Richard M. Bergenstal

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).

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.).

Alogliptin after Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND To assess potentially elevated cardiovascular risk related to new antihyperglycemic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes, regulatory agencies require a comprehensive evaluation of the cardiovascular safety profile of new antidiabetic therapies. We assessed cardiovascular outcomes with alogliptin, a new inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4), as compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and either an acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina requiring hospitalization within the previous 15 to 90 days to receive alogliptin or placebo in addition to existing antihyperglycemic and cardiovascular drug therapy. The study design was a double-blind, noninferiority trial with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 1.3 for the hazard ratio for the primary end point of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS A total of 5380 patients underwent randomization and were followed for up to 40 months (median, 18 months). A primary end-point event occurred in 305 patients assigned to alogliptin (11.3%) and in 316 patients assigned to placebo (11.8%) (hazard ratio, 0.96; upper boundary of the one-sided repeated confidence interval, 1.16; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Glycated hemoglobin levels were significantly lower with alogliptin than with placebo (mean difference, -0.36 percentage points; P<0.001). Incidences of hypoglycemia, cancer, pancreatitis, and initiation of dialysis were similar with alogliptin and placebo. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with type 2 diabetes who had had a recent acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events were not increased with the DPP-4 inhibitor alogliptin as compared with placebo. (Funded by Takeda Development Center Americas; EXAMINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00968708.).

Diabetes and cancer: a consensus report.

Epidemiologic evidence suggests that cancer incidence is associated with diabetes as well as certain diabetes risk factors and diabetes treatments. This consensus statement of experts assembled jointly by the American Diabetes Association and the American Cancer Society reviews the state of science concerning 1) the association between diabetes and cancer incidence or prognosis, 2) risk factors common to both diabetes and cancer, 3) possible biologic links between diabetes and cancer risk, and 4) whether diabetes treatments influence risk of cancer or cancer prognosis. In addition, key unanswered questions for future research are posed.

Intensive Glycemic Control and the Prevention of Cardiovascular Events: Implications of the ACCORD, ADVANCE, and VA Diabetes Trials: A position statement of the American Diabetes Association and a scientific statement of the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association

Diabetes is defined by its association with hyperglycemia-specific microvascular complications; however, it also imparts a two- to fourfold risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although microvascular complications can lead to significant morbidity and premature mortality, by far the greatest cause of death in people with diabetes is CVD. Results from randomized controlled trials have demonstrated conclusively that the risk of microvascular complications can be reduced by intensive glycemic control in patients with type 1 (1,2) and type 2 diabetes (3–5). In the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), there was an ∼60% reduction in development or progression of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy between the intensively treated group (goal A1C <6.05%, mean achieved A1C ∼7%) and the standard group (A1C ∼9%) over an average of 6.5 years. The relationship between glucose control (as reflected by the mean on-study A1C value) and risk of complications was log-linear and extended down to the normal A1C range (<6%) with no threshold noted. In the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS), participants newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes were followed for 10 years, and intensive control (median A1C 7.0%) was found to reduce the overall microvascular complication rate by 25% compared with conventional treatment (median A1C 7.9%). Here, too, secondary analyses showed a continuous relationship between the risk of microvascular complications and glycemia extending into the normal range of A1C, with no glycemic threshold. On the basis of these two large controlled trials, along with smaller studies and numerous epidemiologic reports, the consistent findings related to microvascular risk reduction with intensive glycemic control have led the American Diabetes Association (ADA) to recommend an A1C goal of <7% for most adults with diabetes (6), recognizing that more or less stringent goals may be appropriate for certain patients. Whereas many epidemiologic studies and meta-analyses …

The association between symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia and mortality in type 2 diabetes: retrospective epidemiological analysis of the ACCORD study

