A greater proportion of participants with type 2 diabetes achieve treatment targets with insulin degludec/liraglutide versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL at 26 weeks. DUAL VIII, a randomized trial designed to resemble clinical practice

This report presents the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) as initial injectable therapy at 26 weeks in the 104-week DUAL VIII durability trial (NCT02501161). Participants (N = 1012) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) were randomized 1:1 to open-label IDegLira or IGlar U100. Visits were scheduled at weeks 1, 2, 4 and 12, and every 3 months thereafter. After 26 weeks, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reductions were greater with IDegLira versus IGlar U100 (−21.5 vs. –16.4 mmol/mol [−2.0 vs. –1.5%]), as was the percentage of participants achieving HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (78.7% vs. 55.7%) and HbA1c targets without weight gain and/or hypoglycaemia. Estimated treatment differences for insulin dose (−13.01 U) and body weight change (−1.57 kg) significantly favoured IDegLira. The hypoglycaemia rate was 44% lower with IDegLira versus IGlar U100. Safety results were similar. In a trial resembling clinical practice, more participants receiving IDegLira than IGlar U100 met treatment targets, supporting use of IDegLira as an initial injectable therapy for people with T2D uncontrolled on OADs and eligible for insulin initiation

iGlarLixi effectively reduces residual hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin: A post hoc analysis from the LixiLan-L study

Globally, nearly half of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) do not successfully achieve target HbA1c with basal insulin, despite meeting fasting plasma glucose (FPG) targets. In this post hoc analysis of the LixiLan-L study, we determined whether iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine Gla-100 (iGlar) and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide (Lixi), addresses the challenge of reducing residual hyperglycaemia in patients with T2D. In LixiLan-L, a randomized, open-label study, 1018 patients with T2D on basal insulin for ≥6 months ± oral antidiabetes drugs entered a 6-week run-in period, during which they were switched to and/or optimized for a daily dose of iGlar while continuing only metformin. Following the run-in period, 736 patients were then randomized to receive iGlarLixi or were continued on iGlar for 30 weeks ± metformin. Residual hyperglycaemia was defined as HbA1c ≥ 7.0% despite FPG of <140 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with residual hyperglycaemia was similar in both treatment arms at screening (~~42%), and increased after the run-in period (~~62%). After 30 weeks, the proportion of patients with residual hyperglycaemia declined to 23.8% in the iGlarLixi versus 47.1% in the iGlar arm (P <.0001). The proportion of patients achieving both HbA1c (<7.0%) and FPG (<140 mg/dL) targets was higher in the iGlarLixi compared with the iGlar arm (50.3% vs. 27.4%, respectively; P <.0001). iGlarLixi effectively reduces residual hyperglycaemia in patients with T2D on basal insulin therapy

Exploring residual risk for diabetes and microvascular disease in the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS)

Aim Approximately half of the participants in the Diabetes Prevention Outcomes Study (DPPOS) had diabetes after 15 years of follow-up, whereas nearly all the others remained with pre-diabetes. We examined whether formerly unexplored factors in the DPPOS coexisted with known risk factors that posed additional risk for, or protection from, diabetes as well as microvascular disease. Methods Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine predictors of diabetes. Sequential modelling procedures considered known and formerly unexplored factors. We also constructed models to determine whether the same unexplored factors that associated with progression to diabetes also predicted the prevalence of microvascular disease. Hazard ratios (HR) are per standard deviation change in the variable. Results In models adjusted for demographics and known diabetes risk factors, two formerly unknown factors were associated with risk for both diabetes and microvascular disease: number of medications taken (HR = 1.07, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 1.03 to 1.12 for diabetes; odds ratio (OR) = 1.10, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.16 for microvascular disease) and variability in HbA1c (HR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03 for diabetes; OR = 1.06, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.09 for microvascular disease per sd). Total comorbidities increased risk for diabetes (HR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.16), whereas higher systolic (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.31) and diastolic (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.22) blood pressure, as well as the use of anti-hypertensives (OR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.62), increased risk of microvascular disease. Conclusions Several formerly unexplored factors in the DPPOS predicted additional risk for diabetes and/or microvascular disease – particularly hypertension and the use of anti-hypertensive medications – helping to explain some of the residual disease risk in participants of the DPPOS

