Relevance of positive cardiovascular outcome trial results in clinical practice: perspectives from the Academy for Cardiovascular Risk, Outcomes and Safety Studies in Type 2 Diabetes (ACROSS T2D).

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) imposes a substantial disease burden, predominantly from cardiovascular disease (CVD), which accounts for >50% of deaths in this population and leads to a 12-year reduction in the life expectancy of a 60-year-old male patient with T2D and CVD compared with the general population. The results from mandatory cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) are therefore of great interest in the field. The Academy for Cardiovascular Risk, Outcomes and Safety Studies in Type 2 Diabetes meeting program aims to bring together experts from several associated disciplines to provide fair and balanced resources for those involved in the management of patients with T2D. This publication represents the opinions of the faculty on the key learnings from the meeting held in Vienna in the spring of 2017. In particular, we detail how data from the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® [cardiovascular outcomes trial of empagliflozin] and Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcome Results (LEADER®) (liraglutide) CVOTs can be practically interpreted across clinical specialities. It is hoped that this translation of CVOT data will achieve a dual treatment paradigm for the management of both raised glucose levels and CV risk in patients with T2D

Inverse Relationship Between Organ-Specific Autoantibodies and Systemic Immune Mediators in Type 1 Diabetes and Type 2 Diabetes: Action LADA 11

5th Framework Programme of EU and DeveloGen

Translating recent results from the Cardiovascular Outcomes Trials into clinical practice: recommendations from the Central and Eastern European Diabetes Expert Group (CEEDEG)

Aims: These recommendations aim to improve care for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular (CV) risk in Central and Eastern Europe. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and/or chronic kidney disease (CKD) are major interdependent comorbidities in patients with T2D, accounting for 50% of mortality. Following recent CV outcomes trial (CVOT) results, including those from EMPA-REG -OUTCOME (R), LEADER (R), SUSTAIN (TM)-6 and, most recently, the CANVAS study, it is essential to develop regional expert consensus recommendations to aid physicians in interpreting these newest data to clinical practice. Methods: The Central and Eastern European Diabetes Expert Group (CEEDEG) followed a Delphi method to develop treatment algorithms to aid physicians in the clinical management of patients with T2D at high CV risk. Results: In light of the latest CVOT results, and in particular the EMPA-REG -OUTCOME (R) and -LEADER (R) trials, the diagnosis, assessment, treatment choice and monitoring of patients with T2D and established CVD and/or CKD have been considered together with existing guidelines and presented in two reference algorithms. In addition, adherence, special prescribing considerations and a proposed multidisciplinary management approach have been discussed and are presented with the proposed algorithms. Conclusions: The latest available high-level evidence on glucose-lowering drugs has enabled CEEDEG to develop practical consensus recommendations for patients with established CVD and/ or CKD. These recommendations represent an update to international and country-level guidelines used for these patients, with the aim of providing a resource not only to endocrinologists, but to cardiologists, nephrologists and primary care physicians in the region

Influence of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (efavirenz and nevirapine) on the pharmacodynamic activity of gliclazide in animal models

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Type 2 diabetes may occur as a result of HIV infection and/or its treatment. Gliclazide is a widely used drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Efavirenz and nevirapine are widely used non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors for the treatment of HIV infection. The role of Efavirenz and nevirapine on the pharmacodynamic activity of gliclazide is not currently known. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of oral administration of efavirenz and nevirapine on blood glucose and investigate their effect on the activity of gliclazide in rats (normal and diabetic) and rabbits to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the combination.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Studies in normal and alloxan induced diabetic rats were conducted with oral doses of 2 mg/kg bd. wt. of gliclazide, 54 mg/kg bd. wt. of efavirenz or 18 mg/kg bd. wt. of nevirapine and their combination with adequate washout periods in between treatments. Studies in normal rabbits were conducted with 5.6 mg/1.5 kg bd. wt. of gliclazide, 42 mg/1.5 kg bd. wt. of efavirenz or 14 mg/1.5 kg bd. wt. of nevirapine and their combination given orally. Blood samples were collected at regular time intervals in rats from retro orbital puncture and by marginal ear vein puncture in rabbits. All the blood samples were analysed for blood glucose by GOD/POD method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Efavirenz and nevirapine alone have no significant effect on the blood glucose level in rats and rabbits. Gliclazide produced hypoglycaemic/antidiabetic activity in normal and diabetic rats with peak activity at 2 h and 8 h and hypoglycaemic activity in normal rabbits at 3 h. In combination, efavirenz reduced the effect of gliclazide in rats and rabbits, and the reduction was more significant with the single dose administration of efavirenz than multiple dose administration. In combination, nevirapine has no effect on the activity of gliclazide in rats and rabbits.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Thus, it can be concluded that the combination of efavirenz and gliclazide may need dose adjustment and care should be taken when the combination is prescribed for their clinical benefit in diabetic patients. The combination of nevirapine and gliclazide was safe. However, further studies are warranted.</p