Objective To determine whether there is a link between hypoglycaemia and mortality among participants in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Design Retrospective epidemiological analysis of data from the ACCORD trial. Setting Diabetes clinics, research clinics, and primary care clinics. Participants Patients were eligible for the ACCORD study if they had type 2 diabetes, a glycated haemoglobin (haemoglobin A1C) concentration of 7.5% or more during screening, and were aged 40-79 years with established cardiovascular disease or 55-79 years with evidence of subclinical disease or two additional cardiovascular risk factors. Intervention Intensive (haemoglobin A1C <6.0%) or standard (haemoglobin A1C 7.0-7.9%) glucose control. Outcome measures Symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia, manifest as either blood glucose concentration of less than 2.8 mmol/l (<50 mg/dl) or symptoms that resolved with treatment and that required either the assistance of another person or medical assistance, and all cause and cause specific mortality, including a specific assessment for involvement of hypoglycaemia. Results 10 194 of the 10 251 participants enrolled in the ACCORD study who had at least one assessment for hypoglycaemia during regular follow-up for vital status were included in this analysis. Unadjusted annual mortality among patients in the intensive glucose control arm was 2.8% in those who had one or more episodes of hypoglycaemia requiring any assistance compared with 1.2% for those with no episodes (53 deaths per 1924 person years and 201 deaths per 16 315 person years, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.93). A similar pattern was seen among participants in the standard glucose control arm (3.7% (21 deaths per 564 person years) v 1.0% (176 deaths per 17 297 person years); adjusted HR 2.30, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.65). On the other hand, among participants with at least one hypoglycaemic episode requiring any assistance, a non-significantly lower risk of death was seen in those in the intensive arm compared with those in the standard arm (adjusted HR 0.74, 95% 0.46 to 1.23). A significantly lower risk was observed in the intensive arm compared with the standard arm in participants who had experienced at least one hypoglycaemic episode requiring medical assistance (adjusted HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99). Of the 451 deaths that occurred in ACCORD up to the time when the intensive treatment arm was closed, one death was adjudicated as definitely related to hypoglycaemia. Conclusion Symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia was associated with an increased risk of death within each study arm. However, among participants who experienced at least one episode of hypoglycaemia, the risk of death was lower in such participants in the intensive arm than in the standard arm. Symptomatic, severe hypoglycaemia does not appear to account for the difference in mortality between the two study arms up to the time when the ACCORD intensive glycaemia arm was discontinued. Trial registration NCT00000620.

Effectiveness of Sensor-Augmented Insulin-Pump Therapy in Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND Recently developed technologies for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus include a variety of pumps and pumps with glucose sensors. METHODS In this 1-year, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we compared the efficacy of sensor-augmented pump therapy (pump therapy) with that of a regimen of multiple daily insulin injections (injection therapy) in 485 patients (329 adults and 156 children) with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes. Patients received recombinant insulin analogues and were supervised by expert clinical teams. The primary end point was the change from the baseline glycated hemoglobin level. RESULTS At 1 year, the baseline mean glycated hemoglobin level (8.3% in the two study groups) had decreased to 7.5% in the pump-therapy group, as compared with 8.1% in the injection-therapy group (P<0.001). The proportion of patients who reached the glycated hemoglobin target (<7%) was greater in the pump-therapy group than in the injection-therapy group. The rate of severe hypoglycemia in the pump-therapy group (13.31 cases per 100 person-years) did not differ significantly from that in the injection-therapy group (13.48 per 100 person-years, P=0.58). There was no significant weight gain in either group. CONCLUSIONS In both adults and children with inadequately controlled type 1 diabetes, sensor-augmented pump therapy resulted in significant improvement in glycated hemoglobin levels, as compared with injection therapy. A significantly greater proportion of both adults and children in the pump-therapy group than in the injection-therapy group reached the target glycated hemoglobin level. (Funded by Medtronic and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00417989.)