Scientific Statement: Socioecological Determinants of Prediabetes and Type 2 Diabetes

In this article, we examine the socioecological determinants--the biological, geographic, and built environment factors--that influence risk for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. A socioecological perspective looks beyond the individual to evaluate a multitude of influences, from the surrounding home, work, school, and community environments to social determinants and the influence of public policy on individual behavior (1). Figure 1, adapted from the Institute of Medicine socioecological model of childhood obesity, provides a good framework for understanding potential socioecological determinants of risk for type 2 diabetes. In November 2012, the American Diabetes Association Prevention Committee convened a writing group to review the evidence on socioecological factors contributing to recent increases in prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. Drawing from the work of the committee, in this article we review the overarching evidence-based contributions of socioecological factors to risk for type 2 diabetes. Rather than incorporate the entire universe of relational observations, this scientific statement is intended to evaluate the extent to which data indicate a contributing role of social and environmental factors to the current epidemic of type 2 diabetes

Effect of sitagliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the long-term effect on cardiovascular events of adding sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we assigned 14,671 patients to add either sitagliptin or placebo to their existing therapy. Open-label use of antihyperglycemic therapy was encouraged as required, aimed at reaching individually appropriate glycemic targets in all patients. To determine whether sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo, we used a relative risk of 1.3 as the marginal upper boundary. The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.0 years, there was a small difference in glycated hemoglobin levels (least-squares mean difference for sitagliptin vs. placebo, -0.29 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.32 to -0.27). Overall, the primary outcome occurred in 839 patients in the sitagliptin group (11.4%; 4.06 per 100 person-years) and 851 patients in the placebo group (11.6%; 4.17 per 100 person-years). Sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.09; P<0.001). Rates of hospitalization for heart failure did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.20; P = 0.98). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of acute pancreatitis (P = 0.07) or pancreatic cancer (P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease, adding sitagliptin to usual care did not appear to increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, or other adverse events

Pharmacology and therapeutic implications of current drugs for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a global epidemic that poses a major challenge to health-care systems. Improving metabolic control to approach normal glycaemia (where practical) greatly benefits long-term prognoses and justifies early, effective, sustained and safety-conscious intervention. Improvements in the understanding of the complex pathogenesis of T2DM have underpinned the development of glucose-lowering therapies with complementary mechanisms of action, which have expanded treatment options and facilitated individualized management strategies. Over the past decade, several new classes of glucose-lowering agents have been licensed, including glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. These agents can be used individually or in combination with well-established treatments such as biguanides, sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones. Although novel agents have potential advantages including low risk of hypoglycaemia and help with weight control, long-term safety has yet to be established. In this Review, we assess the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety profiles, including cardiovascular safety, of currently available therapies for management of hyperglycaemia in patients with T2DM within the context of disease pathogenesis and natural history. In addition, we briefly describe treatment algorithms for patients with T2DM and lessons from present therapies to inform the development of future therapies

More patients reach glycaemic control with a fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) than with basal insulin at 12 weeks of treatment: A post hoc time-to-control analysis of LixiLan-O and LixiLan-L

The present post hoc analysis of two 30-week clinical trials compared efficacy and hypoglycaemia outcomes at early study visits with iGlarLixi (insulin glargine U100 [iGlar] and lixisenatide) vs iGlar alone in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs; LixiLan-O trial) or basal insulin (LixiLan-L trial). Time to control, defined as days to achieve glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <53 mmol/mol (<7%) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≤7.2 mmol/L, was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. In the LixiLan-O and LixiLan-L trials, 60% and 46% of patients, respectively, reached HbA1c <53 mmol/mol (<7%) with iGlarLixi at 12 weeks, vs 45% and 24%, respectively, with iGlar. In the LixiLan-O trial, the median time to target HbA1c was approximately half with iGlarLixi vs iGlar (85.0 vs 166.0 days; P <.0001). In the LixiLan-L trial, the median time to target HbA1c was 153.0 days with iGlarLixi, while target HbA1c was never reached by 50% of patients with iGlar (P <.0001). Time-to-target FPG and hypoglycaemia outcomes were similar between treatments. In T2D uncontrolled on OADs or basal insulin, iGlarLixi resulted in glycaemic control in more patients than did iGlar at early treatment time points

Treating chronic diseases without tackling excess adiposity promotes multimorbidity

No abstract available