2%]) than in the placebo group (447 [9.6%]) (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.97; P=0.02). The rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure were nonsignificantly lower in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group. The most common adverse events leading to the discontinuation of liraglutide were gastrointestinal events. The incidence of pancreatitis was nonsignificantly lower in the liraglutide group than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS In the time-to-event analysis, the rate of the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was lower with liraglutide than with placebo. (Funded by Novo Nordisk and the National Institutes of Health; LEADER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01179048.).

Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6)

BACKGROUND Unlike most antihyperglycaemic drugs, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have a glucose-dependent action and promote weight loss. We compared the efficacy and safety of liraglutide, a human GLP-1 analogue, with exenatide, an exendin-based GLP-1 receptor agonist. METHODS Adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on maximally tolerated doses of metformin, sulphonylurea, or both, were stratified by previous oral antidiabetic therapy and randomly assigned to receive additional liraglutide 1.8 mg once a day (n=233) or exenatide 10 microg twice a day (n=231) in a 26-week open-label, parallel-group, multinational (15 countries) study. The primary outcome was change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)). Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00518882. FINDINGS Mean baseline HbA(1c) for the study population was 8.2%. Liraglutide reduced mean HbA(1c) significantly more than did exenatide (-1.12% [SE 0.08] vs -0.79% [0.08]; estimated treatment difference -0.33; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.18; p<0.0001) and more patients achieved a HbA(1c) value of less than 7% (54%vs 43%, respectively; odds ratio 2.02; 95% CI 1.31 to 3.11; p=0.0015). Liraglutide reduced mean fasting plasma glucose more than did exenatide (-1.61 mmol/L [SE 0.20] vs -0.60 mmol/L [0.20]; estimated treatment difference -1.01 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.37 to -0.65; p<0.0001) but postprandial glucose control was less effective after breakfast and dinner. Both drugs promoted similar weight losses (liraglutide -3.24 kg vs exenatide -2.87 kg). Both drugs were well tolerated, but nausea was less persistent (estimated treatment rate ratio 0.448, p<0.0001) and minor hypoglycaemia less frequent with liraglutide than with exenatide (1.93 vs 2.60 events per patient per year; rate ratio 0.55; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88; p=0.0131; 25.5%vs 33.6% had minor hypoglycaemia). Two patients taking both exenatide and a sulphonylurea had a major hypoglycaemic episode. INTERPRETATION Liraglutide once a day provided significantly greater improvements in glycaemic control than did exenatide twice a day, and was generally better tolerated. The results suggest that liraglutide might be a treatment option for type 2 diabetes, especially when weight loss and risk of hypoglycaemia are major considerations. FUNDING Novo Nordisk A/S.