Use of Twice-Daily Exenatide in Basal Insulin–Treated Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND Insulin replacement in diabetes often requires prandial intervention to reach hemoglobin A₁(c) (HbA₁(c)) targets. OBJECTIVE To test whether twice-daily exenatide injections reduce HbA₁(c) levels more than placebo in people receiving insulin glargine. DESIGN Parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, blocked and stratified by HbA₁(c) level at site, performed from October 2008 to January 2010. Participants, investigators, and personnel conducting the study were masked to treatment assignments. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00765817) SETTING 59 centers in 5 countries. PATIENTS Adults with type 2 diabetes and an HbA₁(c) level of 7.1% to 10.5% who were receiving insulin glargine alone or in combination with metformin or pioglitazone (or both agents). INTERVENTION Assignment by a centralized, computer-generated, random-sequence interactive voice-response system to exenatide, 10 µg twice daily, or placebo for 30 weeks. MEASUREMENTS The primary outcome was change in HbA₁(c) level. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of participants with HbA₁(c) values of 7.0% or less and 6.5% or less, 7-point self-monitored glucose profiles, body weight, waist circumference, insulin dose, hypoglycemia, and adverse events. RESULTS 112 of 138 exenatide recipients and 101 of 123 placebo recipients completed the study. The HbA₁(c) level decreased by 1.74% with exenatide and 1.04% with placebo (between-group difference, -0.69% [95% CI, -0.93% to -0.46%]; P < 0.001). Weight decreased by 1.8 kg with exenatide and increased by 1.0 kg with placebo (between-group difference, -2.7 kg [CI, -3.7 to -1.7]). Average increases in insulin dosage with exenatide and placebo were 13 U/d and 20 U/d. The estimated rate of minor hypoglycemia was similar between groups. Thirteen exenatide recipients and 1 placebo recipient discontinued the study because of adverse events (P < 0.010); rates of nausea (41% vs. 8%), diarrhea (18% vs. 8%), vomiting (18% vs. 4%), headache (14% vs. 4%), and constipation (10% vs. 2%) were higher with exenatide than with placebo. LIMITATIONS The study was of short duration. There were slight imbalances between groups at baseline in terms of sex, use of concomitant glucose-lowering medications, and HbA₁(c) levels, and more exenatide recipients than placebo recipients withdrew because of adverse events. CONCLUSION Adding twice-daily exenatide injections improved glycemic control without increased hypoglycemia or weight gain in participants with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes who were receiving insulin glargine treatment. Adverse events of exenatide included nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, headache, and constipation. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Alliance of Eli Lilly and Company and Amylin Pharmaceuticals.

Current State of Type 1 Diabetes Treatment in the U.S.: Updated Data From the T1D Exchange Clinic Registry

To examine the overall state of metabolic control and current use of advanced diabetes technologies in the U.S., we report recent data collected on individuals with type 1 diabetes participating in the T1D Exchange clinic registry. Data from 16,061 participants updated between 1 September 2013 and 1 December 2014 were compared with registry enrollment data collected from 1 September 2010 to 1 August 2012. Mean hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was assessed by year of age from <4 to >75 years. The overall average HbA1c was 8.2% (66 mmol/mol) at enrollment and 8.4% (68 mmol/mol) at the most recent update. During childhood, mean HbA1c decreased from 8.3% (67 mmol/mol) in 2–4-year-olds to 8.1% (65 mmol/mol) at 7 years of age, followed by an increase to 9.2% (77 mmol/mol) in 19-year-olds. Subsequently, mean HbA1c values decline gradually until ∼30 years of age, plateauing at 7.5–7.8% (58–62 mmol/mol) beyond age 30 until a modest drop in HbA1c below 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) in those 65 years of age. Severe hypoglycemia (SH) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) remain all too common complications of treatment, especially in older (SH) and younger patients (DKA). Insulin pump use increased slightly from enrollment (58–62%), and use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) did not change (7%). Although the T1D Exchange registry findings are not population based and could be biased, it is clear that there remains considerable room for improving outcomes of treatment of type 1 diabetes across all age-groups. Barriers to more effective use of current treatments need to be addressed and new therapies are needed to achieve optimal metabolic control in people with type 1 diabetes.