Simon Heller

Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND In patients with type 2 diabetes, the effects of intensive glucose control on vascular outcomes remain uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 11,140 patients with type 2 diabetes to undergo either standard glucose control or intensive glucose control, defined as the use of gliclazide (modified release) plus other drugs as required to achieve a glycated hemoglobin value of 6.5% or less. Primary end points were composites of major macrovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) and major microvascular events (new or worsening nephropathy or retinopathy), assessed both jointly and separately. RESULTS After a median of 5 years of follow-up, the mean glycated hemoglobin level was lower in the intensive-control group (6.5%) than in the standard-control group (7.3%). Intensive control reduced the incidence of combined major macrovascular and microvascular events (18.1%, vs. 20.0% with standard control; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 0.98; P=0.01), as well as that of major microvascular events (9.4% vs. 10.9%; hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), primarily because of a reduction in the incidence of nephropathy (4.1% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.93; P=0.006), with no significant effect on retinopathy (P=0.50). There were no significant effects of the type of glucose control on major macrovascular events (hazard ratio with intensive control, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.06; P=0.32), death from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio with intensive control, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.04; P=0.12), or death from any cause (hazard ratio with intensive control, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.06; P=0.28). Severe hypoglycemia, although uncommon, was more common in the intensive-control group (2.7%, vs. 1.5% in the standard-control group; hazard ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.42 to 2.40; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS A strategy of intensive glucose control, involving gliclazide (modified release) and other drugs as required, that lowered the glycated hemoglobin value to 6.5% yielded a 10% relative reduction in the combined outcome of major macrovascular and microvascular events, primarily as a consequence of a 21% relative reduction in nephropathy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00145925.)

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.).

Severe Hypoglycemia and Risks of Vascular Events and Death

BACKGROUND Severe hypoglycemia may increase the risk of a poor outcome in patients with type 2 diabetes assigned to an intensive glucose-lowering intervention. We analyzed data from a large study of intensive glucose lowering to explore the relationship between severe hypoglycemia and adverse clinical outcomes. METHODS We examined the associations between severe hypoglycemia and the risks of macrovascular or microvascular events and death among 11,140 patients with type 2 diabetes, using Cox proportional-hazards models with adjustment for covariates measured at baseline and after randomization. RESULTS During a median follow-up period of 5 years, 231 patients (2.1%) had at least one severe hypoglycemic episode; 150 had been assigned to intensive glucose control (2.7% of the 5571 patients in that group), and 81 had been assigned to standard glucose control (1.5% of the 5569 patients in that group). The median times from the onset of severe hypoglycemia to the first major macrovascular event, the first major microvascular event, and death were 1.56 years (interquartile range, 0.84 to 2.41), 0.99 years (interquartile range, 0.40 to 2.17), and 1.05 years (interquartile range, 0.34 to 2.41), respectively. During follow-up, severe hypoglycemia was associated with a significant increase in the adjusted risks of major macrovascular events (hazard ratio, 2.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.01 to 4.12), major microvascular events (hazard ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.19 to 2.74), death from a cardiovascular cause (hazard ratio, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.72 to 4.19), and death from any cause (hazard ratio, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.97 to 3.67) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). Similar associations were apparent for a range of nonvascular outcomes, including respiratory, digestive, and skin conditions (P<0.01 for all comparisons). No relationship was found between repeated episodes of severe hypoglycemia and vascular outcomes or death. CONCLUSIONS Severe hypoglycemia was strongly associated with increased risks of a range of adverse clinical outcomes. It is possible that severe hypoglycemia contributes to adverse outcomes, but these analyses indicate that hypoglycemia is just as likely to be a marker of vulnerability to such events. (Funded by Servier and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00145925.).

Hypoglycemia and Diabetes: A Report of a Workgroup of the American Diabetes Association and The Endocrine Society

OBJECTIVE To review the evidence about the impact of hypoglycemia on patients with diabetes that has become available since the past reviews of this subject by the American Diabetes Association and The Endocrine Society and to provide guidance about how this new information should be incorporated into clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS Five members of the American Diabetes Association and five members of The Endocrine Society with expertise in different aspects of hypoglycemia were invited by the Chair, who is a member of both, to participate in a planning conference call and a 2-day meeting that was also attended by staff from both organizations. Subsequent communications took place via e-mail and phone calls. The writing group consisted of those invitees who participated in the writing of the manuscript. The workgroup meeting was supported by educational grants to the American Diabetes Association from Lilly USA, LLC and Novo Nordisk and sponsorship to the American Diabetes Association from Sanofi. The sponsors had no input into the development of or content of the report. EVIDENCE The writing group considered data from recent clinical trials and other studies to update the prior workgroup report. Unpublished data were not used. Expert opinion was used to develop some conclusions. CONSENSUS PROCESS Consensus was achieved by group discussion during conference calls and face-to-face meetings, as well as by iterative revisions of the written document. The document was reviewed and approved by the American Diabetes Association’s Professional Practice Committee in October 2012 and approved by the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors in November 2012 and was reviewed and approved by The Endocrine Society’s Clinical Affairs Core Committee in October 2012 and by Council in November 2012. CONCLUSIONS The workgroup reconfirmed the previous definitions of hypoglycemia in diabetes, reviewed the implications of hypoglycemia on both short- and long-term outcomes, considered the implications of hypoglycemia on treatment outcomes, presented strategies to prevent hypoglycemia, and identified knowledge gaps that should be addressed by future research. In addition, tools for patients to report hypoglycemia at each visit and for clinicians to document counseling are provided.