Guidelines On Diabetes, Pre-Diabetes, And Cardiovascular Diseases: Executive Summary.The Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD).

Guidelines and Expert Consensus documents aim to present management and recommendations based on all of the relevant evidence on a particular subject in order to help physicians to select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient, suffering from a specific condition, taking into account not only the impact on outcome, but also the risk benefit ratio of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. The ESC recommendations for guidelines production can be found on the ESC website†. In brief, the ESC appoints experts in the field to carry out a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and to assess the risk–benefit ratio of the therapies recommended for management and/or prevention of a given condition. The strength of evidence for or against particular procedures or treatments is weighed according to predefined scales for grading recommendations and levels of evidence, as outlined below. Once the document has been finalized and approved by all the experts involved in the Task Force, it is submitted to outside specialists for review. If necessary, the document is revised once more to be finally approved by the Committee for Practice Guidelines and selected members of the Board of the ESC. The ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) supervises and coordinates the preparation of new Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents produced by Task Forces, expert groups, or consensus panels. The chosen experts in these writing panels are asked to provide disclosure statements of all relationships they may have, which might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement of these Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents or statements

Is the ADA/EASD algorithm for the management of type 2 diabetes (January 2009) based on evidence or opinion? A critical analysis

The ADA and the EASD recently published a consensus statement for the medical management of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. The authors advocate initial treatment with metformin monotherapy and lifestyle modification, followed by addition of basal insulin or a sulfonylurea if glycaemic goals are not met (tier 1 recommendations). All other glucose-lowering therapies are relegated to a secondary (tier 2) status and only recommended for selected clinical settings. In our view, this algorithm does not offer physicians and patients the appropriate selection of options to individualise and optimise care with a view to sustained control of blood glucose and reduction both of diabetes complications and cardiovascular risk. This paper critically assesses the basis of the ADA/EASD algorithm and the resulting tiers of treatment options

Benefits and Harms of Sodium-Glucose Co-Transporter 2 Inhibitors in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-i) are a novel drug class for the treatment of diabetes. We aimed at describing the maximal benefits and risks associated with SGLT2-i for patients with type 2 diabetes.Systematic review and meta-analysis.We included double-blinded, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SGLT2-i administered in the highest approved therapeutic doses (canagliflozin 300 mg/day, dapagliflozin 10 mg/day, and empagliflozin 25 mg/day) for ≥12 weeks. Comparison groups could receive placebo or oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) including metformin, sulphonylureas (SU), or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4-i). Trials were identified through electronic databases and extensive manual searches. Primary outcomes were glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, serious adverse events, death, severe hypoglycaemia, ketoacidosis and CVD. Secondary outcomes were fasting plasma glucose, body weight, blood pressure, heart rate, lipids, liver function tests, creatinine and adverse events including infections. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.Meta-analysis of 34 RCTs with 9,154 patients showed that SGLT2-i reduced HbA1c compared with placebo (mean difference -0.69%, 95% confidence interval -0.75 to -0.62%). We downgraded the evidence to 'low quality' due to variability and evidence of publication bias (P = 0.015). Canagliflozin was associated with the largest reduction in HbA1c (-0.85%, -0.99% to -0.71%). There were no differences between SGLT2-i and placebo for serious adverse events. SGLT2-i increased the risk of urinary and genital tract infections and increased serum creatinine, and exerted beneficial effects on bodyweight, blood pressure, lipids and alanine aminotransferase (moderate to low quality evidence). Analysis of 12 RCTs found a beneficial effect of SGLT2-i on HbA1c compared with OAD (-0.20%, -0.28 to -0.13%; moderate quality evidence).This review includes a large number of patients with type 2 diabetes and found that SGLT2-i reduces HbA1c with a notable increased risk in non-serious adverse events. The analyses may overestimate the intervention benefit due bias