Evaluation and Management of Adult Hypoglycemic Disorders: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVE The aim is to provide guidelines for the evaluation and management of adults with hypoglycemic disorders, including those with diabetes mellitus. EVIDENCE Using the recommendations of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, the quality of evidence is graded very low (plus sign in circle ooo), low (plus sign in circle plus sign in circle oo), moderate (plus sign in circle plus sign in circle plus sign in circle o), or high (plus sign in circle plus sign in circle plus sign in circle plus sign in circle). CONCLUSIONS We recommend evaluation and management of hypoglycemia only in patients in whom Whipples triad--symptoms, signs, or both consistent with hypoglycemia, a low plasma glucose concentration, and resolution of those symptoms or signs after the plasma glucose concentration is raised--is documented. In patients with hypoglycemia without diabetes mellitus, we recommend the following strategy. First, pursue clinical clues to potential hypoglycemic etiologies--drugs, critical illnesses, hormone deficiencies, nonislet cell tumors. In the absence of these causes, the differential diagnosis narrows to accidental, surreptitious, or even malicious hypoglycemia or endogenous hyperinsulinism. In patients suspected of having endogenous hyperinsulinism, measure plasma glucose, insulin, C-peptide, proinsulin, beta-hydroxybutyrate, and circulating oral hypoglycemic agents during an episode of hypoglycemia and measure insulin antibodies. Insulin or insulin secretagogue treatment of diabetes mellitus is the most common cause of hypoglycemia. We recommend the practice of hypoglycemia risk factor reduction--addressing the issue of hypoglycemia, applying the principles of intensive glycemic therapy, and considering both the conventional risk factors and those indicative of compromised defenses against falling plasma glucose concentrations--in persons with diabetes.

Effectiveness of the diabetes education and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a structured group education programme on biomedical, psychosocial, and lifestyle measures in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Design Multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care with randomisation at practice level. Setting 207 general practices in 13 primary care sites in the United Kingdom. Participants 824 adults (55% men, mean age 59.5 years). Intervention A structured group education programme for six hours delivered in the community by two trained healthcare professional educators compared with usual care. Main outcome measures Haemoglobin A1c levels, blood pressure, weight, blood lipid levels, smoking status, physical activity, quality of life, beliefs about illness, depression, and emotional impact of diabetes at baseline and up to 12 months. Main results Haemoglobin A1c levels at 12 months had decreased by 1.49% in the intervention group compared with 1.21% in the control group. After adjusting for baseline and cluster, the difference was not significant: 0.05% (95% confidence interval −0.10% to 0.20%). The intervention group showed a greater weight loss: −2.98 kg (95% confidence interval −3.54 to −2.41) compared with 1.86 kg (−2.44 to −1.28), P=0.027 at 12 months. The odds of not smoking were 3.56 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 11.45), P=0.033 higher in the intervention group at 12 months. The intervention group showed significantly greater changes in illness belief scores (P=0.001); directions of change were positive indicating greater understanding of diabetes. The intervention group had a lower depression score at 12 months: mean difference was −0.50 (95% confidence interval −0.96 to −0.04); P=0.032. A positive association was found between change in perceived personal responsibility and weight loss at 12 months (β=0.12; P=0.008). Conclusion A structured group education programme for patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes resulted in greater improvements in weight loss and smoking cessation and positive improvements in beliefs about illness but no difference in haemoglobin A1c levels up to 12 months after diagnosis. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17844016.

Reduced Neuroendocrine and Symptomatic Responses to Subsequent Hypoglycemia After 1 Episode of Hypoglycemia in Nondiabetic Humans

To test the hypothesis that hypoglycemia itself causes reduced neuroendocrine and symptomatic responses to subsequent hypoglycemia, we measured those responses during clamped hypoglycemia (2.8 mM) on consecutive mornings on two occasions, with interval afternoon (1400–1600) hypoglycemia (3 mM) on one occasion and interval afternoon euglycemia (5 mM) on the other, in nine nondiabetic humans. None of the measured responses were reduced by interval euglycemia. In contrast, plasma epinephrine (P < 0.005), glucagon (P < 0.005), pancreatic polypeptide (P < 0.01), cortisol (P < 0.02), and total (P < 0.001), neurogenic (P < 0.001) and neuroglycopenic (P < 0.05) symptom responses to morning hypoglycemia were reduced after interval afternoon hypoglycemia. Thus, a single episode of hypoglycemia caused a generalized reduction of the neuroendocrine and symptomatic responses to subsequent hypoglycemia, a finding that may be important to the pathogenesis of iatrogenic hypoglycemia in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

Insulin degludec, an ultra-longacting basal insulin, versus insulin glargine in basal-bolus treatment with mealtime insulin aspart in type 1 diabetes (BEGIN Basal-Bolus Type 1): a phase 3, randomised, open-label, treat-to-target non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Intensive basal-bolus insulin therapy has been shown to improve glycaemic control and reduce the risk of long-term complications that are associated with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Insulin degludec is a new, ultra-longacting basal insulin. We therefore compared the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and insulin glargine, both administered once daily with mealtime insulin aspart, in basal-bolus therapy for type 1 diabetes. METHODS In an open-label, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial, undertaken at 79 sites (hospitals and centres) in six countries, adults (aged ≥18 years) with type 1 diabetes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA(1c)] ≤10% [86 mmol/mol]), who had been treated with basal-bolus insulin for at least 1 year, were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio, with a computer-generated blocked allocation sequence, to insulin degludec or insulin glargine without stratification by use of a central interactive response system. The primary outcome was non-inferiority of degludec to glargine, assessed as a reduction in HbA(1c) after 52 weeks, with the intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00982228. FINDINGS Of 629 participants, 472 were randomly assigned to insulin degludec and 157 to insulin glargine; all were analysed in their respective treatment groups. At 1 year, HbA(1c) had fallen by 0·40% points (SE 0·03) and 0·39% points (0·07), respectively, with insulin degludec and insulin glargine (estimated treatment difference -0·01% points [95% CI -0·14 to 0·11]; p<0·0001 for non-inferiority testing) and 188 (40%) and 67 (43%) participants achieved a target HbA(1c) of less than 7% (<53 mmol/mol). Rates of overall confirmed hypoglycaemia (plasma glucose <3·1 mmol/L or severe) were similar in the insulin degludec and insulin glargine groups (42·54 vs 40·18 episodes per patient-year of exposure; estimated rate ratio [degludec to glargine] 1·07 [0·89 to 1·28]; p=0·48). The rate of nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was 25% lower with degludec than with glargine (4·41 vs 5·86 episodes per patient-year of exposure; 0·75 [0·59 to 0·96]; p=0·021). Overall serious adverse event rates (14 vs 16 events per 100 patient-years of exposure) were similar for the insulin degludec and insulin glargine groups. INTERPRETATION Insulin degludec might be a useful basal insulin for patients with type 1 diabetes because it provides effective glycaemic control while lowering the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia, which is a major limitation of insulin therapy. FUNDING Novo Nordisk.

Severe hypoglycaemia in 1076 adult patients with type 1 diabetes: influence of risk markers and selection

Differences between studies in rates of severe hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetic cohorts are common and poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency of severe hypoglycaemia in unselected patients treated in different secondary care centres and to evaluate the influence of risk markers, clinical setting and selection.

Follow-up of Blood-Pressure Lowering and Glucose Control in Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND In the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) factorial trial, the combination of perindopril and indapamide reduced mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes, but intensive glucose control, targeting a glycated hemoglobin level of less than 6.5%, did not. We now report results of the 6-year post-trial follow-up. METHODS We invited surviving participants, who had previously been assigned to perindopril-indapamide or placebo and to intensive or standard glucose control (with the glucose-control comparison extending for an additional 6 months), to participate in a post-trial follow-up evaluation. The primary end points were death from any cause and major macrovascular events. RESULTS The baseline characteristics were similar among the 11,140 patients who originally underwent randomization and the 8494 patients who participated in the post-trial follow-up for a median of 5.9 years (blood-pressure-lowering comparison) or 5.4 years (glucose-control comparison). Between-group differences in blood pressure and glycated hemoglobin levels during the trial were no longer evident by the first post-trial visit. The reductions in the risk of death from any cause and of death from cardiovascular causes that had been observed in the group receiving active blood-pressure-lowering treatment during the trial were attenuated but significant at the end of the post-trial follow-up; the hazard ratios were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 0.99; P=0.03) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77 to 0.99; P=0.04), respectively. No differences were observed during follow-up in the risk of death from any cause or major macrovascular events between the intensive-glucose-control group and the standard-glucose-control group; the hazard ratios were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.08) and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.08), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The benefits with respect to mortality that had been observed among patients originally assigned to blood-pressure-lowering therapy were attenuated but still evident at the end of follow-up. There was no evidence that intensive glucose control during the trial led to long-term benefits with respect to mortality or macrovascular events. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; ADVANCE-ON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00949286.).